It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment hearing so far who is winning or losing?

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I heard the star witness coming later in the week is a columnist .

She writes the Overheard at Lunch column

The.......

D.C. Gossip Girl



(post by Homefree removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I don't understand how Democratic presidential candidates can be part of a trial . Is that a conflict of interest ? I certainly think it is .



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I got a song for the Democrats!

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around

REO Speedwagon




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
It's all part of the game....

I predict it will end after they get done giving CNN enough to run a months worth of coverage without a formal vote to impeach.

They already know if it goes to the Senate, all will be revealed and that is the one thing they do not want.


This sums up today's hearing very nicely:



edit on 13-11-2019 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
There are no winners here.
We all lose in this together



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

All Senators must present for the trial to begin and continue. Senate impeachment is a big forkin deal.

Republicans in the Senate are toying with ways to make the trial drag on as long as possible.

www.washingtonpost.com... 4c-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

They're learning how to be dirty from Adam Schiff, I see. LOL.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Senate Trial will last 6 to 8 weeks.

www.theepochtimes.com...

Sanders, Warren, Booker, Harris have got to love that...not!


Do you think there will be a no show?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Veryolduser
Is it trump? Is it schiff? What are your thoughts on this?

Answers I won’t accept are : hurr derr the American people! this is the mud pit act accordingly pick a side and give your reasoning remember to fling poo only at your enemies points of view.

Question #2: do you believe the evidence provided so far was enough to impeach trump or make him innocent? Why or why not?




i think the dems are ahead for the moment.

they put together a good timeline for the events regarding quid pro quo. the whole "shadow diplomacy" guiliani thing is weird and bothers me more than the q.p.q, to be honest.

the reps never actually stayed on target. they kept trying to deflect or direct attention elsewhere.

enough for impeachment? not sure. does seem like a lot of dirty politics though.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Veryolduser

I see we are basing our approach to life based on the mutterings of fictional characters.
To Mouse I would say that there is no denial here rather acceptance. Acceptance and the realization that that is not all that we are.

Picking up mud is an easy thing to do. Hell, we don't even have to pick it up. There are those of us who can make it up. Problem there is that is often just way over the heads of you mere mortals. You ape-men posing as God's Children waddling your way though your un-profound and meaningless lives priding your selves in your copy cat name calling.

That was easy and did not call for much more than the utilization of memetic jargon absorbed from years of gathering insults as a hobby. That's all it is..



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Veryolduser

I see we are basing our approach to life based on the mutterings of fictional characters.
To Mouse I would say that there is no denial here rather acceptance. Acceptance and the realization that that is not all that we are.

Picking up mud is an easy thing to do. Hell, we don't even have to pick it up. There are those of us who can make it up. Problem there is that is often just way over the heads of you mere mortals. You ape-men posing as God's Children waddling your way though your un-profound and meaningless lives priding your selves in your copy cat name calling.

That was easy and did not call for much more than the utilization of memetic jargon absorbed from years of gathering insults as a hobby. That's all it is..



Wow ok “time out hands”

Let’s take a look at the superiority complex you have.

Preach on brother and ignore the log in your own eye while commenting on the splinter in mine.

Pride come before the fall

Is this biblical enough for you? I’m I getting the message across
edit on 13-11-2019 by Veryolduser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I'll put it this way:

During the hearing, Dem Rep. Mike Quigley felt it necessary to point out that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."

You can draw your own conclusions from that...
edit on 13-11-2019 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07




I dont get why you guys love him

Because we like watching him put your panties in a wad.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You mad bro?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
It's all part of the game....

I predict it will end after they get done giving CNN enough to run a months worth of coverage without a formal vote to impeach.



this is all about controlling the news cycle so the public won't be thinking about the improving economy etc

CNN boss yelled at his people; russia russia russia trump trump impeachment impeachment nothing else.
good for the democrats but the public is poorly served.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Veryolduser
Is it trump? Is it schiff? What are your thoughts on this?

Answers I won’t accept are : hurr derr the American people! this is the mud pit act accordingly pick a side and give your reasoning remember to fling poo only at your enemies points of view.

Question #2: do you believe the evidence provided so far was enough to impeach trump or make him innocent? Why or why not?




i think the dems are ahead for the moment.

they put together a good timeline for the events regarding quid pro quo. the whole "shadow diplomacy" guiliani thing is weird and bothers me more than the q.p.q, to be honest.

the reps never actually stayed on target. they kept trying to deflect or direct attention elsewhere.

enough for impeachment? not sure. does seem like a lot of dirty politics though.


Not so weird really...You heard the witnesses and Democrats say the Crowdstrike investigation has been debunked...Well, it certainly hasn't...That's why Guiliani is involved...The former ambassador along with Kent were preventing the Ukrainians from investigating Crowdstrike...



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: carewemust

I don't understand how Democratic presidential candidates can be part of a trial . Is that a conflict of interest ? I certainly think it is .


They are currently trying to impeach the Republican Presidential candidate.

Would that possibly be for political gain?

~shocked look~



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Veryolduser

The ruling class are winning, the American people are losing.


The ruling class are whining .



the American people are losing

Only the Democrats still hanging on and following the guidance of the leaders of the Democratic Party.




Sorry i don't understand partisan nonsense.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: elDooberino
I'll put it this way:

During the hearing, Dem Rep. Mike Quigley
felt it necessary to point out that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."

You can draw your own conclusions from that...

Did he seriously? What is it with them dems and making the dumbest statements they can possibly muster. Hearsay literally means rumor, FFS, LOL.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: elDooberino
I'll put it this way:

During the hearing, Dem Rep. Mike Quigley
felt it necessary to point out that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."

You can draw your own conclusions from that...

Did he seriously? What is it with them dems and making the dumbest statements they can possibly muster. Hearsay literally means rumor, FFS, LOL.




Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.

Most Common Hearsay Exceptions

There are twenty-three exceptions in the federal rules that allow for out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence even if the person made them is available to appear in court. However, only a handful of these are regularly used. The three most popularly used exceptions are:

Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement may be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the event or immediately after it.

Excited Utterance. Closely related to the present sense impression is the hearsay exception for an excited utterance. The requirements for this exception to apply is that there must have been a startling event and the declarant made the statement while under the excitement or stress of the event.

Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement that is not offered for the truth of the statement, but rather to show the state of mind, emotion or physical condition can be an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. For instance, testimony that there was a heated argument can be offered to show anger and not for what was said.
Other Exceptions to Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

In addition to the three most common exceptions for hearsay, there are several other statements that generally will be accepted as admissible evidence. These fall into three categories:

Medical: Statements that are made to a medical provider for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
Reputation: Statements about the reputation of the person, their family, or land boundaries.
Documents: These documents typically include business records and government records, but can include learned treatises, family records, and church records.
Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
The declarant refuses to testify;
The declarant does not remember;
The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.
If the declarant is deemed to be unavailable, then the following type of evidence can be ruled admissible in court. This includes:

Former testimony;
Statements made under belief of imminent death;
Statements against a person's own interest; and
Statements of personal or family history.
Catchall Exception to the Rule against Hearsay

Finally, the last exception is the so-called "catchall" rule. It provides that evidence of a hearsay statement not included in one of the other exceptions may nevertheless be admitted if it meets these following conditions:

It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
It is offered to help prove a material fact
It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
Its admission would forward the cause of justice

The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence
Defenses Against Hearsay Evidence

If the court admits hearsay evidence under one the exceptions, then the credibility of the person offering the statement may be attacked. This attack must be supported by admissible evidence, but can be prior inconsistent statement, bias, or some other evidence that would show that the declarant has a reason to lie or not to remember accurately.

Is It Just Hearsay, or Actual Evidence? Get Help From a Defense Attorney

If you're facing a criminal trial, there may be several pieces of evidence that the government is relying on for their case. However, that doesn't mean that the evidence is admissible in court. A skilled criminal defense attorney can challenge questionable evidence, such as hearsay statements, and help you prepare your strongest defense.


criminal.findlaw.com...


Trump could invalidate such hearsay by allowing his staff to appear and testify or if he himself gave a deposition.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join