Pelosi and Schiff are About to Walk Into a Senate Trial Trap...Shhhh! Don't tell them!

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,856
400
DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

Here’s why it might now be advantageous for the Republicans to hold a long, full Senate trail if the Democrats, as expected, send over articles of impeachment:

In a Senate trial, the Republicans will control the process. They will control which witnesses get called, how the hearings are conducted, what will be considered relevant to the proceedings. They will be able to compel the fake whistleblower to testify, Hunter Biden to testify, and myriad others who Adam Schiff refused to allow into his circus process. If they chose to, Republicans would even be able to call Schiff himself, along with his staff, to testify as fact witnesses about their pre-coordination with Eric Ciaramella, and how they and their Lawfare lawyers actually participated in the drafting of the complaint that kicked off this whole clown show.

A long Senate trail would disrupt the Democrat primary season. Republicans would be able to force Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet to sit in the Senate chamber, day after day, six days a week for as long as they want to keep them there, off the campaign trail. It would be a major disruption to the Democrat nomination battle, and would pretty much ensure that their nominee would either be a 77 year-old buffoon who doesn’t know what state he’s in most days or a 37 year-old neophyte who would be easy pickings next Fall.

A long Senate trial would allow the Republicans to publicly litigate the whole DNC server fraud. Maybe most damaging for the Democrats, Republicans would be able to compel testimony from Christopher Steele and witnesses from Crowdstrike and get them on the record on national television, testifying under oath about their activities during the 2016 election campaign and who paid for it all. They could even compel testimony under oath from John Podesta and Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schulz (remember, Schulz and Brazile were heads of the DNC during that time) and even Hillary Clinton if they want to. If it turned out to be politically advantageous, they could also compel testimony from James Comey and Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan and James Clapper and all the other Obama-era coup plotters who are now employed by MSNBC and CNN.

Remember, when this impeachment scam first started, how President Trump and Giuliani and others said that Pelosi and Schiff had walked into a trap? Well, there it is.

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

Its lose lose for the DemonRATS... if they only vote to censure ( ... the left wing base will go nuts ... if they vote to impeach there will be the unmasking of the full corruption of the Dem party.....but who is their radical base going to vote for if they censure...the Republicans?...LOLOLOL)

I like our chances ...
 
Not sure of everything that will come to pass, but you better believe the Senate will drag some Democrats into this that don't want to be outed. The Democrats are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.
Who was that and how do their testimonies differ from the transcript that was approved of by several INTEL AGENCIES before it was released....You mean liars like I could hear Trump on a non secure cellphone that was on normal speaker and not speaker phone?....can you hear someone on a cellphone normal speaker when 5 foot away, and the guys head and ear COVER the speaker....you also believe in unicorns?
 
If the senate rules don't allow hearsay evidence, the democrat's case boils down to what was overheard via a cell phone call in an outdoor restaurant, but he only heard the first minute or two?? Not believable. If so, everyone else would have heard it too, not just one of the 4 guys.
Even then there is no crime proven. No one is buying bribery, extortion, obstruction, or any of the other bullshit the democrats are spewing. Just ask law professors Dershowitz and Turley.

Just think of the cool witness list the senate defense team could call. Schiff, Ciaramella(WB), Chalupa, Brennan, Clapper, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, the Ohrs, During an election year, remind voters how crooked democrats are.
 
Last edited:
Actually at the Trial, The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be in charge. That will create the need of all Senate parties to come to grips with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Importantly, there are the Important Exceptions to the Hearsay rules. Anyone can see that everything already in testimony is also admissible as evidence. The House Judiciary Committee is likely to firm up the details.

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Usury Economics, (Deut 23:19-20), was alleged to be invented in the sky, promoted by the allegedly exiled Prince of the Royal House of Egypt. That is easily interpreted from Acts: 7. Moses can be regarded a conspiratorial agent of the Royal House of Egypt, corralling the gullible tribes of Sinae to become a source of agents of Subjugation. (Many so regard that. . .more or less. . .The origins of Anti-Semitism, leading to The Holocaust!)
 
Actually at the Trial, The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be in charge. That will create the need of all Senate parties to come to grips with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Importantly, there are the Important Exceptions to the Hearsay rules. Anyone can see that everything already in testimony is also admissible as evidence. The House Judiciary Committee is likely to firm up the details.

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Usury Economics, (Deut 23:19-20), was alleged to be invented in the sky, promoted by the allegedly exiled Prince of the Royal House of Egypt. That is easily interpreted from Acts: 7. Moses can be regarded a conspiratorial agent of the Royal House of Egypt, corralling the gullible tribes of Sinae to become a source of agents of Subjugation. (Many so regard that. . .more or less. . .The origins of Anti-Semitism, leading to The Holocaust!)

I disagree that everything in testimony is admissible, the House process was improper. The senate can make rules like the House did, Roberts presides.
The senate doesn't need any exceptions, just call the WB to the stand and ask him what he saw or heard.
Ask him were you coached by the democrats and Mr. Schiff?
Then repeat that with all the democrat's bullshit witnesses, including documented inconsistencies
case dismissed.
 
"Admissible" is already covered in the Senate Impeachment rules. It all goes to the Presiding Officer, in the matter of a President: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
__________________________
All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.
______________________

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Rules of Usury Economics mainly assure a depletion of paying customers in any market place--in the absence of market place interventions bolstering purchasing power!)
 
"Admissible" is already covered in the Senate Impeachment rules. It all goes to the Presiding Officer, in the matter of a President: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
__________________________
All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.
______________________

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Rules of Usury Economics mainly assure a depletion of paying customers in any market place--in the absence of market place interventions bolstering purchasing power!)
OK, so Roberts didn't admit the hearsay yet. I hope he throws it out. You can't convict someone of "high crimes" on hearsay bullshit.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.
Meanwhile in Idaho...
77124870_2887702397916048_8796545866379821056_n.jpg
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.
 
Hell of a conspiracy theory you have going there.
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.
 
The rules of Due Process are deeply rooted in the Common Law, mentioned in US Constitution. There are no other rules on which to rely, so again they include the exemptions to the Hearsay Rule. As a practical matter, if there are challenges to to the Senate Trial proceedings, they will revert to the Courts of the USA--not of Russia or Ukraine, like the Republicans all contend is better than USA!

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Usury Economics, extolled at Universities Worldwide: Is accepted as law by parents and nations alike!)
 
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.

There's nothing to defend. There isn't even a reason to step into that carnival to give it any dignity.
 
In what scenario is Hunter Biden (who doesn’t work in government) relevant to this impeachment ?
 
And yours is .....

266685_image.jpg
I guess you haven't been watching the hearings. Several firsthand witnesses have testified this week.

I asked last week what talking point you tards would come up with once the first hand witnesses testified.

I guess we know now. You would just repeat the same old horseshit about there being no firsthand witnesses.


There was no substance just emotion and speculation. Come back when you have some real evidence not emotional goo.

A pity it isn't hearsay but supported by first hand testimony.

That wasn't evidence. That was basic opinion. They have no evidence because trump broke no laws.

That remains to be seen - not that it matters because he could commit murder in broad daylight and you'd cover up for him.

In the meantime...no...not all opinion. Not by a long shot. Even the Republicans aren't defending what he DID - they're saying yes, it's bad but it's not impeachable.
Only if he killed a progressive lying bitch....sound familiar?.....and WHAT DID YOUR TALKING POINTS LIE ABOUT ...HE HELD UP AID THAT iTHE SURRENDER MONKEY NEVER SENT EVEN WHEN THE RUSSIANS ATTACKED UKRAINE....THAT
AID?.... It really makes me wonder just how mentally Ill the left in this country is!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top