Schiff BUSTEd For Producing False Evidence / Lying Again To Push Impeachment / False Narrative

[colfax_m]

1. So you’re not telling the whole story which gives you an incomplete picture.

2. Zelensky was not giving testimony. He was making a statement outside of court. That’s the legal definition of hearsay.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

Nope. Schifferbrains wouldn't call him because he actually has first hand knowledge and destroys Adumb's lying narrative.

next?

Are you actually suggesting Schiff subpoena the head of state of another nation?

don’t be an idiot. We all know that is a dumb idea.

 

[jc456]

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Jim

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Can you provide me a source to where Jim Jordan said this about Clinton?

After you show me the DOJ policy on a president

 

[colfax_m]

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Jim

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Can you provide me a source to where Jim Jordan said this about Clinton?

After you show me the DOJ policy on a president

What policy are you talking about?

 

[Nostra]

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

Nope. Schifferbrains wouldn't call him because he actually has first hand knowledge and destroys Adumb's lying narrative.

next?

Are you actually suggesting Schiff subpoena the head of state of another nation?

don’t be an idiot. We all know that is a dumb idea.

Where did I say that, liar?

Keep digging.

 

[jc456]

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Jim

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Can you provide me a source to where Jim Jordan said this about Clinton?

After you show me the DOJ policy on a president

What policy are you talking about?

The one you were discussing here. Too lazy to go read it huh? Call me surprised

 

[Nostra]

Colfax is whining and crying that the on the record statements of Pres. Zelensky about what actually happened on the phone call can't be considered because he claims it is "hearsay".

Meanwhile, the ENTIRE Schitt Show 'case' relies on nothing but hearsay and people who were walking down the hall and overheard someone on the phone.

CLASSIC!

 

[bripat9643]

1. So?

2. Direct testimony. Hearsay is what impeachment is based on.

3. You lose again.

1. So you’re not telling the whole story which gives you an incomplete picture.

2. Zelensky was not giving testimony. He was making a statement outside of court. That’s the legal definition of hearsay.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

 

[Meister]

Arresting the political opposition. How Stalinist of you.

What's the matter? Offended at the thought of Democrats repeatedly caught engaging in Sedition and attempting to present false manufactured information as 'evidence' being held accountable?

How 'Snowflake' / 'Democrat' of you...

You’re the only losing your mind over nothing.

Seriously though, you guys are acting like a bunch of authoritarian, corrupt thugs but demanding the arrest of political opposition for political purposes.

Oh, the irony of your words.

 

[Uncensored2008]

SORRY, WRONG NUMBER
Rudy phone log released by Schiff wrongly claims calls to budget office amid Ukraine aid holdup: report

Enough is enough - this proven Russian-born arms dealer / Burisma-compromised, self-admitted classified leaking, seditious piece of $hit needs to be walked out of his office in handcuffs RIGHT NOW!

For 2 years this coup-obsessed lying POS intentionally falsely claimed to have personal evidence of crimes committed by the President...which was exposed as a LIE intended to incite insurrection and a call to remove the President of the United States from office without just cause...based on his LIES! That's called - SEDITION!

The traitor then recently attempted to submit a fictional account of the phone call between the President and the Ukraine PM - which he wrote himself - as 'evidence' of a non-existent crime. After it was quickly exposed as a Lie (Giving false testimony under oath before Congress, Sedition...), he and the MSM attempted to cover his ass by claiming it was a 'parody' meant as humor.

Now THIS $HIT!

The criminal Schiff has ZERO Credibility any more. This latest proven case of Lying / Sedition only undermines his already-failed recent Impeachment / Coup circus during which he was not able to prove a crime was committed, provide evidence of a crime committed by Trump, and could not offer up 1 REAL witness, as no one who testified ever 'witnessed' anything personally!

This is further - unnecessary - evidence that Schiff is a committed enemy of this state who continued to engage in Sedition, giving false testimony, and doing whatever he has to do in an attempt to remove the President from office.

His place is not within the walls of the House of Representatives. he should be sitting in a cell in GITMO!


Doubts raised after Schiff claims phone records prove Giuliani’s White House budget office calls

And how many of the little Goebbels have published this? NY Times? CNN, NBC? Nah, they're all trying to bury it. If only we had a free press in this nation.

 

[colfax_m]

1. So you’re not telling the whole story which gives you an incomplete picture.

2. Zelensky was not giving testimony. He was making a statement outside of court. That’s the legal definition of hearsay.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

 

[colfax_m]

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

Not everything but some of it. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be admitted as evidence.

Now, are you enough of an adult to admit you were wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

Not everything but some of it. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be admitted as evidence.

Now, are you enough of an adult to admit you were wrong?

Virtually everything, and what wasn't hearsay was an obvious lie.

 

[colfax_m]

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

Not everything but some of it. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be admitted as evidence.

Now, are you enough of an adult to admit you were wrong?

Virtually everything, and what wasn't hearsay was an obvious lie.

Name one of the "obvious lies" please.

 

[bripat9643]

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

Not everything but some of it. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be admitted as evidence.

Now, are you enough of an adult to admit you were wrong?

Virtually everything, and what wasn't hearsay was an obvious lie.

Name one of the "obvious lies" please.

Vindman claiming the transcript was editied.

 

[Care4all]

Do you believe Viktor Shokin?

Sure, why not? He lost his job. I know he knows what he was doing. If you have doubts, investigate it

Because Shokin is only spinning this story of Biden and Burisma in the last few months. That doesn’t strike you as awfully convenient?

How do you know?

Because Shokin never made the complaint at the time he was fired, because the asst prosecutor General at the time asked about Burisma said that the Burisma investigation was dormant for over a year at the time Shokin was fired, because shocking is working with criminals to push this phony allegation, because the whole made up scandal and propaganda was CREATED by The Russians and Ukrainian Russians.... because firing Shokin, only meant Burisma would be investigated by the replacement prosecutor so firing him did not help Burisma...... there's a lot of reasons, you just need to be able to read......

You have a transcript of the dude’s firing?

Ohhhkay Francis

March 2016


Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance
By Andrew E. Kramer

• March 29, 2016

MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption.

But in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country’s history.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

With this pressure mounting, Parliament on Tuesday voted by a comfortable margin to remove Mr. Shokin.

In the final hours before Parliament voted him out, Mr. Shokin had fired his reform-minded deputy prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, with whom he had been feuding. It was not immediately clear whether that firing would remain in force.

Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corruption.Credit...Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
With the prosecutor’s office in turmoil throughout Ukraine on Tuesday, one of Mr. Sakvarelidze’s appointees in the Odessa regional office was arrested by military prosecutors, assumed to be loyal to Mr. Shokin.

Foreign donors had complained about rot in the prosecutor’s office, not least because much of the money suspected of being stolen was theirs.

In one high-profile example, known in Ukraine as the case of the “diamond prosecutors,” troves of diamonds, cash and other valuables were found in the homes of two of Mr. Shokin’s subordinates, suggesting that they had been taking bribes.

But the case became bogged down, with no reasons given. When a department in Mr. Shokin’s office tried to bring it to trial, the prosecutors were fired or resigned. The perpetrators seemed destined to get off with claims that the stones were not worth very much.

For many Ukrainians, the case encapsulated a failure to follow through on the sweeping promises made during the heady days of the revolution to root out corruption and establish a modern, transparent state. Instead, there has seemed to be a return to business-as-usual horse-trading and compromise among the tightly knit Ukrainian oligarchic and business elite.

Since his appointment a year ago, Mr. Shokin had been criticized for not prosecuting officials, businessmen and members of Parliament for their roles in corrupt schemes during the government of former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. He also did not press cases for sniping by the police and opposition activists during the street protests in 2014 that killed more than 100 people and wounded about 1,000.

To a certain extent, analysts say, accommodations of this sort are necessary if the government is to get anything done in Parliament, because supporters of the Yanukovych government remain a political force in Ukraine, coalesced around the Opposition Bloc party. It represents Russian-speaking southeastern areas of Ukraine and the former elite, whose support in Parliament President Petro O. Poroshenko needs to push through reforms and to try to implement a peace accord with Russia.

“There are prices the new political establishment has to pay,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kiev School of Economics, said in an interview. “How do they pay? They guarantee some security for their opponents’ business interests.”

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

 

[jc456]

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

"Hearsay" doesn't mean it's "out of court," dumbass. Hearsay is not allowed in a court proceeding, period.

You just read the definition, and you still don't get it.

Alright child. I've been patient enough with you but you're wearing on my last nerve. Sit down and listen while I educate you.

The federal courts have rules of evidence. They wrote them down. If you're not as illiterate as you appear to be, you can read them for yourself.

Here's a link: Rule 801- Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

I conveniently linked to the relevant chapter that talks about hearsay. First few lines define hearsay as such:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Since Zelinsky is not making his statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing, that makes it hearsay.

Now, as for your last idiotic statement, borne out of complete ignorance of the matter, hearsay can be admitted into court if it falls under exemptions. Those exemptions are listed out in the sections 803 through 807.

Again, these are the official rules by which federal courts operate. No refrain fro calling people dumbass when you've just exposed your complete ignorance of the subject.

"(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;"

That means the person testifying didn't make the statement in court, it means he says someone else made the statement outside of court. In other words, everything the Dim witnesses testified to.

Not everything but some of it. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be admitted as evidence.

Now, are you enough of an adult to admit you were wrong?

None of it is evidence, it’s hearsay period. Opinions In the US courts and any proceedings

 

[jc456]

Sure, why not? He lost his job. I know he knows what he was doing. If you have doubts, investigate it

Because Shokin is only spinning this story of Biden and Burisma in the last few months. That doesn’t strike you as awfully convenient?

How do you know?

Because Shokin never made the complaint at the time he was fired, because the asst prosecutor General at the time asked about Burisma said that the Burisma investigation was dormant for over a year at the time Shokin was fired, because shocking is working with criminals to push this phony allegation, because the whole made up scandal and propaganda was CREATED by The Russians and Ukrainian Russians.... because firing Shokin, only meant Burisma would be investigated by the replacement prosecutor so firing him did not help Burisma...... there's a lot of reasons, you just need to be able to read......

You have a transcript of the dude’s firing?

Ohhhkay Francis

March 2016


Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance
By Andrew E. Kramer

• March 29, 2016

MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption.

But in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country’s history.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

With this pressure mounting, Parliament on Tuesday voted by a comfortable margin to remove Mr. Shokin.

In the final hours before Parliament voted him out, Mr. Shokin had fired his reform-minded deputy prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, with whom he had been feuding. It was not immediately clear whether that firing would remain in force.

Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corruption.Credit...Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
With the prosecutor’s office in turmoil throughout Ukraine on Tuesday, one of Mr. Sakvarelidze’s appointees in the Odessa regional office was arrested by military prosecutors, assumed to be loyal to Mr. Shokin.

Foreign donors had complained about rot in the prosecutor’s office, not least because much of the money suspected of being stolen was theirs.

In one high-profile example, known in Ukraine as the case of the “diamond prosecutors,” troves of diamonds, cash and other valuables were found in the homes of two of Mr. Shokin’s subordinates, suggesting that they had been taking bribes.

But the case became bogged down, with no reasons given. When a department in Mr. Shokin’s office tried to bring it to trial, the prosecutors were fired or resigned. The perpetrators seemed destined to get off with claims that the stones were not worth very much.

For many Ukrainians, the case encapsulated a failure to follow through on the sweeping promises made during the heady days of the revolution to root out corruption and establish a modern, transparent state. Instead, there has seemed to be a return to business-as-usual horse-trading and compromise among the tightly knit Ukrainian oligarchic and business elite.

Since his appointment a year ago, Mr. Shokin had been criticized for not prosecuting officials, businessmen and members of Parliament for their roles in corrupt schemes during the government of former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. He also did not press cases for sniping by the police and opposition activists during the street protests in 2014 that killed more than 100 people and wounded about 1,000.

To a certain extent, analysts say, accommodations of this sort are necessary if the government is to get anything done in Parliament, because supporters of the Yanukovych government remain a political force in Ukraine, coalesced around the Opposition Bloc party. It represents Russian-speaking southeastern areas of Ukraine and the former elite, whose support in Parliament President Petro O. Poroshenko needs to push through reforms and to try to implement a peace accord with Russia.

“There are prices the new political establishment has to pay,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kiev School of Economics, said in an interview. “How do they pay? They guarantee some security for their opponents’ business interests.”

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

And? He still was looking into Burisma by his words. Show me other words from him saying different

 

[easyt65]

Mueller clearly found evidence of obstruction in Trump’s effort to dismiss the prosecutor investigating him.

You are such a LYING POS...as big as Schiff and DragonLady.

IF Mueller had presented Evidence of undeniable Obstruction Trump would have been IMPEACHED already...and Schiff would not have just been busted for trying to present fake idence again, engaging in Sedition AGAIN.

4 years - no crime, no e evidence of crime, no witnesses.

 

[Care4all]

Because Shokin is only spinning this story of Biden and Burisma in the last few months. That doesn’t strike you as awfully convenient?

How do you know?

Because Shokin never made the complaint at the time he was fired, because the asst prosecutor General at the time asked about Burisma said that the Burisma investigation was dormant for over a year at the time Shokin was fired, because shocking is working with criminals to push this phony allegation, because the whole made up scandal and propaganda was CREATED by The Russians and Ukrainian Russians.... because firing Shokin, only meant Burisma would be investigated by the replacement prosecutor so firing him did not help Burisma...... there's a lot of reasons, you just need to be able to read......

You have a transcript of the dude’s firing?

Ohhhkay Francis

March 2016


Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance
By Andrew E. Kramer

• March 29, 2016

MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption.

But in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country’s history.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

With this pressure mounting, Parliament on Tuesday voted by a comfortable margin to remove Mr. Shokin.

In the final hours before Parliament voted him out, Mr. Shokin had fired his reform-minded deputy prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, with whom he had been feuding. It was not immediately clear whether that firing would remain in force.

Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corruption.Credit...Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
With the prosecutor’s office in turmoil throughout Ukraine on Tuesday, one of Mr. Sakvarelidze’s appointees in the Odessa regional office was arrested by military prosecutors, assumed to be loyal to Mr. Shokin.

Foreign donors had complained about rot in the prosecutor’s office, not least because much of the money suspected of being stolen was theirs.

In one high-profile example, known in Ukraine as the case of the “diamond prosecutors,” troves of diamonds, cash and other valuables were found in the homes of two of Mr. Shokin’s subordinates, suggesting that they had been taking bribes.

But the case became bogged down, with no reasons given. When a department in Mr. Shokin’s office tried to bring it to trial, the prosecutors were fired or resigned. The perpetrators seemed destined to get off with claims that the stones were not worth very much.

For many Ukrainians, the case encapsulated a failure to follow through on the sweeping promises made during the heady days of the revolution to root out corruption and establish a modern, transparent state. Instead, there has seemed to be a return to business-as-usual horse-trading and compromise among the tightly knit Ukrainian oligarchic and business elite.

Since his appointment a year ago, Mr. Shokin had been criticized for not prosecuting officials, businessmen and members of Parliament for their roles in corrupt schemes during the government of former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. He also did not press cases for sniping by the police and opposition activists during the street protests in 2014 that killed more than 100 people and wounded about 1,000.

To a certain extent, analysts say, accommodations of this sort are necessary if the government is to get anything done in Parliament, because supporters of the Yanukovych government remain a political force in Ukraine, coalesced around the Opposition Bloc party. It represents Russian-speaking southeastern areas of Ukraine and the former elite, whose support in Parliament President Petro O. Poroshenko needs to push through reforms and to try to implement a peace accord with Russia.

“There are prices the new political establishment has to pay,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kiev School of Economics, said in an interview. “How do they pay? They guarantee some security for their opponents’ business interests.”

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

And? He still was looking into Burisma by his words. Show me other words from him saying different

he's trying to rewrite history, in his own favor...

I'll look for the link that shows he was NOT investigating Burisma/owner, and was dormant at the time...
brb