House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[easyt65]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

 

[colfax_m]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The whistleblower followed all rules. Hearsay has nothing to do with it.

The DoJ works for Trump. Are you saying that you’re cool with Trump investigating himself and declaring himself innocent? Don’t be a sucker.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, **** it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

 

[Maxdeath]

If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....

So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.

So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

No I want a Nazi style third Riech style trial like they had in the house. Yes a real shit show.

 

[The Original Tree]

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case?

If you don’t know by now, I doubt anything I can do will change that.

Obviously, Trumpette's are increasingly annoyed as more and more evidence corroborates the fact that Trump directed a scheme to extort Ukraine..................and got caught.

Extort? You don't know what that word means, do you? Even the Democraps abandoned that albatross before impeachment proceedings ever began because it was a non-starter. Even they know that would fly like a lead balloon.

You're delusional. The accusation is included in Article I.

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested4 —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. 5

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

Accusations over Non Crimes, which cannot be found in US Code, are Illegitimate.

The Enemies of America and The Democrats that are colluding with The Workers of Iniquity will not Prevail.

The Sin of Slander is punishable by Hell.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The whistleblower followed all rules. Hearsay has nothing to do with it.

The DoJ works for Trump. Are you saying that you’re cool with Trump investigating himself and declaring himself innocent? Don’t be a sucker.

The evidence was not even provided by the whistle blower, but by an unknown party who "told" them about the phone call. You don't get any more "hearsay" than that!

 

[The Original Tree]

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.

Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....

So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.

So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

No I want a Nazi style third Riech style trial like they had in the house. Yes a real shit show.

No difference between Hillary and Hitler.

Both refused to accept the results of an election and both sought to remove their country's duly elected president afterwards.

 

[SmokeALib]

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case?

If you don’t know by now, I doubt anything I can do will change that.

Obviously, Trumpette's are increasingly annoyed as more and more evidence corroborates the fact that Trump directed a scheme to extort Ukraine..................and got caught.

Extort? You don't know what that word means, do you? Even the Democraps abandoned that albatross before impeachment proceedings ever began because it was a non-starter. Even they know that would fly like a lead balloon.

You're delusional. The accusation is included in Article I.

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested4 —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. 5

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

No crime, dingus.

 

[colfax_m]

Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, **** it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

You found the rules for hearsay! Good. Now you can admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[The Original Tree]

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case?

If you don’t know by now, I doubt anything I can do will change that.

Obviously, Trumpette's are increasingly annoyed as more and more evidence corroborates the fact that Trump directed a scheme to extort Ukraine..................and got caught.

Extort? You don't know what that word means, do you? Even the Democraps abandoned that albatross before impeachment proceedings ever began because it was a non-starter. Even they know that would fly like a lead balloon.

You're delusional. The accusation is included in Article I.

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested4 —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. 5

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

 

[berg80]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

 

[j-mac]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

 

[colfax_m]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, **** it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

You found the rules for hearsay! Good. Now you can admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You didn't read my post, or you did and realized you fucked up and backed yourself into a corner.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

No Democrap member of Congress could. give it your best shot.

 

[colfax_m]

Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, **** it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

You found the rules for hearsay! Good. Now you can admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You didn't read my post, or you did and realized you fucked up and backed yourself into a corner.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

No Democrap member of Congress could. give it your best shot.

Which rule applies to what specifically?

Good lord man. A bit ago you were claiming exemptions to hearsay didn’t exist. I feel bad for the students that you taught because you lack understanding of government.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

There is no CIA counsel dumbass! Get your facts straight before running off at the mouth, shit for brains!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, **** it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

You found the rules for hearsay! Good. Now you can admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You didn't read my post, or you did and realized you fucked up and backed yourself into a corner.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

No Democrap member of Congress could. give it your best shot.

Which rule applies to what specifically?

Good lord man. A bit ago you were claiming exemptions to hearsay didn’t exist. I feel bad for the students that you taught because you lack understanding of government.

None of those testimony met any exceptions shit for brain. That pain you used to block yourself into a corner doesn't dry very fast until you admit you fucked up. All you are doing now is deflecting and stalling for time.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.
(Third time is the charm?)

Good luck! You and Berg could combine your brain power and have at least two functioning brain cells to come up with an answer. Thank God for your brain stems, or both would have to hold your breath while thinking.

 

[colfax_m]

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

You found the rules for hearsay! Good. Now you can admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You didn't read my post, or you did and realized you fucked up and backed yourself into a corner.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

No Democrap member of Congress could. give it your best shot.

Which rule applies to what specifically?

Good lord man. A bit ago you were claiming exemptions to hearsay didn’t exist. I feel bad for the students that you taught because you lack understanding of government.

None of those testimony met any exceptions shit for brain. That pain you used to block yourself into a corner doesn't dry very fast until you admit you fucked up. All you are doing now is deflecting and stalling for time.

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.
(Third time is the charm?)

Good luck! You and Berg could combine your brain power and have at least two functioning brain cells to come up with an answer. Thank God for your brain stems, or both would have to hold your breath while thinking.

Applies to what, precisely? I don’t know what you’re babbling about.

 

[colfax_m]

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

There is no CIA counsel dumbass! Get your facts straight before running off at the mouth, shit for brains!

Yes there is. God your a dumb ass.

General Counsel — Central Intelligence Agency

 

[Dragonlady]

The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

The House impeached Trump on the "evidence" it had and passed two Articles:

Article-2 should be dismissed immediately because the USSC voided it when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. Trump does in-fact have the right to legal remedies and that is NOT "obstruction of the House". There is no such thing. That charge is moronic and an "Abuse of Power" by the House.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Article-1 can be litigated in trial, but all of the "hearsay" evidence needs to be thrown out per senate rules of evidence. So Article-1 can't be proven and Trump will be acquitted.

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

Executive privilege is decided by the courts. Once again you wave your GED at us!

Executive privilege is beig falsely claimed by the Trump Administration for everything he does. Every "executive privilege" case that has gone to court, Trump has lost. Trump is using the courts in the same way he did when he was in business - to stall making any payments whatsoever, to beat down the opposition, and drag it out until the other side gives up, and does what he wants.

Donald Trump uses the courts as part of his strategy to bully and financially destroy those who challenge him. Just as in business, he's losing all of his cases, but the point isn't to win, it's to distract and destroy the other side.