House Managers now are asking to call witnesses! They know they got destroyed yesterday

[ColonelAngus]

Biden is by definition the greatest Democrat to ever live.

 

[busybee01]

Wow. This is shocking. The House managers got destroyed and they know it.

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

The rules of jurisprudence require that they give the defense a chance to interview or investigate these witnesses, if the judge allows it.

With Leaky Leighey as judge and his partisan ability to vote as well, this sham is blowing up in their faces... IF he gives them witnesses and then denies republicans requests they will have a civil war on their hands.. As far as using any jurisprudence that was gone long ago when manufactured evidence was placed into evidence and was then exposed... That alone should have triggered the case being thrown out with prejudice.

Only the democrats would consider a witness, and juror as the sitting judge as being legitimate.......talk about a fucking kangaroo court.......

Only a Trump Republican would consider a Senator who will vote to acquit or convict meeting with Trump's attorneys as being legitimate.

 

[easyt65]

Wow. This is shocking. The House managers got destroyed and they know it.

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

You are delusional. The Republicans are destroying thenselves. Apparently there are a few Republicans who are not in the tank crooked.

Dems have been caught illegally manufacturing evidence, exposed as the real threats by using their own words against them, & just gave up calling witnesses after the GOP said they would call Pelosi to testify...

The CCP Keystone Kkkops are shooting themselves in the face in front of the whole world, troll.

 

[peach174]

I'm happy that was stopped.
You can't change the original charge from insurrection to dereliction of duty.
They are two different charges.
When you add additional charges that becomes a witch hunt and that's unconstitutional in this country.

Dereliction of Duty was part of the article of impeachment.

For a different reason ,not the new one they were trying to add.

 

[busybee01]

When Trump is axcquitted he needs to go Nick Sandman and sue the scores of Fake News platforms that slandered him.

Can't win a slander case when they are telling the Truth.

The acquittal will throw a spanner in that brainfart.

Americans know Trump will not be acquitted. He will be allowed to get away with it. The Republican Party will be known as the seditionist party.

 

[Nostra]

Why are the House owns up there again spewing their lies?

Call your witnesses, get your asses kicked again, and then STFU.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

No it is not hearsay. It would be legal in a court of law as it goes to the state of mind of Trump.

The word hearsay means something heard from another person, rather than directly.

Hearsay Evidence Explained Easily With Appropriate Examples

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in a court of law, but there are various statutory exceptions for this rule. Here is a brief overview about the rule and its exceptions, along with some examples.

opinionfront.com

You need to watch more Judge Judy, LOL. She'll clue you in.

Hearsay is not permitted in criminal trials, in general. This type of hearsay is not.

I have no idea if hearsay is permissible in Senate impeachment trials, but I suspect it is. Senators are apparently allowed to say all kinds of crazy things, and even present falsehoods as fact, without repercussion.

Hearsay is permissible in federal grand jury trials. Having been a federal grand juror this years, sitting on countless trials, I know quite a bit about hearsay.

But you are wrong. If they ask a person to testify about what another person told them someone else said, it is hearsay.

 

[busybee01]

There is an FBI investigation into this whole thing, why didnt these assholes just wait for the investigation to end?

Because they knew that the agitators were not Trump supporters and they cant have that known by the general public... Evidence is now coming out that ANTIFA was in fact the lead agitators and that Nancy Pelosi refused National Guard troops to protect the Capitol Hill Complex TWO DAYS PRIOR to January 6, when TRUMP OFFERED THEM TO HER. Now why would ANTIFA loving Nancy refuse protection of the complex unless she was part of the insurrection planning?

Yep.....the democrat party wanted their brown shirts in the Trump crowd to vandalize the capitol and attack the police......that is why she pulled the police back and refused national guard....

It is the Republican brown shirts that attacked the capitol. The far right militias are Republicans' secret police. The Republican majority leader in Michigan held a public event with several militia members who were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Democrat governor. Wonder if he wqas told about it.

 

[easyt65]

Only a Trump Republican would consider a Senator who will vote to acquit or convict meeting with Trump's attorneys as being legitimate.

Barry, Democrats, and snowflakes declared the Russian Intel Service and a known Trump-hating foreign ex-spy working for Russians...and Barry's FBI... 'legitimate, troll.

 

[Nostra]

Just hold the exoneration vote.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, silly bitches... the House Impeachment Managers did NOT get destroyed yesterday...

They're just much better in their timing, for revealing their intent to drive-deep the blade, now that it's been inserted between the metaphorical ribs...

ITs the only explanation for this fantasy position..

 

[easyt65]

Americans know Trump will not be acquitted. He will be allowed to get away with it. The Republican Party will be known as the seditionist party.

The rest of the world knows Democrats don't have the votes, troll. Get serious psychiatric help with your irrational hate-driven 'Orange Man Bad' dementia.

 

[busybee01]

Wow. This is shocking. The House managers got destroyed and they know it.

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

After the not guilty verdict the Senate will next try to ban Trump from office for life which will only take a majority vote. Wait and see. TDS is the new OCD.

They may try... but it will not stand up in court because he will already have been Acquitted of that charge and double jeopardy will have it thrown out, in short order, when and if it ever reaches SCOTUS.

This is not a judicial proceeding so there is no double jeapordy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

THE DEMOCRATS DROP CALL FOR WITNESSES AFTER GOP DECLARE THEY WILL CALL NANCY PELOSI TO TESTIFY ABOUT WHAT SHE NEW ABOUT RIOT & WHEN SHE KNEW...

THIS IS A 'CONFESSION' PELOSI KNEW ABOUT PRE-PLANNED / ORGANIZED RIOT AND DID NOTHING...

DEMS' IMPEACHMENT IS BLOWING UP IN THEIR FACES...AGAIN!

Yep! Nancy is scared shitless that she has been exposed as an actual inciter of the insurrection.. Dems are now scared shitless... they have been found out..

 

[busybee01]

No it is not hearsay. It would be legal in a court of law as it goes to the state of mind of Trump.

The word hearsay means something heard from another person, rather than directly.

Hearsay Evidence Explained Easily With Appropriate Examples

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in a court of law, but there are various statutory exceptions for this rule. Here is a brief overview about the rule and its exceptions, along with some examples.

opinionfront.com

You need to watch more Judge Judy, LOL. She'll clue you in.

Hearsay is not permitted in criminal trials, in general. This type of hearsay is not.

I have no idea if hearsay is permissible in Senate impeachment trials, but I suspect it is. Senators are apparently allowed to say all kinds of crazy things, and even present falsehoods as fact, without repercussion.

Hearsay is permissible in federal grand jury trials. Having been a federal grand juror this years, sitting on countless trials, I know quite a bit about hearsay.

But you are wrong. If they ask a person to testify about what another person told them someone else said, it is hearsay.

Hearsay is legitimate in a court of law. This is not a judicial proceeding so they can hear anything they want.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wow. This is shocking. The House managers got destroyed and they know it.

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

Um....of course it has nothing to do with the news that came out yesterday about what happened with McCarthy's phone call with trump..............................

Does the president have the authority to use force to stop a riot?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow. This is shocking. The House managers got destroyed and they know it.

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

After the not guilty verdict the Senate will next try to ban Trump from office for life which will only take a majority vote. Wait and see. TDS is the new OCD.

They may try... but it will not stand up in court because he will already have been Acquitted of that charge and double jeopardy will have it thrown out, in short order, when and if it ever reaches SCOTUS.

This is not a judicial proceeding so there is no double jeapordy.

You really are clueless....

 

[busybee01]

Americans know Trump will not be acquitted. He will be allowed to get away with it. The Republican Party will be known as the seditionist party.

The rest of the world knows Democrats don't have the votes, troll. Get serious psychiatric help with your irrational hate-driven 'Orange Man Bad' dementia.

You are the one who is crazy. The rest of the world knows Trump is guilty and the Republican Party is the party of crazies.

 

[Nostra]

No it is not hearsay. It would be legal in a court of law as it goes to the state of mind of Trump.

The word hearsay means something heard from another person, rather than directly.

Hearsay Evidence Explained Easily With Appropriate Examples

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in a court of law, but there are various statutory exceptions for this rule. Here is a brief overview about the rule and its exceptions, along with some examples.

opinionfront.com

You need to watch more Judge Judy, LOL. She'll clue you in.

Hearsay is not permitted in criminal trials, in general. This type of hearsay is not.

I have no idea if hearsay is permissible in Senate impeachment trials, but I suspect it is. Senators are apparently allowed to say all kinds of crazy things, and even present falsehoods as fact, without repercussion.

Hearsay is permissible in federal grand jury trials. Having been a federal grand juror this years, sitting on countless trials, I know quite a bit about hearsay.

But you are wrong. If they ask a person to testify about what another person told them someone else said, it is hearsay.

Hearsay is legitimate in a court of law. This is not a judicial proceeding so they can hear anything they want.

They have heard manufactured, false "evidence"

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Hearsay is legitimate in a court of law. This is not a judicial proceeding so they can hear anything they want.

You are wrong. Kevin McCarthy is alive and perfectly capable to testify about what Trump said to him. That would not be hearsay. To have it relayed via a third party is hearsay. I have already explained it to you fully, and provided reputable examples. Feel free to research it yourself and learn something today.