If Drumpf is so "concerned" about corruption in Ukraine then why isn't he using his maganificent 3rd grade intellect

Because he has you to use your 3rd grade intellect.

Because he has you to use your 3rd grade intellect.

Says the vociferously pretentious goon who doesn't even know who Firtash is.

Who is Firtash? Your mother? --Nolu Chan
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=60697&Disp=11#C11

{ golf clap }

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.

So,

Who is Firtash? Your mother? --Nolu Chan
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=60697&Disp=11#C11

Do you recall who Firtash is NOW?

Nothing he says would be admissible in U.S. courts or an impeachment proceeding.

Do you recall who Firtash is NOW?

Ah, yes. I remember now. Flirtash is your mother and Elton Jane is your father.

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.

Ah, yes. I remember now. Flirtash is your mother and Elton Jane is your father.

I think your last post was directed at peromischievous, not me.

In other news, do you expect that Nadler or Schiff will be the point man of the House managers and act as chief prosecutor in the Senate?

Or do you think this will all fizzle due to Pelosi deliberately scuttling the vote in the House to miss impeachment by a single vote?

I think Pelosi will arrange for impeachment to fail in the House.

I see no way for Pelosi to hope that they will reach the 2/3 of present senators to vote for impeachment. Abstentions for senators present are counted as no votes; only a senator's absence from the chamber will help lower the number of required votes.

If Pelosi were willing to try to trade her House majority for enough Senate seats to prevent Trump from appointing another Supreme without Dem consent, it could make some strategic sense. But that seems like a long and convoluted scheme even for Pelosi. The best outcome of such a scheme would likely be to defeat Collins in Maine and see Jones in AL defeated as well, a tie. I don't see many other GOP Senate seats within Dems' reach with a strong economy and full employment.

It is a long steep hill to climb to get 67 votes to convict in the Senate, only to elevate a President Pence into office in a good position to serve 8+ years as president. Removing Trump now would be the GOP's best chance to hold the WH for 12 years straight and remake the Court entirely by replacing both RBG and Breyer. Pelosi knows this as does Schumer. So what is their game? Just a little election year impeachment drama for the kiddies but without any serious intent of actually removing Trump? It seems that way to me.

I apologize for my error.

I would expect that some competent person would be the manager and the function inself will largely be executed by a staff lawyer.

As the impeachment itself has no real chance of reaching conviction, other motives should be considered. The biggest threat to the DEMe is the Squad and the radical nutbags who have agitated this nonsense. Nancy may well be leading the lemmings off a cliff, saving the party while incurring a temporary loss of seats. Nancy might get a party meritorious service award for aiding the radicals in Epsteining themselves, culling the herd.

The Senate will very rapidly dismiss the charges. There will be no lengthy proceeding.

This may trash the radical left so badly that the current crop of nutty candidates collapsing and a white knight "has to" ride in and "save" the party. I don't think the establishment thinks any of that lot can succeed against Trump. The debates have collapsed into an irrelevant farce.

Their disaster is having the GOP nominate SCOTUS justices and other Federal judges for another four to eight years.

I would expect that some competent person would be the manager and the function inself will largely be executed by a staff lawyer.

I think so. I would think that Nadler would be the lead House manager and that staff lawyers would conduct the prosecution with him hovering over them constantly, directing their conduct. And Nadler would have a small group of fellow-managers he would consult with and who would also appear in the Senate chamber.

I can't recall exactly how it went with the Xlinton impeachment since it was over in about a day.

It seems that Henry Hyde was the senior member of the managers and chair of the House Judiciary committee. Next senior was Sensenbrenner, it seems.

WaPo: Prosecution Who's Who, 1/14/99

This may trash the radical left so badly that the current crop of nutty candidates collapsing and a white knight "has to" ride in and "save" the party. I don't think the establishment thinks any of that lot can succeed against Trump. The debates have collapsed into an irrelevant farce.

Latest polling is that Dem voters still think that Biden is the only one who can defeat Trump. Biden may lose both IA and NH and even NV but he is expected to prevail after that, largely because of Afro-American loyalty to him as Obama's VP.

This despite Biden's Ukraine problem. If Trump goes on the attack that Biden is corrupt and he was just trying to get to the bottom of it, Biden could look even worse than he does now, fumbling around like a senile person. Biden is clearly past it and, as he puts in long campaign days, even the libmedia types are noticing that he seems like a senile person, no longer capable of long days and dealing with stress. He's been blowing up at reporters and voters at various events. And his "No Malarkey" tour of Iowa raised some eyebrows, at least after the older members of the press explained to the under-50 crowd what 'malarkey' was. Biden is showing his age undeniably.

I see no way for Pelosi to hope that they will reach the 2/3 of present senators to vote for impeachment.

That's not her intent. Her intent is to impeach, period, to satisfy the Trump haters and to influence the 2020 election. And as retaliation for Clinton and as insurance against future impeachment of a Democrat (It's payback for Trump!).

"Or do you think this will all fizzle due to Pelosi deliberately scuttling the vote in the House to miss impeachment by a single vote?"

Nah. That would leave all the yea voters hung out to dry -- the worst of both worlds. She'll simply say the votes aren't there and ask for censure instead.

If this goes to the Senate and all hearsay testimony is excluded -- as it should be -- the Democrats have nothing. Literally. What they do have is a series of events that they have interpreted as impeachable offenses.

The Senate will very rapidly dismiss the charges. There will be no lengthy proceeding.

Not a good strategy. Mainly because the Democrats and the MSM will cry "coverup" and "whitewash".

But, more importantly, that would forever bury the secret testimony and hearing from key witnesses.

Latest polling is that Dem voters still think that Biden is the only one who can defeat Trump.

National polls of Dem likely primary voters is meaningless. They are underwater in swing states and among independents. The party has lost control of the radicals, and while they cannot control them, they can use there nuttery to assist them in committing political suicide.

Not a good strategy.

It is if a long procedure might find GOP fingers in the cookie jar.

Nah. That would leave all the yea voters hung out to dry -- the worst of both worlds. She'll simply say the votes aren't there and ask for censure instead.

That may be her plan all along, go for impeachment while ignoring all the impeachment precedents (as GOP House members have accused) and then go for censure at the last minute.

If this goes to the Senate and all hearsay testimony is excluded -- as it should be -- the Democrats have nothing. Literally. What they do have is a series of events that they have interpreted as impeachable offenses.

The chief justice has betrayed us before but I don't think he'll overturn all the impeachment precedents that are on the record. It would destroy his reputation entirely as a jurist. It's ragged enough after his votes/opinions on ObamaCare (a bizarre judicial act of legislating) and Obergefell (should have rejected the case entirely and/or recused since his own son is gay and the originating judge on the Ninth was a gay publicly in favor of gay marriage).

National polls of Dem likely primary voters is meaningless. They are underwater in swing states and among independents. The party has lost control of the radicals, and while they cannot control them, they can use there nuttery to assist them in committing political suicide.

Interesting that Biden is seen as so fragile that Bloomberg jumped in at the last minute, just so there is a choice that isn't hated by Wall Street donor base if Biden falls apart in public.

With Bloomberg self-funding his campaign, the DNC's huge deficit would be largely overcome. That would bring a lot of DNC support from superdelegates and elected Dems toward Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is the Biden backstop to prevent a Warren or Bernie nomination.

Not a good strategy.
It is if a long procedure might find GOP fingers in the cookie jar.

There's that.

That may be her plan all along, go for impeachment while ignoring all the impeachment precedents (as GOP House members have accused) and then go for censure at the last minute.

The radicals have gone too far to stop at censure. That would be a sane course except that the candidates would have to answer why the Dems did not impeach the MFer if they had a solid case of treason, bribery and whatnot. Nancy lost control of the radicals, just as Lincoln lost control of the radicals.

Firtash is a distraction.

[Schiff’s committee has photos, audio, video recordings from Rudy associate Lev Parnas, some of which involve Trump and Giuliani]
http://hotair.com/archives/allah...s-involve-trump-giuliani/

Not hard to figure out what this is all about.

[How a Ukrainian Oligarch Wanted by U.S. Authorities Helped Giuliani Attack Biden]
time.com/5699201/exclusiv...ed-giuliani-attack-biden/

Just follow the $$$$

why the Dems did not impeach the MFer if they had a solid case of treason, bribery and whatnot.

"Well, we believe we presented a solid case of treason, bribery and whatnot, but an insufficient number of House members were convinced those charges rose to the level of an impeachable offense."

Something like that. I don't think Pelosi thought through the ramifications of a Senate trial, which I believe will be fatal to Democrats.

just as Lincoln lost control of the radicals.

If you could post something on that sometime. I would read it, sounds interesting g.

had The password

ouT of WashingTon

" malice Towards none "

was probably … a deaTh senTence --- for Lincoln !

love
boris

John Wilkes BooTh

had The password

And the countersign. TB, TB Road. Or so it is said.

Also, he had a diary. That becomes an interesting story in itself.

SOURCE: Otto Eisenshiml, Why Was Lincoln Murdered? Little Brown and Company, 1937, pp. 138-144. [The congressional hearing was in 1867.]

The unearthing of the diary was entirely due to Baker. He had already disclosed the fact of its existence to a correspondent of the New York World, who had casually mentioned it as early as April 28, 1865; but the news item had evidently been over­looked on its first appearance. At the conspiracy trial, a great deal might have been uncovered had the lawyers for the defense handled their cases with more skill. When Colonel Conger was on the witness stand on May 17, he told, under direct examina­tion, what he had taken from the pockets of the dying man.

Q. (Exhibiting to the witness a knife numbered 28.) State if that is the weapon you took from him.
A. I did not take it from him myself; but that is the knife. I saw it taken....
Q. (Exhibiting to the witness a pair of pistols.) Do you recognize these pistols as having been taken from him?
A. ... they were similar to these.
Q. (Exhibiting to the witness a belt, a holster, and a knife.) Do you recognize these?
A. That is the belt and holster, and that is the knife taken from Booth. [20]

In a similar manner a file, a spur, a pipe and some cartridges were identified by the witness. A Spencer rifle and a Canadian bill of exchange followed. Then the line of interrogation turned to other matters. If only at this time one of the lawyers for the ac­cused had asked the simple question: What else was taken from the body? the truth would have been out. But the great oppor­tunity passed unheeded and was lost for the accused. Thus both the prisoners and the world at large were robbed of a vital piece of evidence. Conger was telling the truth and nothing but the truth, but he did not tell the whole truth; he and the bureau of military justice stand guilty of having withheld a fact that would, in all likelihood, have saved human lives. For Booth's notebook showed plainly that, up to the last day, kidnaping and not murder had been the goal of the conspirators. Some of the defendants would have been greatly benefited by this revelation.

For two years the little volume lay locked up in the archives of the War Office. In the meantime Baker had been dismissed and had written his book, The History of the Secret Service. Therein repeated references were made to Booth's diary, cre­ating a sensation in all circles. The judiciary committee of the House, then in session, seized upon the item with alacrity, and bade Baker take the stand and repeat his statements under oath. There the detective exploded another bombshell: the diary had been mutilated since it had been taken from the body at Garrett's farm. Again Butler's voice was heard in Congress, denouncing this tampering with important evidence.

"That diary, as now produced," he thundered, "has eighteen pages cut out, the pages prior to the time when Abraham Lincoln was massacred, although the edges as yet show they had all been written over. Now, what I want to know, was that diary whole?... Who spoliated that book?" [21]

On February 7, Baker took the stand. He asserted that he had read portions of Booth's memorandum book in the afternoon of the day the assassin was shot, and that he thought there had been a great deal more to the original volume at that time.

"...in my opinion," he testified, "there have been leaves torn out of that book since I saw it." He particularly seemed to remember a sheet with the pencil sketch of a house on it which should have been in the book. Baker had intended to find the loca­tion of that house and its connection with the conspiracy and had, therefore, taken particular notice of it. [22]

On the same day Judge Advocate General Holt declared as a witness before the House committee that the diary was in the same condition as when he had received it. But when Holt was first shown the little red book which was the center of all this excite­ment, it had already passed through many hands and had been in the possession of his superiors in the War Department for some time. On April 2, feeling that a mutilation of the diary was im­puted to Stanton, he came valiantly to the assistance of his chief by developing before his audience two theories that could account for the loss of the missing leaves. He pointed out that the volume was an old one, and had seen much use. It appeared likely to him that the removed pages concerned personal matters which the owner did not choose to have exposed; or else the entries might have compromised his friends and co-conspirators. In either case it would be rational to assume that it had been Booth who had cut out the leaves. The latter theory seemed more probable to Holt, as the deleted portion preceded the entries made on April 13 and on the following days. [23]

On April 1 Stanton gave his version. There was no doubt in his mind that the leaves had been gone when the relic was brought to him.

Q. When you saw the diary in the room of the Committee on the Judiciary, was your attention called to the circumstance that certain leaves had been cut or torn from it?

A. My attention was called to it at that time. I had observed the fact at the time on which I first saw the diary. I examined it then with great care; read over all the entries in it, and noticed that leaves had been cut or torn from it at the time.

Q. According to your recollection, was the diary, when you saw it in the committee-room, in the same condition it was when you first saw it?

A. It was precisely in the same condition... [24]

So far it was Baker's word against Stanton's, for besides these two men only Lieutenant Colonel Conger, Lieutenant Baker, and possibly Major Eckert, had seen the diary before anyone else had had an opportunity to tamper with it. On May 13 the committee heard Conger, but Baker's former aide was not at all sure of his facts. To a direct question of whether the book was in the same condition as when he had delivered it to Mr. Stanton, he answered that he thought it was. When pressed further, he would only say that he thought the same leaves were then missing. He re­mained uncertain to the end. He thought the diary had read a little differently when he went through it two years previously, but it was so long ago, he added, that his memory could not be trusted. When asked whether he could swear with definiteness that all these leaves had been torn out when he first saw the book, he answered that this was his impression. [25] After receiving unsatisfactory replies of this kind for some time, the investigators gave up and turned back to Stanton. On May 18 the Secretary appeared again as a witness and stated that he had noticed the absence of the missing leaves when the book was given to him. He thought that he had even counted the pages, but could not recollect the number. [26]

Three days later, the War Minister was followed again by Baker, who was then at outs with the War Department. The detec­tive, as an opening thrust, reported that some of the men had taken copies of the diary but had been forced to give them up on orders from Stanton, who decreed that not even extracts should be re­tained by anyone. What was left of the diary had been read before the committee by Holt on April 2, and it was plain that there was nothing in it that would have called for such precautions. The point Baker was trying to drive home now became fully ap­parent. In answer to a direct question, he claimed to be still of the opinion that the book had been mutilated. One of the examining congressmen tried to trip him by asking whether Baker had counted the stubs at the time of Booth's capture. But Baker was positive that he had never seen any stubs until he examined the book in the committee room.

Q. Do you mean to say that at the time you gave the book to the Secretary of War there were no leaves gone?
A. I do.
Q. That is still your opinion?
A. That is still my opinion.
Q. Did you examine it pretty carefully?
A. I examined the book, and I am very sure that if any leaves had been gone I should have noticed it.
Q. Did you examine it carefully?
A. It did not require careful examination to discover the absence of so many leaves. [27]

Baker claimed that Stanton had promised to permit him to incorporate the contents of Booth's memorandum book in his forthcoming History of the Secret Service, but when the publishers came down from New York to get the copy, the Secretary of War told them that conditions had changed and that he was not dis­posed to let the book go out of his possession.

When asked if he had seen Stanton count the stubs of the miss­ing pages, as the Secretary had testified under oath, Baker gave his former chief the lie direct. But he scored his best point at the last. Upon being asked whether any observations were made on the subject of the stubs when Stanton looked over the relic, he answered: "No, sir; that is the reason I think the leaves were not gone. I think Mr. Stanton would have asked me what had become of the missing leaves, if any had been missing." [28]

This shot must have told, for the investigators quickly aban­doned the subject. To those who knew Stanton's character and training, it must have appeared very improbable that he would have accepted a mutilated piece of evidence without severe cross-examination. That Stanton really had taken over the diary without comments had been corroborated by Lieutenant Colonel Conger, and was not denied by the Secretary himself. All in all, Baker had decidedly the better of the argument.

The diary even became the subject of a Cabinet discussion. Should the contents of the little volume be published? Stanton was violently opposed to such a procedure, but Welles calmly asked what possible objection he could have. It is not known what Stanton replied, or if he replied at all.

But on May 22 Lieutenant L. B. Baker introduced a new element into the controversy. He also had handled the diary, and he thought that some leaves were gone when he first saw it. He disclosed the fact, however, that he found one of the torn leaves in Virginia a few days later. Booth had sent two notes to a Dr. Stewart from whom he had expected hospitality on his flight, and had torn or cut sheets from this notebook to convey his messages. [29] This new discovery may have accounted for some of the uncertainty displayed by several of the witnesses. New doubts were raised, and the truth became even more uncertain than before. Many months later, on November 22, 1867, the committee again tried to get to the bottom of the problem. It was recalled that Conger had made a copy of the famous diary, and it was hoped that this copy would disclose the contents of the missing portion. Colonel Baker came forth to declare positively that he had surrendered the copy either to Stanton or to Eckert. To the question: "How do you explain the fact that neither Gen­eral Eckert nor Mr. Stanton could produce it?" he had no answer, for it was a question that really should have been propounded to them rather than to Baker. [30] It never was, however, and no further testimony on the subject was forthcoming.

This closes all the available evidence in regard to Booth's diary and the riddle of its missing pages. It is difficult to arrive at a verdict. On one hand there stands a disgruntled ex-secret service man whose love of veracity is not of the highest rating; with some of the members of the House judicial committee he left the impression that "... it is doubtful whether he has in any one thing told the truth, even by accident." [31] Against him was pitted Edwin M. Stanton, who, as a young man in Cadiz, Ohio, during the presidential campaign of 1840, had once cited the Constitution and deliberately deleted one line, thereby dis­torting the entire meaning; [32] as Secretary of War he was re­sponsible for the actions of the bureau of military justice which had not hesitated to mutilate the official report of the conspiracy trial.

It is impossible to glean the truth from the contradictory statements of two such men.

[20] Poore, Conspiracy Trial, I, p. 318; see also note to chapter XIII in part II, Booth's Diary
[21] DeWitt, Assassination, p. 179
[22] Impeachment Investigation, p. 33
[23] Ibid., pp. 28, 285
[24] Ibid., p. 281
[25] Ibid., pp. 324, 330
[26] Ibid., p. 408
[27] Ibid., p. 458
[28] Ibid., loc. cit.
[29] Ibid., p. 484
[30] Ibid., p. 1192
[31] House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 1st Session, Rep. Com. No 7, Impeachment of the President, p. 111 [32] Walter G. Shotwell, Driftwood (Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1927), pp. 81, 82; see also note to chapter XIII in part II, Stanton Quotes

- - - - - - - - - -

In 1977, the FBI indicated 27 sheets or 54 pages were missing.

https://www.scribd.com/document/439052449/FBI-On-Pages-Missing-From-John-Wilkes-Booth-Diary-1977

SOURCE: Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, July 28, 1866

Pages 4291-2

| Page 4291 | Page 4292 |

ASSASSINATION REWARDS

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of House bill No. 801, authorizing the payment of the rewards offered by the President of the United States, &c.

Mr. DAVIS. I should like some Senator to give the Senate some assurance that Abraham Lincoln's murderer was in fact killed. I have never seen myself any satisfactory evidence that Booth was killed.

Mr. HOWARD. In order to prove it demonstratively, perhaps we should be compelled to send for Boston Corbett, who shot him. I suppose the honorable Senator is speaking of Booth.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I submit to my friend from Kentucky that there are some things that we must take judicial notice of, just as well as that Julius Caesar is dead.

Mr. DAVIS. I would rather have better testimony of the fact. I want it proved that Booth was in that barn; I cannot conceive, if he was in the barn, why he was not taken alive and brought to this city alive. I have never seen anybody or the evidence of anybody that identified Booth after he is said to have been killed. Why so much secrecy about it? Why was not his body brought up publicly to Washington city and exposed to the gaze of the multitude, that it might be identified? It may be that he is dead; but there is a mystery and a most inexplicable mystery to my mind about the whole affair. He may come back some of these days and murder somebody else.

I merely got up to make this suggestion. I supposed that some gentleman was in possession of facts going to show that Booth was identified. Identify Booth, and these men ought to have their reward, but I doubt whether this man Baker out to have anything. I believe he was a much bigger villain than any man he was pursuing. I do not doubt that at all; and I believe he is just such a man as to get up now a story of the capture of Booth when Booth had not been overtaken at all. If gentlemen will refer me to where I can get a narrative of facts to prove the identity of Booth, I will at my leisure read it with much interest. I want to be assured of the facts, not with a view to vote on this bill but with a view to the history of the transaction.

I do not see why, if Booth was in the barn, he should have been shot. He could have been captured just as well alive as dead. It would have been much more satisfactory to have brought him up here alive and to have inquired of him to reveal the whole transaction, to have implicated all who were guilty and to have exculpated all who were innocent. I do not see any reason why the matter had not taken that course. Bring his body up, carry it to the City Hall, expose it there to public gaze, let all who had seen him playing, all who associated with him on the stage or in the green room or the taverns and other public places, have had access to his body to have identified it. That was the way, where $100,000 was offered as a reward for capturing the man. I am certain I was as innocent of that murder as the child that is yet unborn; but I should have disliked to have $100,000 offered for me as an accomplice in that murder; it would have caused me to be hung or shot just as certain as fate.

Mr. CONNESS. That would be a big price.

Mr. DAVIS. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from California could have had me captured or shot for $2.50 by some of his myrmidons.

Mr. ANTHONY. I am happy to relieve my friend from Kentucky by informing him that a small part of the skeleton of Booth is in the anatomical museum of the Surgeon General.

Mr. JOHNSON. Who knows that?

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not know how it is identified, but it is certified to be that.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I hope we shall have the question.

The bill was passed.

Mr. HOWARD. In order to prove it demonstratively, perhaps we should be compelled to send for Boston Corbett, who shot him. I suppose the honorable Senator is speaking of Booth.

Corbett is quite a weird guy too. Mad as a hatter (and he was a hatter back when many of them were quite mad). Conflicting reports on whether this self-castrati hat-making maniac shot Booth or not.

Wiki: Boston Corbett

Corbett is quite a weird guy too. Mad as a hatter (and he was a hatter back when many of them were quite mad). Conflicting reports on whether this self-castrati hat-making maniac shot Booth or not.

July 16th, 1858 Thomas Corbett, widower, a hatter known as “Boston”, was treated at Boston General Hospital for castration. The medical record begins:

Is a methodist, and having perused the 18th and 19th chapters of Matthew, he took a pair of scissors and made an opening an in. long in the lower part of the scrotum. He then drew down the testes and cut them both off. He then went to a prayer meeting, walked about some and ate a hearty dinner. There was not much internal hemorrhage but a clot had filed the opening so that the blood was confined in the scrotum which filled enormously and was black. He called in on Dr. Hodges (??) who laid it open and removed the blood....

Matthew 18:8 provides,

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter lifecrippled or lame, than having two hands or feet, to be case into the eternal fire."

It seems some ladies of the evening had come on to him, he had impure thoughts, he didn't want to be cast into the eternal fire, so he cut his nads off.

It sounds to me that he qualified as nuts. I do not believe he was the shooter of Booth, he was just a useful idiot who was used.

The body from the tobacco shed, said to be Booth, was transported to a ship for autopsy. Alexander Gardner, who worked with Matthew Brady, was dispatched to take pictures. Gardner photographed the dead body and returned to Washington and gave the pictures to Stanton. It was documented that Stanton received the pictures, but there is no evidence of what happened to them. Like the pages of Booth's diary, the pictures disappeared. The body may, or may not, have been Booth.

Corbett also disappeared mysteriously years later. Any details of his death are unknown.

And we make fun of the conspiracy nuts. They do sometimes have a point.

I think so. I would think that Nadler would be the lead House manager and that staff lawyers would conduct the prosecution with him hovering over them constantly, directing their conduct. And Nadler would have a small group of fellow-managers he would consult with and who would also appear in the Senate chamber.

I can't recall exactly how it went with the Xlinton impeachment since it was over in about a day.

It seems that Henry Hyde was the senior member of the managers and chair of the House Judiciary committee. Next senior was Sensenbrenner, it seems.

The records of the William J. Clinton Impeachment are at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol1.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol2.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol3.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

3,197 total pages

PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS

Volume 1, at 17-18: (January 6, 1999)

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT

Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 7, 1997, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 19, 1998, subsequent to the sine die adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House of Representatives has impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, which the managers on the part of the House of Representatives have been directed to carry to the Senate; and Mr. HYDE of Illinois, Mr. SENSENBRENNER of Wisconsin, Mr. MCCOLLUM of Florida, Mr. GEKAS of Pennsylvania, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. BUYER of Indiana, Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. CHABOT of Ohio, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. HUTCHINSON of Arkansas, Mr. CANNON of Utah, Mr. ROGAN of California, and Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, have been appointed as managers.

- - - - - - - - - -

FLOOR TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Volume II at 1007 (January 14, 1999)

The Presiding Officer notes the presence in the Senate Chamber of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and counsel for the President of the United States.

Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 16, the managers for the House of Representatives have 24 hours to make the presentation of their case. The Senate will now hear you.

The Presiding Officer recognizes Mr. Manager HYDE to begin the presentation of the case for the House of Representatives.

Volume II at 1091 (January 15, 1999)

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all my colleagues, then, I understand today’s presentation is expected to continue until approximately 6 p.m., and there will be periodic breaks during the day to allow all Members to stand and stretch. I want to remind Senators to promptly return to their desks at the expiration of those 15- minute breaks in order that we can continue and complete at the earliest possible hour. I thank all Members for their cooperation. This afternoon we will hear from Congressman MCCOLLUM, take a 15-minute break, then hear from Congressmen GEKAS, CHABOT, and CANNON, and then take a break, and then Congressman BARR would complete the afternoon’s presentations. Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the floor.

At 1994-1995 (February 12, 1999)

The votes were taken on Articles I and II.