Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

[Watermelon]

Might have more trouble with 703 - need for direct knowledge.

703 comes up as expert witness, which I also think most could qualify as, and is an exception to 602 - the need for direct knowledge.

Even so, they have direct knowledge of what they themselves have experienced. Direct knowledge refers to any knowledge that is relevant to the proceedings. Most witnesses won't have direct knowledge of the actual charge but had witnessed something that could assist in determining the charge.

A lot of murders apparently don't have any eye witnesses to the actual killing but someone may have seen the suspect purchasing a similar weapon used in the murder, someone may have seen the suspect drag a large bag into his car, someone may have seen the suspect burning his clothes in the backyard etc.

None of them have direct knowledge of the actual killing but provide a piece of the puzzle to put together a sequence of events for the jury to decide whether, that given all the known circumstances, the suspect is guilty or not.

And while you disagree, I personally think the democrats have done a pretty good job in putting together their case. I think the witnesses are very credible and most importantly their statements and recollections of events flow remarkably well across so many witnesses.

[JimL]

Ideally, any impeachment proceeding should be able to transfer from Congress directly to a civil court.

And if this were a civil court the trial and conviction of Trump would take about 10 minutes.

[Cow Poke]

And if this were a civil court the trial and conviction of Trump would take about 10 minutes.

Point of order, Mister Attorney! If Trump is a criminal, why would he be tried in a civil court?

[Teallaura]

703 comes up as expert witness, which I also think most could qualify as, and is an exception to 602 - the need for direct knowledge.

Even so, they have direct knowledge of what they themselves have experienced. Direct knowledge refers to any knowledge that is relevant to the proceedings. Most witnesses won't have direct knowledge of the actual charge but had witnessed something that could assist in determining the charge.

A lot of murders apparently don't have any eye witnesses to the actual killing but someone may have seen the suspect purchasing a similar weapon used in the murder, someone may have seen the suspect drag a large bag into his car, someone may have seen the suspect burning his clothes in the backyard etc.

None of them have direct knowledge of the actual killing but provide a piece of the puzzle to put together a sequence of events for the jury to decide whether, that given all the known circumstances, the suspect is guilty or not.

And while you disagree, I personally think the democrats have done a pretty good job in putting together their case. I think the witnesses are very credible and most importantly their statements and recollections of events flow remarkably well across so many witnesses.

Er, virtually none (none I see any possibility of, anyway) of these witnesses could testify as experts because they are supposed to be material witnesses. Maybe Yovanovitch - but that would mean bringing in the Bidens because her expertise is Ukraine (even then, I don't see her being allowed as an expert).

My reading of 702 doesn't seem to support any (except as above) as expert witnesses. I don't think this is allowed for material witnesses anyway - every lawyer in the country would be using it to get in opinion.


My problem with the case is the part that is coherent isn't describing either illegal activity or proving abuse of power. There's no constitutional provision for a Cabinet - it serves totally at the President's pleasure. We've codified a lot over two hundred and nearly fifty years in administration but most of that is not directly binding on the President - most not even being law. Translation: Trump can send whoever the heck he wants to talk to other countries and he made a mistake not resetting the appointees.

Intent: was Trump after his own political interest or was he pursuing American interests? If both, not an abuse of power - aligned interests don't negate the President's power to direct foreign policy.

Motive: was Trump out to get Joe Biden as a political rival? If so it hasn't been shown and Trump would have been a total idiot - Biden posed no threat. Was Trump out to get Joe Biden for corruption in the 2016 election? Plausible but still not shown - and neither an abuse of power nor illegal.

So, where's the actual beef?

[Cow Poke]

Motive: was Trump out to get Joe Biden as a political rival? If so it hasn't been shown and Trump would have been a total idiot - Biden posed no threat. Was Trump out to get Joe Biden for corruption in the 2016 election? Plausible but still not shown - and neither an abuse of power nor illegal.

So, where's the actual beef?

It's not all that unusual for a POTUS' interests on behalf of the nation line up with his own personal desires. He/She is, after all, in charge of foreign policy - not the bureaucrats who think they're in charge.

[Mountain Man]

And if this were a civil court the trial and conviction of Trump would take about 10 minutes.

If this were a civil court, almost none of the "witnesses" would have been allowed to testify.

[Cow Poke]

If this were a civil court, almost none of the "witnesses" would have been allowed to testify.

The phrase "Objection, your honor, hearsay" would be repeated over and over, and be answered with "sustained".