No this hearing is about what people thought, felt or presumed. The only person that actually talked to Trump about it testified Trump told him no quid pro quo's and his text messages that were sent before this came to light also confirms he told him no quid pro quo's.
Schiff wants to be the America's Vyshinsky. "As a result, an actual commission of a crime was not required for conviction: people could have been convicted for being perceived as bourgeois ("class responsibility") or simply if that was considered to be beneficial for the Communist Party, for example in the "educational" role of the judicial system (thus, the importance of show trials, even with completely false accusations)." Wiki
As an initial matter, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are more than "half-way reasonable impeachable offenses." No, it is not. Every previous impeachment proceeding included a closed door fact finding sessions. For example, Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding started with a special counsel investigation that conducted a fact finding session behind closed doors where President's counsel was not permitted. Similarly, the Democrats were not able to call witnesses during that portion of the closed door investigation and the questions were completely controlled by the Special Counsel - i.e. Democrats could not ask any questions, but Republicans are permitted to ask nearly any question they like during these closed door investigation. And as you said, many - if not most - of those rights expand much further during the open phase of the inquiry. Much like they expanded during the open phase of the inquiry for the Clinton and Nixon impeachment. Here is a chart to compare the rights being granted to Trump during the current open phase of the impeachment proceeding with Nixon and Clinton. There are a whole host of Substantive and Procedural rights afforded by the Due Process clause because the individual faces potential loss of property, liberty, or even their life. We have not even hit the portion where Trump can lose his job. So to argue that he is entitled to the same Due Process rights as those afforded a guy that could face the death penalty or a prison is simply wrong. Here is a solid write up of the "protections" afforded by the US Constitution to the President during Impeachment. The Constitution Doesn’t Give Presidents Any Protections During Impeachment
The evidence that has come from the hearings has confirmed his report. Nothing has discounted his report. You don't need him in order to confirm or discount his report. The report stands on its own but that report is not what will be used to draft articles of impeachment. If other witnesses confirm its contents (which they have), their evidence will be used to draft the articles of impeachment. If witnesses contradict his report (nothing that has come out so far contradicts his report), then there shouldn't be any articles of impeachment. All that report does is notify someone up the chain of command, "Hey, I have some concerns. Some of it is based on first-hand knowledge, and some of it is stuff I have learned second-hand through the course of my work. But I'm concerned. I think you should look into this." And then, when someone (IG, House) does look into it, they find witnesses that have first-hand knowledge that shows a problem. Now, we might disagree on whether the evidence of those with first-hand knowledge shows a problem, but it is all based on first hand knowledge. These people are not expressing opinions. They are talking about what they were actually told. As for "coaching" on the drafting of the complaint, it is totally irrelevant. Other witnesses confirm that his report is truthful. It doesn't really matter if anyone coached him to tell the truth. His report has been independently confirmed by multiple witnesses - including the note of the call that Trump had with Zelensky.
Yes, and the impeachment inquiry already affords Republicans - and Trump - the same, or more Due Process rights than those afforded to Clinton or Nixon during their impeachment proceedings.
Wrong again. The whistle blower himself would not have been allowed to testify at all since all he had was hearsay. An opinion based on hearsay is worthless. Then another witness certainly cannot testify as to the whistle blower. He might be able to credibly testify that yes that was the whistle blower's opinion alright if he had first hand knowledge. But to the veracity of the WB's opinion??? Do you believe a court would permit hearsay evidence to support other hearsay evidence? Witnesses are allowed to testify as to the motive if a defendant only if they have credible and first hand knowledge of the defendant. That is far away from this situation.
None of the witnesses are testifying as to the perception of the Whistleblower, so I don't understand what you think you are referencing there.
And yet that same person testified that he personally did tell the Ukrainian leader that a quid pro quo existed. You do not get to dismiss Trump's behavior simply because Trump has said - while not under oath - that there was no quid pro quo sought.
Good to know. The testimony that multiple witnesses have given to the house isn't opinion. And your signature line is a false RWNJ talking point. There is no video of Biden asking a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political opponent.
Great show us one, just one quote of a witness saying Trump directed them to do a quid pro quo. We've got til Wednesday then we'll all hear in their own words how they felt or presumed.
The people who have testified were one or two steps down the chain of command but their evidence is crystal clear. The WH has refused to let those who spoke directly to Trump about this, to testify. The current defence of Trump seems to be: "prove there was a quid pro quo by producing someone who heard this directly from the president - but we will not allow you to take evidence from anyone who spoke directly to the president."
You need to try to keep DOJ investigations and congressional impeachment inquiries separate because they are not the same thing. I repeat, which due process do you think the supreme court had in mind with their ruling on congressional hearings????
You need to remember that an impeachment inquiry and a trial separate because they are not the same thing. As I said, Trump is not even facing a loss of his job at this point. Notice and ability to ask questions, raise objections, call witnesses. But those rights, just as in court proceedings, is not limitless.
Yeah, so what? hoosier's sig line says there is video of Biden doing exactly the same thing as Trump. There isn't. Biden did not ask a foreign leader to investigate one of Biden's domestic political opponents. So his sig line is false. Anyway, that video is only seems inconvenient to Trumpsters. It is Biden saying that he used leverage to advance American foreign policy. Foreign policy that had bilateral support, full support of all parts of the administration, the same policy as the IMF and the EU. He was not acting in his own interests or on his own behalf. I know you know that but you keep going back to the fake equivalence well in the hope that people believe this BS.
For the umpteenth +2 time similar opinions cannot confirm hearsay testimony. But you seem to be hell bent that it can. I've done all I can or choose to do with this.
They are testifying that they hold similar opinions. That does not confirm the veracity of the whistle blower's opinion. I'm getting tired of beating this simple truth.
This is nothing but another attempted coup. There is not reason the impeach. Dems are trying to invent one.
If multiple people look at the same pieces of evidence and independently reach the same conclusions, then the conclusion is slightly more likely to be accurate. That is confirmation in a nut shell.