Not a good day for America

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Arnie123

No back track at all silly goose.

The thought just tickled me pink.

I wanted to share it with you. Why did you take it so seriously?

I didn't, just illustrating the lefts uncanny ability to consume fake news and watch you spin the back track, it amuses me and figured I'll share it with the audience as a reminder that fake news is indeed, fake news.

Except where did I proclaim it as news. You think you can take something you disagree with, call it 'fake news' and I magically become a reporter educating the world of my sweet find?

When it comes to calling you out for fake news, yes and that's Mr. Reporter 😘

Honestly, calm down and chill, I'm not even taking it seriously and I'll give you a pass, you're not dumb, just willfully disingenuous.

Oh ok in my mind the tone of what you're saying was way more confrontational but your response sounds totally chill so right on.

a reply to: Wayfarer

That being said, Hearsay and eyewitness testimony is most certainly admissible as evidence.

It depends.

“Hearsay” is defined as any statement made outside of court that is “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” An example would be evidence that a person, in a non-court setting, said to another person that the defendant committed a robbery, if the state tried to introduce it as evidence that the defendant committed robbery.

Hearsay is generally inadmissible, since the judge or jury is unable to form an opinion regarding whether the person making the out-of-court statement is reliable. Multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, and a defendant’s own out-of-court statements are excluded from the definition of hearsay entirely.

Defendants may move to suppress evidence obtained by police or prosecutors in violation of their constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a criminal case. Evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights is known as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

www.justia.com...

There's that sixth again.

Because the 'whistleblower' ran straight to Schiff.

Particularly alarming and despicable is how the Dems phrase all their questions. They write a narrative and then say, "that would be a crime, right?". All they are doing is leading the witness and it's so painfully obvious.

and it's utterly ridiculous, yet a bunch of low iq tools fall for it.

I guess what alarms me the most is how uneducated and stupid a large portion of the populace is.

a reply to: neo96

That's a fair summary. To be more specific, in this case its admissible.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I can't help but think something telling such as Secretary of State announcing he's jumping ship would be exceptionally well timed (or ill timed if you love Trump), for how the optics and internal dynamics portend in this situation.

HAHAHA you fell for fake news 😂😂

Expected of course, leftist users actually reading a source? Might as well lead me to BIGFOOT while you're at it.

Time magazine reports that 3 Republican sources claim that Pompeo is considering a run for Kansas Senator. I guess we'll see. Vegas odds-makers are giving +1000 that he'll be the next cabinet member to be fired or resign.... If I was a betting man I would probably take that bet.... that's a pretty good payout but their also giving +1000 on Chao as well and she's under investigation by the House Oversight Committee.

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

a reply to: Arnie123

Well, it's not like first hand testimony is changing anybodies mind.
So I think I'm good

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen


Same reason senators are not speaking up. They risk being trumped.

That's the way it used to be. Now the GOP is running away from trump as fast as they can.

www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: toolgal462
Particularly alarming and despicable is how the Dems phrase all their questions. They write a narrative and then say, "that would be a crime, right?". All they are doing is leading the witness and it's so painfully obvious.

and it's utterly ridiculous, yet a bunch of low iq tools fall for it.

I guess what alarms me the most is how uneducated and stupid a large portion of the populace is.

lol... what's painfully obvious is the writing on the wall...

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: neo96

That's a fair summary. To be more specific, in this case its admissible.

Was Trump counsel given his RIGHT to supress?

Nope.

Judge,Jury and executioner Herr Schiff didn't even care.

See 'Parodys'.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Well, he did need to go to the Dr. with an unscheduled visit....Setting the stage for a bail out claiming health issues.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: neo96

That's a fair summary. To be more specific, in this case its admissible.

Was Trump counsel given his RIGHT to supress?

That's not how this works. You don't let the accused set the manner in which light of their crimes are made known.

Furthermore, what reason would Trump have for outing the whistle-blower other than to discredit and threaten their life?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Arnie123
I'm not stupid enough to say Trump won't be impeached, if any indication there is from deluded leftist users such as yourself, it's that Dems will abuse their positions for the sake of narrative and votes.

The House will vote on articles of impeachment against President Trump.

I'm not so sure. Personally I think it is actually possible that enough democrats see the catastrophe that is happening in front of the nation right now, and may at the last minute choose to try to save their re-election chances and simply not vote in favor of impeachment... and that is if Nancy doesn't come to her senses and decide not to bring it to a vote.

That said, I do think it is more likely that he will be impeached, then the Senate calls Vindman (the leaker-source), then Ciaramella (the whistle-leaker), then wastes a lot of dem campaign time on a bunch of hearings, before voting to dismiss with prejudice (I wonder if they can do so with prejudice, probably not).

Possibly and I don't disagree with you at all.

I guess an example of to dimiss with prejudice would be one sided voting, like the Democrat sham impeachment inquiry.
Pelosis said that this would be a Bi Partisan consensus and thus left it at that.

But something happened, spooked her and now here she is, lying and pushing for impeachment. The repubs all voted NO in addition with two Democrat defectors, that is, IMHO, Voting with Prejudice.

a reply to: Wayfarer

That's not how this works. You don't let the accused set the manner in which light of their crimes are made known

That's how due process works.

How the impeachment has been conducted is pretty much how the jews ended up in gas chambers.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

That's not how this works. You don't let the accused set the manner in which light of their crimes are made known

That's how due process works.

How the impeachment has been conducted is pretty much how the jews ended up in gas chambers.

You are mistaken. This is not a trial, and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial. These are preliminary hearings serving as fact finding endeavors to collect the totality of evidence to present for an actual impeachment trial.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Well, he did need to go to the Dr. with an unscheduled visit....Setting the stage for a bail out claiming health issues.

Don't get your hopes up guys....

Because much like the past 3 yrs, you will again be disappointed.

Do yourselves a favor and prepare yourselves because you are about to be let down again and again.

No direct evidence
Thanks mr Radcliffe

Next bs "crisis"

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

That's not how this works. You don't let the accused set the manner in which light of their crimes are made known

That's how due process works.

How the impeachment has been conducted is pretty much how the jews ended up in gas chambers.

You are mistaken. This is not a trial, and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial. These are preliminary hearings serving as fact finding endeavors to collect the totality of evidence to present for an actual impeachment trial.

You are correct
Just expect treatment in kind in the senate

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Well, he did need to go to the Dr. with an unscheduled visit....Setting the stage for a bail out claiming health issues.

Don't get your hopes up guys....

Because much like the past 3 yrs, you will again be disappointed.

Do yourselves a favor and prepare yourselves because you are about to be let down again and again.

Death is the easiest way out for Trump at this point so I genuinely want him to live.

a reply to: Wayfarer
Funny
Others here get in trouble for expressing that about rbg

a reply to: Wayfarer

Spin me another fairy tale.

You are mistaken. This is not a trial, and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial

There's a legal term for that.

Criminal and civil cases that lack sufficient evidence usually aren't pursued.

However, occasionally criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party. Such actions are referred to as malicious prosecution, whether it's an unscrupulous prosecutor filing false charges against a political rival or a corporation suing a small business in order to put the competition out of business.

Since prosecutors have considerable discretion over which cases are pursued and private citizens are free to file lawsuits, this tort provides an essential check on potential abuses.

Thanks for making my point.