Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

[FreeinChrist]

Maybe, maybe not. It kind of depends on the point at which the robbery is called off.

For example, shoplifting generally isn't a crime until one has actually left the store without paying for the merchandise. The state of mind, whether intentional or not, doesn't really matter.

Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted rape is still a crime. Attempted fraud is still a crime.

And yeah, those who attempt to shoplift and get caught before leaving the store get referred to the cops.
Shoplifting - FindLaw

Crucially, this means that in most states, one can break shoplifting laws without attempting to get out of a store with stolen goods. Simply concealing merchandise, inside or outside the store, will often be enough. One must have the intent to take the item from the store; however, many states consider the act of concealing merchandise to be evidence of intent.​

 

[NightHawkeye]

Attempted murder is still a crime. Attempted rape is still a crime. Attempted fraud is still a crime.

And yeah, those who attempt to shoplift and get caught before leaving the store get referred to the cops.
Shoplifting - FindLaw

Crucially, this means that in most states, one can break shoplifting laws without attempting to get out of a store with stolen goods. Simply concealing merchandise, inside or outside the store, will often be enough. One must have the intent to take the item from the store; however, many states consider the act of concealing merchandise to be evidence of intent.​

Excellent point - Evidence of intent.

In some cases even leaving the store with merchandise is insufficient to warrant a shoplifting charge. Mistakes happen.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The question was nothing more than grandstanding by Jordan.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was Representative Ratcliff who asked them what impeachable crime had been committed.

 

[wing2000]

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was Representative Ratcliff who asked them what impeachable crime had been committed.

Accuracy is welcome. I updated my post...with the response from Bill Taylor, who wisely, didn't fall for Ratcliffe's theatrics.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I like the face Taylor made finally - like "what nonsense is this?!?"

same face as all the Republicans.

 

[wing2000]

I thought Mr Kent was a very concise and effective witness :

Daniel Goldman:
And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

Mr. Kent:
To my knowledge, there is no factual basis. No.

Daniel Goldman:
And in fact, who did interfere in the 2016 election?

Mr. Kent:
I think it’s amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Let me just say that it is not up to the GOP to mount any defense. In fact, Schiff has prevented the GOP from mounting any real defense.

Regardless, it is up to Democrats to PROVE that Trump committed some impeachable offense. That didn't happen. The star witnesses couldn't even state what impeachable offense might have occurred.

In a court of law, unless the defendant invokes the Fifth Amendment (which is a personal decision to stay silent), he or she will mount a defense. In this case, people are not testifying because Trump told them to stay silent, which is unconstitutional.

What Adam Schiff did was tell someone naming crimes during the hearing is wrong because witnesses do not testify for that purpose; they are only there to say what they know happened. Both wtnesses said the same thing.

 

[Belk]

Let me just say that it is not up to the GOP to mount any DEFENSE. In fact, Schiff has prevented the GOP from mounting any real defense.

Regardless, it is up to Democrats to PROVE that Trump committed some impeachable offense.

So the perfidious Democrats are stopping the republicans from doing something that is unnecessary and that they should not need? Those dastardly villains.

That didn't happen. The star witnesses couldn't even state what impeachable offense might have occurred.

Why would a witness come up with the charge? That is the responsibility of congress. Much like we rely upon prosecutors to charge criminals not the victims of the crime.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Given the facts in this case, it would be a pretty bad time for him to start now.

It is only a bad time because the House started investigating it too late.

 

[Aldebaran]

In a court of law, unless the defendant invokes the Fifth Amendment (which is a personal decision to stay silent), he or she will mount a defense. In this case, people are not testifying because Trump told them to stay silent, which is unconstitutional.

What Adam Schiff did was tell someone naming crimes during the hearing is wrong because witnesses do not testify for that purpose; they are only there to say what they know happened. Both wtnesses said the same thing.

In a court of law, the prosecutor doesn't get to also play the role of the judge. Chairman/Judge Schiff is certainly showing people who are finally able to see these hearings what he's been doing.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Who said Adam Schiff is the prosecuter and judge? This is not the trial.

 

[Aldebaran]

Who saod Adam Schiff is the prosecuter and judge? This is not the trial.

Nobody said it, or you would have been able to quote it. However, Schiff is on the side of the democrats, AND gets to determine what questions can be asked/answered, just as a judge does.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

In a court of law, the prosecutor doesn't get to also play the role of the judge. Chairman/Judge Schiff is certainly showing people who are finally able to see these hearings what he's been doing.

The presiding judge of this “case” will be Chief Justice Roberts — if it even gets to that phase.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Nobody said it, or you would have been able to quote it. However, Schiff is on the side of the democrats, AND gets to determine what questions can be asked/answered, just as a judge does.

That's also the role of the prosecutor in a grand jury - which is functionally what this amounts to since the House is currently trying to determine if there is enough evidence to bring an indictment (aka impeachment) against Trump.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Nobody said it, or you would have been able to quote it. However, Schiff is on the side of the democrats, AND gets to determine what questions can be asked/answered, just as a judge does.

Yep. Maybe Republicans shoulda focused on winning more House seats last year. Oh well.... Elections and the consequences of them, I guess.

 

[wing2000]

In a court of law, the prosecutor doesn't get to also play the role of the judge. Chairman/Judge Schiff is certainly showing people who are finally able to see these hearings what he's been doing.

A prosecutor before a grand jury will most certainly state his case. We have not reached the trial phase (Senate).

 

[Always in His Presence]

The aid was withheld and only released after the complaint.
The summary of the transcript where Trump says, "We would like you to do me a favor though...." and there is no mention of any corrupt just the desire for an investigation in the Bidens.
The planned news event by Zelensky was cancelled after the aid was finally released.
Taylor's first hand account of what Sondland told him.

There is more....but when Vindman testifies and the fellow who heard the call between Trump and Sondland testifies, there will be more.

I wonder if the IG will be able to testify?

there is, at this time, nothing more than hearsay.

Taylor spoke with Ukraine President three times, no mention of anything

Taylor spoke with Ambassador, no mention.

Ukraine President was not even aware of the delay in funding

Trump tells Sonderlin (sp). No Wui pro quo
Sonderlin yells Taylor President is crystal clear night Quid pro quo.

President says no quid pro quo

Ukranine President says no Quid pro quo

Ukraine did nothing, zero, nadda and the money was released.

but hey! We have 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay of 6 people having 4 conversations that no one has testified to who has first hand knowledge.

it’s laughable.

 

[tall73]

I think he did demand and only backed off once the complaint was made and he then had to back off. He only finally allowed the aid 2 days later and only 19 days before it would have expired.

It does't matter than he didn't succeed. The bank robber who messes up and has to abandon the robbery is still committing a crime.

If a robber attempts to steal from your home and gets caught, it's still a crime.

Yes, but this is not the crime of robbery. And if you are going to say it was bribery you have to establish intent. He asked for a favor. It was certainly pressure. He didn't say aid would only come with that favor being done.

Could you imply it? Sure. And the behind the scenes requests for an investigation also implied it.

Then he got blowback, and then he backed off. As I mentioned, the best defense the Republicans have is to say that his intent was not to sway an election. That doesn't mean it is easy to defend Trump's actions here, because I think it was a mistake to do this. And as I said in my earlier posts if he had a lawyer who was looking out for his interests better he may have dissuaded him.

He clearly wanted an investigation. But it is less clear the reason for the investigation. So to get the conviction they would have to show intent.

Do I think he intended to withhold it and the whistleblower complaint caused him to re-think? Probably. But then again I, like the witnesses yesterday, do not have first hand conversations with Trump to establish motive.

Later witnesses who are compelled to testify, that do have contact with the president, will be more important to the case in trying to establish the thinking of the president in requesting investigations.

 

[wing2000]

there is, at this time, nothing more than hearsay.

Taylor spoke with Ukraine President three times, no mention of anything

Taylor spoke with Ambassador, no mention.

Ukraine President was not even aware of the delay in funding

Trump tells Sonderlin (sp). No Wui pro quo
Sonderlin yells Taylor President is crystal clear night Quid pro quo.

President says no quid pro quo

Ukranine President says no Quid pro quo

Ukraine did nothing, zero, nadda and the money was released.

but hey! We have 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay of 6 people having 4 conversations that no one has testified to who has first hand knowledge.

it’s laughable.

Is that you Jim Jordan?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yep. Maybe Republicans shoulda focused on winning more House seats last year. Oh well.... Elections and the consequences of them, I guess.

The public can think for themselves. They did when the dems didn't focus enough on winning the White House.