Yes, it is when the opinion is rationally based on the perception of a lay witness. Or if it is given after the expert has testified to the methods and information used to craft their opinion.
Yeah, they come up with a new one every month or two. If the House does impeach it will be for a random selection of reasons. But they will not impeach because hearings are a much better 2020 campaign strategy than actual impeachment.
No. Biden used leverage to get the prosecutor off the company, which was providing his son with pocket money.
Trump directly told the President of Ukraine that he wanted a quid pro quo. Immediately after Ukrainian President brought up the desire to purchase Javelin Missiles, Trump responded with his desire "for a favor."
Trump directly told chairman whatshisface that America will be good to him if he only nuclear disarms. So?
So what? By your math it is 1% less likely to be accurate. But probability and statistics often do not reflect reality. It is just as likely, in fact highly likely given the circumstances, that they all are wrong.
If you think Sondland, who donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign, is a "liberal nevertrumper," then you believe everyone not named Trump is a liberal nevertrumper.
Kim Jong Un. The North Korean leader whom Trump promised to pay for the torture of an American citizen and whose generals Trump saluted.
The witnesses have not been giving opinions. They have been factual evidence of what they were told. They gave evidence about what other people said in meetings. That is neither hearsay nor opinion.
That's fine, but it is still confirmation of the underlying complaint. Who do you think should testify as to Trump's intent with regard to the quid pro quo? I would like to hear from Trump himself.
There's no need to dispute the characterization of parts of the testimony as hearsay or opinion. Parts are hearsay and parts are opinion. But those points are still admissible in court, let alone admissible in an impeach proceeding, and they are still persuasive.
Or Hunter Biden............just unnamed reports on the others, we'll see. And if he doesn't what say you?
That is false. The prosecutor was not "on" Burisma. The reason the US (and EU, and IMF) wanted the prosecutor fired was because he WASN'T investigating corruption. This wasn't something Biden wanted - it was the policy of the entire government, and Biden was the mouthpiece. There is zero evidence that Biden did that to protect his son. None. But you guys keep repeating the lie, as if repeating it will make it true.
Hunter Biden does not have any bearing or knowledge on the actions of Donald Trump. Neither does Archer or Nellie Ohr. My bet is that he will permit Volker's testimony, David Hale, and Tim Morrison. Assuming he does not call those individuals himself.
But a lot of it - most of what I have read - is first-hand testimony. As you know, reporting that "A told me that B said X" is both first-hand evidence (of the conversation between the witness and A) and a report of hearsay (of what B said to A). Most of the important stuff is first-hand, and the WH is preventing people farther up the chain - who had direct contact with the president - from testifying.
You need to remember that impeachment is in the House, a President gets impeached in the House and once impeached will forever remain impeached. You need to remember the "trial" in the Senate for Clinton was not a full airing of evidence it was strictly limited and only three witnesses were allowed and they on videotape and lasted one day between the opening and closing statements. Questions can be rejected by Schiff, witnesses can be rejected by Schiff.
They have to do with Trump's motivations and purposes of the phone call, corruption in Ukraine. Call 'em.
You want a better analogy? Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/t...s-columnists-peter-robinson.html#33aac346359a
"Wait a minute, when the right complains about the fairness of this farce the left says it's not a court of law and doesn't need the rules of one. Now you're citing what happens in a court of law as an example?" Glad I'm not the only one noticing that lol
so why play a game you know you won't win? Why clutch pearls about criminality when the average independent voter probably thinks they're all corrupt (otherwise wouldn't they be affiliated with a party?) ?
