Trump impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

[colfax_m]

Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?

I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead

Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?

You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.

It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.

If you actually watched the hearing Schiff broke many House rules.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
1. Schiff denied the minority their day to call witnesses
2. Held secret meetings w/o Republicans
3. Spyied on Republicans getting phone records
4. etc.

1. The committee as a whole determines who is a relevant witness. All relevant witnesses were allowed to be called.
2. Parties hole meetings among their members all the time. Republicans do this all the time.
3. They got phone records of people being investigated. Not their problem that Republicans enjoy colluding with people now under criminal indictment
4. Indeed.

 

[colfax_m]

Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?

Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

You are really reaching this morning. You ran out of ammo a long time ago.

Biden told Poroshenko to fire Shokin because of Hunter. Porshenko obeyed Biden and did just that. Do you know what second hand information is????

Yes. Second hand information is when you say that someone told you that someone told them something. That’s exactly what you’re claiming happened here.

So why is that permissible all of a sudden?

 

[colfax_m]

Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?

Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

Wait, what? Now hearsay is a bad thing?

It can be. It can also be relevant. It depends on the circumstances.

All I’m trying to do is point out hypocrisy.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure. That’s why the administration was so intent on keeping this hush hush.

Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......

No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.

Yes, he did. Democrats will back stab the country to exercise their hated. He didn't want any commie waltzing in to listen to the conversation so they could run to their buddies in the MSM. Democrats are like children. You have to keep everything out of their reach. They are never to be trusted.

When the accusation was made, Trump released the transcript. Now thanks to the commies, not only will this impeachment war take place with every opposing party leadership, but they also ruined the privacy between a President and foreign leaders for all of time.

The commies don't care if they destroy this country. It's their intent.

Exactly. They knew the conversation was a disaster and wanted to hide it. Everyone knew it. Even Bolton. Are you claiming Bolton is a commie?

Bolton has nothing to do with it. Like I said, the Democrats would sell their soul to the devil for power. You keep anything and everything away from them as much as possible.

Bolton was the NSA advisor and knew what was going on. He knew it was bad. You’re claiming it’s just the commies that had a problem with it.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?

Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a painting you’re referring to. Not a picture.

Good lord.

A painting takes longer to sit for. Even creepier.
He’s in a dress. Do you wear a dress. Probably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is going to blow your mind, but paintings don’t require people to sit for them.

Is there something wrong with wearing a dress?

Not if you’re a woman. Your mind will really be tortured [emoji37] when Don is vindicated. More so, when he wins a second term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

 

[colfax_m]

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?

Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a painting you’re referring to. Not a picture.

Good lord.

A painting takes longer to sit for. Even creepier.
He’s in a dress. Do you wear a dress. Probably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is going to blow your mind, but paintings don’t require people to sit for them.

Is there something wrong with wearing a dress?

Not if you’re a woman. Your mind will really be tortured [emoji37] when Don is vindicated. More so, when he wins a second term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then what do you have to say about this “highly respected lawyer”?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hush hush? One of the first things Trump did was release the transcript of the phone call. He didn't have to do that. But he knew what he said was innocent, so he released them to the commies and the public. Hush hush is on the Democrat side. Not telling us who leaked the information to the whistleblower, not telling us who the whistleblower is, no having them testify. Conducting private inquiries in the basement of the White House not available to the public......

No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.

Yes, he did. Democrats will back stab the country to exercise their hated. He didn't want any commie waltzing in to listen to the conversation so they could run to their buddies in the MSM. Democrats are like children. You have to keep everything out of their reach. They are never to be trusted.

When the accusation was made, Trump released the transcript. Now thanks to the commies, not only will this impeachment war take place with every opposing party leadership, but they also ruined the privacy between a President and foreign leaders for all of time.

The commies don't care if they destroy this country. It's their intent.

Exactly. They knew the conversation was a disaster and wanted to hide it. Everyone knew it. Even Bolton. Are you claiming Bolton is a commie?

Bolton has nothing to do with it. Like I said, the Democrats would sell their soul to the devil for power. You keep anything and everything away from them as much as possible.

Bolton was the NSA advisor and knew what was going on. He knew it was bad. You’re claiming it’s just the commies that had a problem with it.

What some have said is that Trump should have worded it better because you can't trust Democrats and the stories they will makeup about it, and as we found out, it's absolutely true. You are in this conversation, so you should understand what is taking place here instead of asking questions you should already have the answers to. So here, watch the Shokin video (it's only a couple of minutes long) and perhaps you won't need to ask some of the questions you are asking:

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

 

[Nostra]

Comments like that are what amazes me about how effective brainwashing is.

It wasn’t brainwashing.....it was a blowjob

Find me within the articles of impeachment where it charges Clinton with getting a BJ. Your puppet masters told you that, and you echo their lies. The crime was lying in front of a federal grand jury. He violated his presidential oath of office.

He lied about getting a blow job dumb ass,

Great. Now find me where in the articles of impeachment he got charged with that. He got charged for lying to a federal grand jury which is perjury; a felony.

So what do you think he lied about? You got a link to show he lied about something other than a blow job?

The reason he committed perjury doesn't matter.

Perjury is a crime
Obstruction of justice is a crime
Suborning perjury is a crime.

Those were the charges against Clinton.

Get a clue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

You are really reaching this morning. You ran out of ammo a long time ago.

Biden told Poroshenko to fire Shokin because of Hunter. Porshenko obeyed Biden and did just that. Do you know what second hand information is????

Yes. Second hand information is when you say that someone told you that someone told them something. That’s exactly what you’re claiming happened here.

So why is that permissible all of a sudden?

Biden couldn't fire Shokin himself. He has no authority in that country. You are really reaching this morning. Poroshanko fired Shokin himself, not had somebody else do it and explain why.

 

[Nostra]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Bullshit. Slick was on the Lolita Express numerous times, and Epstein's sex slave puts Slick on Rape Island at least once.

Oops!

 

[kyzr]

I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead

Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?

You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.

It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.

If you actually watched the hearing Schiff broke many House rules.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
1. Schiff denied the minority their day to call witnesses
2. Held secret meetings w/o Republicans
3. Spyied on Republicans getting phone records
4. etc.

1. The committee as a whole determines who is a relevant witness. All relevant witnesses were allowed to be called.
2. Parties hole meetings among their members all the time. Republicans do this all the time.
3. They got phone records of people being investigated. Not their problem that Republicans enjoy colluding with people now under criminal indictment
4. Indeed.

By "House Rule" the minority should get one day to call witnesses. Schiff didn't allow the minority their witnesses, "Relevance" isn't the issue, abuse of power is.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
Point being that the democrats have no room to whine about "fairness" regarding "hearsay" after their kangaroo court in the House.

 

[Thinker101]

Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

Wait, what? Now hearsay is a bad thing?

It can be. It can also be relevant. It depends on the circumstances.

All I’m trying to do is point out hypocrisy.

Yep, I get your point. If it suits the Democrat agenda hearsay is acceptable, if it doesn't suit the Democrat agenda it's bad. Dang, that sure sounds like hypocrisy.

 

[colfax_m]

No. The first thing Trump did was put the transcript in a highly protected server intended to be used to keep the nations most sensitive secrets from getting out.

Yes, he did. Democrats will back stab the country to exercise their hated. He didn't want any commie waltzing in to listen to the conversation so they could run to their buddies in the MSM. Democrats are like children. You have to keep everything out of their reach. They are never to be trusted.

When the accusation was made, Trump released the transcript. Now thanks to the commies, not only will this impeachment war take place with every opposing party leadership, but they also ruined the privacy between a President and foreign leaders for all of time.

The commies don't care if they destroy this country. It's their intent.

Exactly. They knew the conversation was a disaster and wanted to hide it. Everyone knew it. Even Bolton. Are you claiming Bolton is a commie?

Bolton has nothing to do with it. Like I said, the Democrats would sell their soul to the devil for power. You keep anything and everything away from them as much as possible.

Bolton was the NSA advisor and knew what was going on. He knew it was bad. You’re claiming it’s just the commies that had a problem with it.

What some have said is that Trump should have worded it better because you can't trust Democrats and the stories they will makeup about it, and as we found out, it's absolutely true. You are in this conversation, so you should understand what is taking place here instead of asking questions you should already have the answers to. So here, watch the Shokin video (it's only a couple of minutes long) and perhaps you won't need to ask some of the questions you are asking:

Viktor Shokin: Biden outraged we seized Burisma assets | One America News Network

Bolton called it a drug deal. Not a poorly worded statement.

It’s a nice interview but Shokin’s entire case rests on second hand information and hearsay.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?

You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.

It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.

If you actually watched the hearing Schiff broke many House rules.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
1. Schiff denied the minority their day to call witnesses
2. Held secret meetings w/o Republicans
3. Spyied on Republicans getting phone records
4. etc.

1. The committee as a whole determines who is a relevant witness. All relevant witnesses were allowed to be called.
2. Parties hole meetings among their members all the time. Republicans do this all the time.
3. They got phone records of people being investigated. Not their problem that Republicans enjoy colluding with people now under criminal indictment
4. Indeed.

By "House Rule" the minority should get one day to call witnesses. Schiff didn't allow the minority their witnesses, "Relevance" isn't the issue, abuse of power is.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
Point being that the democrats have no room to whine about "fairness" regarding "hearsay" after their kangaroo court in the House.

Relevance has everything to do with it. The witnesses they call have to be relevant to the inquiry. That’s a matter that is left to the committee as a whole. See the final paragraphs of this report from the CRS.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

 

[colfax_m]

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

Wait, what? Now hearsay is a bad thing?

It can be. It can also be relevant. It depends on the circumstances.

All I’m trying to do is point out hypocrisy.

Yep, I get your point. If it suits the Democrat agenda hearsay is acceptable, if it doesn't suit the Democrat agenda it's bad. Dang, that sure sounds like hypocrisy.

Hearsay may be permissible. It may not. Shokin’s hearsay may be permissible but his testimony would be very weak evidence given his credibility issues.

 

[colfax_m]

First, you’re now relying entirely on hearsay. Second, Poroshenko is the one reading Biden’s mind.

So basically everything you complain about with respect to the case against Trump is okay when it’s the case against Biden.

You can't get much more of a stretch than that. Shokin was told directly when he was fired, that it was because of his refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma. He didn't guess it, he didn't get that second or third hand. It was the reason he was fired.

If Poroshenko fired him for “refusal to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma”, then you have a problem with Poroshenko, not Biden.

If you are claiming Biden told Poroshenko that Shokin needs to get off the back of Hunter and Burisma, then that definitely makes it second hand information and therefore hearsay.

So which is it?

You are really reaching this morning. You ran out of ammo a long time ago.

Biden told Poroshenko to fire Shokin because of Hunter. Porshenko obeyed Biden and did just that. Do you know what second hand information is????

Yes. Second hand information is when you say that someone told you that someone told them something. That’s exactly what you’re claiming happened here.

So why is that permissible all of a sudden?

Biden couldn't fire Shokin himself. He has no authority in that country. You are really reaching this morning. Poroshanko fired Shokin himself, not had somebody else do it and explain why.

I understand.

I just want you to admit that you’re relying on hearsay and second hand information.

 

[playtime]

ken starr?



alan dershowitz?

pam bondi?

 

[kyzr]

You think that the American people didn't notice Schiff's illegal kangaroo court in the House?
The American people will have no problem excluding hearsay evidence.

It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.

If you actually watched the hearing Schiff broke many House rules.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
1. Schiff denied the minority their day to call witnesses
2. Held secret meetings w/o Republicans
3. Spyied on Republicans getting phone records
4. etc.

1. The committee as a whole determines who is a relevant witness. All relevant witnesses were allowed to be called.
2. Parties hole meetings among their members all the time. Republicans do this all the time.
3. They got phone records of people being investigated. Not their problem that Republicans enjoy colluding with people now under criminal indictment
4. Indeed.

By "House Rule" the minority should get one day to call witnesses. Schiff didn't allow the minority their witnesses, "Relevance" isn't the issue, abuse of power is.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
Point being that the democrats have no room to whine about "fairness" regarding "hearsay" after their kangaroo court in the House.

Relevance has everything to do with it. The witnesses they call have to be relevant to the inquiry. That’s a matter that is left to the committee as a whole. See the final paragraphs of this report from the CRS.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

Thanks for that crsreport, that explains the purported basis for no minority witnesses, but as you can see below, the minority witnesses are VERY relevant
GOP wants Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify at impeachment hearing
Who Republicans want to testify:

• Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings
• Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings
• Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer
• David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
• Tim Morrison, former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council
• Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS
• Kurt Volker, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine
• The anonymous whistleblower Ciaramella
• "All individuals" the whistleblower relied on to draft the complaint Vindman, ________

 

[colfax_m]

It wasn’t a court. It wasn’t illegal. If Americans believe that, it’s because they’ve been lied to.

If you actually watched the hearing Schiff broke many House rules.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
1. Schiff denied the minority their day to call witnesses
2. Held secret meetings w/o Republicans
3. Spyied on Republicans getting phone records
4. etc.

1. The committee as a whole determines who is a relevant witness. All relevant witnesses were allowed to be called.
2. Parties hole meetings among their members all the time. Republicans do this all the time.
3. They got phone records of people being investigated. Not their problem that Republicans enjoy colluding with people now under criminal indictment
4. Indeed.

By "House Rule" the minority should get one day to call witnesses. Schiff didn't allow the minority their witnesses, "Relevance" isn't the issue, abuse of power is.
Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump
Point being that the democrats have no room to whine about "fairness" regarding "hearsay" after their kangaroo court in the House.

Relevance has everything to do with it. The witnesses they call have to be relevant to the inquiry. That’s a matter that is left to the committee as a whole. See the final paragraphs of this report from the CRS.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

Thanks for that crsreport, that explains the purported basis for no minority witnesses, but as you can see below, the minority witnesses are VERY relevant
GOP wants Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify at impeachment hearing
Who Republicans want to testify:

• Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings
• Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings
• Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer
• David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
• Tim Morrison, former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council
• Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS
• Kurt Volker, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine
• The anonymous whistleblower Ciaramella
• "All individuals" the whistleblower relied on to draft the complaint Vindman, ________

The committee disagrees as to the relevance of many of these witnesses. T

First , you’re factually incorrect. There were minority witnesses. Threw of the witnesses above testified at the request of the minority.

Second, the committee decides who is considered relevant. The committee did not find the rest of the people on the list to be relevant. That is their right.