I don’t know if you are familiar with the law but in most jurisdictions breaking into some place is enough to get charged with burglary. That would be the major charge in the example and definitely would be applicable.

Nice pretzel knots trying to get off your leader from all the crimes he has committed. Keep up the effort. I am sure he will reward you accordingly.

No we have his actual actions. His actions are evidence. We have evidence that they tried to come up with reasons they did not release the aid AFTER THE FACT.

How do u you guys have such a limited understanding of how any of this works? It is a pretty massive blind spot as this is all very fundamental stuff normal adults should have a handle on.

Also he offered up a meeting at the whitehouse in exchange for the announcement of an investigation. The announcement was never made so the White House visit was never rewarded.

^ Exactly

joe the plumber understands how it works, he's just being disingenuous.

Presumptions and hearsay do not a case make. Law 101.

I doubt that is always true, but anyway it seems a bit off topic since it doesn't really apply here.

Nor is it all the case rests on, but that won't stop joe from lying about it.

Never mind. You obviously are just trolling.

This is a bad analogy. He already began the process of extortion. This is more closely analogous to a police officer catching him in the act of cutting the wires and pulling at the radio itself, and he stops only to claim "I didn't steal it! it's just vandalism!".

It's only vandalism (as opposed to attempted theft) if you're being intentionally obtuse about what can be inferred by his actions. Does the fact that he didn't remove the radio from the car and put it in his backpack after he realized the police officer is watching mean that we're being presumptuous? Only in the narrowest sense, in that we have make presumptions to do anything in life. We presume that someone who breaks into a house did not mistakenly believe it to be his own house. We presume that someone crossing the border who swallowed a condom filled with cocaine wasn't unknowingly fed it as part of a sex act. We presume that people trying to exonerate trump for what was clearly an attempt at extortion are being disingenuous, even though it's possible that some of them are just mentally challenged.

In that respect attempted extortion tends to be viewed in a very similar light to as if it actually succeeded.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/872

The aid was released and no announcement was made or investigation in to the bidens promised. Its like trying to continue a murder investigation with no body or a stolen stereo where the car window is broken and the stereo is there.

There are no witnesses that testified any evidence that trump or his staff were using aid to bribe. The Ukraine said they weren't even aware of the aid situation and felt no pressure. Its now about motives, intent, conspiracy. Again, that's not the charge though. You can't charge someone with murder if there's no body. That would be attempted murder etc.

All of the testimony presented was zero evidence and instead assumptions, presumptions, theories, etc. That doesn't mean Trump made the best phone call in the history of phone calls or is totally above leveraging any opportunity possible, including aid $.

The reason the distinction is important is because its actually quite dangerous to have a 2 party democracy where you get to throw the opposition out of office based on your suspicion of their intent. You don't charge someone for murder or theft with no body or no property missing. You don't give someone the electric chair for suspicion of their motives. Taking trump out of office based on zero actual evidence of his intent beyond assumptions and theories is very dangerous. Both the accusations and the punishment are a massive stretch here. I highly doubt anything else significant will come to light this far in to the process. The standard set by this would be a total disaster.

Trump could actually murder someone and his base wouldn't care. Trump is certainly the kind of guy that would leverage any opportunity possible. That's not what is happening here though. He is being accused of bribery, except there's no this for that. They got the aid and gave nothing in return. There's no actual evidence that any arrangement was made. You're going to need to drop the severity of the charges down like 10 notches here, which then shuts the door to impeachment. Removing Trump based on hearsay, presumptions, and theories is a really dangerous standard

Back to the attempted murder isn't a crime gambit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...without_a_body

The aid was released after they got caught red-handed.

And running your personal attorney like a rogue secretary of state (right down to fabricating federal letterhead) doing communication on 3rd party software with your cadre, hiding the evidence afterwards, obstructing investigation and threatening witnesses is also fairly tell-tale. Not to mention that the narrative has changed pretty much daily and none of the involved conspirators have managed to keep their stories straight.

I find it amusing that people yell about "hearsay". Had this been a trial, a conviction would be pretty much guaranteed. You wouldn't get to have sycophants parroting inane conspiracy theories either, about the only "defense" that has been offered.

But by all means, if your cup of tea is a president who doesn't think US elections should be sovereign, go for it.

LOL WAT? It would have been thrown out of court.

The frigging defendant wasn't even allowed to defend himself. Only prosecution witnesses were allowed. A complete joke.

lol.. and to think i went to law school and actually practice criminal law, and all i needed to do was to ask joesixpack what law is..

what a waste..

Bold strategy, Cotton, lets see if it pays off.

Trump was invited to testify. By refusing he essentially took the fifth.

Defendants have the same right. Most actually take it. That doesnt stop the trial from proceeding.

Come to me next time, ill cut you a 40% discount and direct your questions to Joe.

Win win win imo

no. not that you actually care, but the president was offered several times to testify himself, to which he has ignored.

schiff wants a proffer for any republican witnesses, to which the republicans are ignoring because they know they cant get any of their conspiracy theory witnesses past a relevance standard. which is exactly how a trial could be handled in such a matter, where the defense side just wants to throw **** at a wall and call it a defense.

Listening to those dudes is like walking in circles. Or circling on the parking lot, whatever you prefer.

You know you are full of ****, but the House hearings are analogous to a Grand Jury, where the prosecution presents its case to prove probable cause and secure an indictment. The defense doesn't get to make a case there, either. The Senate version is the one analogous to a trial, and your team will be establishing wholly unfair rules.

Never mind that you keep the lie that this must abide by criminal rules when it is not a criminal proceeding, just as the Constitution says.

Are you thick? Serious question.

I was replying to this post (the bolded part).

I don't need to go to law school to run rings around you guys.

Perhaps only stupid lawyers post in this forum, so I'll ask a different question:

What percentage of lawyers do you believe would agree with your statements about "evidence"? Feel free to limit your answer to Republican-leaning lawyers if you like.