Impeachment Hearings

[hollodero]

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off: As I stated earlier: The fact that Trump was more concerned about making the investigation public than he was actually investigating is all I need to side with impeachment.

To that point. You also stated that if the republican senate does not convict him, you will consider Trump free of guilt. Is that still true? Because if so, your stance seems pretty moot.

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the additional evidence: Is that how it works or do they rule on the evidence provide in the Articles presented by the House? I could see how one could be considered double jeopardy

How is it double jeopardy. There wasn't any jeopardy as of now. Just a prosecutorial body gathering evidence and then pressing charges. Now it's in court. I can't imagine a defense lawyer opposing additional evidence during a trial on the grounds of "double jeopardy".

Also, on a sidenote, good job holding the articles up. It gave Parnas the chance to talk, and Republicans the chance to additionally ignore what Parnas says.

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: it just appears the other reviews their findings and concurs or not.

But these others don't review them. And many said so from the start.