"Dershowitz admitted to being at the billionaire’s home but noted that he’d never seen an underaged girl at Epstein’s place despite sworn testimony from Epstein’s former butler who claimed that Dershowitz was at the residence at the same time that underaged girls were there."

That Dershovitz? He should be tarred and feathered along with the rest of the folks who rode the amoral jackwagon to Epstein's pleasure palace.

"Breitbart"

Still bending over for the Zionist Organized Criminal state-establishment are they?

That should make Log Cabin Pipe Fitters like you happy.

That faithful old government publication of Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial, it states: [boldface as in original]

2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled decisively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied.

Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions.

[...]

When they get out of that "fact-finding stage," and get into the trial stage, none of the hearsay or less than "best evidence" comes in. The Republican led Senate is highly unlikely to waive centuries of precedent to help Sloppy Jerry avoid disaster.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

It was decided in the Belknap trial that a witness might not be examined as to the contents of an existing letter without the letter itself being submitted.

Instance wherein the President pro tempore ruled on evidence during an impeachment trial.

On April 4, 1868,² in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Mr. Robert S. Chew, chief clerk of the State Department, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the House of Representatives, and examined by Mr. Manager Benjamin F. Butler as to the practice of making temporary appointments of assistant secretaries of Departments to perform the duties of their chiefs in the absence of the latter. The witness testified that the appointments in such cases were made by the President, or by his order. Mr. Butler then asked:

Did the letter of authority in most of these cases * * * proceed from the head of the Department or from the President?

Mr. William M. Evarts, of counsel for the President, objected that the letter of authority showed from whom it came, and was the best evidence on that point. In the discussion which followed, the counsel for the President intimated that they did not object if the question was intended to elicit a reply as to whose manual possession the paper came from. But if it was intended to ascertain who signed the paper, then the paper itself would be the best evidence.

Mr. Butler reduced the question to writing as follows:

Question. State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State or from what other officer?

The Chief Justice³ thereupon made an inquiry which led to this colloquy:

The CHIEF JUSTICE. ‘‘Came from the Secretary of State.’’ Do I understand you to mean signed by him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am not anxious upon that part of it, sir. I am content with the question as it stands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice conceives that the question in the form in which it is put is not objectionable, but—

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it, then, with the leave of the Chief Justice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice was about to proceed to say that if it is intended to ask the question whether these documents of which a list is furnished were signed by the Secretary, then he thinks it is clearly incompetent without producing them.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Under favor, Mr. President, I have no list of these documents; none has been furnished.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does not the question relate to the list which has been furnished?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It relates to the people whose names have been put upon the list; but I have no list of the documents at all. I have only a list of the facts that such appointments were made, but I have no list of the letters, whether they came from the President or from the Secretary or from anybody else.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the form in which the question is put the Chief Justice thinks it is not objectionable. If any Senator desires to have the question taken by the Senate, he will put it to the Senate. [To the managers, no Senator speaking.] You can put the question in the form proposed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER (to the witness). State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I believe I have this witness.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will instruct the witness. [To the witness.] You are not to answer at present by whom these documents were signed. You may say from whom they came.

__________

² Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe supplement, p. 118.

³ Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, Chief Justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2230. In the Swayne trial hearsay testimony introduced to show inconvenience to litigants from respondent’s conduct was ruled out.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2235. In general during impeachment trials questions as to conversations with third parties, not in presence of respondent, have been excluded from evidence.—On March 8, 1803,² in the high court of impeachment during the trial of John Pickering, judge of the United States district court of New Hampshire, Mr. Jonathan Steele was testifying, when, Mr. Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the managers for the House of Representatives, addressed the court. He said he wished in case it should be deemed proper by the court, to ask one of the witnesses whether he had conversed with the family physician of Judge Pickering, and what his opinion was as to the origination of his insanity. Mr. Nicholson observed that he had doubts of the propriety of this question, and therefore, in the first instance, stated it to the court.

The court decided the question inadmissible.

Later, on the same day, this witness, in the course of his testimony, was going on to state some conversation he had with Judge Pickering’s physician at this time

which he was induced to ask in consequence of solicitude to gain true information as to the reported intemperance of the Judge, when he was interrupted by the Court,1 and informed that this species of testimony had been already decided to be inadmissible.

__________

² First session Eighth Congress, Annals, pp. 358, 359.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2238. In the Johnson trial declarations of respondent, made anterior to the act, and even concomitant with it, were held inadmissible as evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2245. In the Johnson trial the Chief Justice ruled that an official message transmitted after the act was not admissible as evidence to show intent.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

Do Fearless Leader and his cult of Log Cabin Pipe Fitters/Pizza Pedophiles not LOVE wikileaks anymore?

search.wikileaks.org/?q=Firtash

Lots of evidence there. Odd how his/their/your "concern" over Ukrainian corruption seems to, conveniently, miss that.

Lots of evidence there.

Speaking of evidence....

From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:

2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:

From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?

Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:

The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.

Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:

We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.

Trump isn't being impeach for adultery, shyteferbrains, he's being impeached because he's up to his pudgdy, Useful Idiot, jowls in the Odessa Mafia's excrement.