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

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside. He isn't. That makes this trial unconstitutional, along with the fact that Congress can't impeach a private citizen.

 

[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.

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.

You have been saying Trump is 'guilty, & he has kicked the Democrats' asses for 4 years - this is no different.

The FBI, DHS, & Treasury Departments say they have irrefutable evidence ce Joe Biden & family engaged in Influence Peddling, Russian Money Laundering, & took $1 Billion from the Russians ... your Pesident is a proven CCP BITCH...

The Speaker - Pelosi has been protecting a proven CCP Espionage facilitator, keeping him on the House INTEL Committee & appointed him as one of the Impeachment Managers...who was caught illegally manufacturing false evidence ...

The FBI proved the Capitol Riot was PRE-planned on Socialist Big Tech media forums...and proved Tge Capitol Police & Pelosi were warned about the pending violence....but she refuses to testify about what she knew and if she had any part in it...

Videos show Capitol Police were in on it, as they aided Antifa & BLM....just like Democrats have done...

& Democrats were exposed to the world as violent traitors when a 13 minute video of their threats, violent rhetoric, inviting of violence, sedition, & treason was played on video...

Its over, troll. Your delusions, propaganda, & lies can't save the self-destructing Democrats & has destroyed your credibiliyy.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

They got destroyed..LOL!!

 

[peach174]

The Dems are continuing to lie, good to see them called out.
They are violating the rules trying to add more evidence.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside. He isn't. That makes this trial unconstitutional, along with the fact that Congress can't impeach a private citizen.

That is arguable.

The COTUS says, in Article I Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Since Trump is not president, that's how they are getting away with having a Dem preside.

I think the intent of A1S3C6 is that the chief justice, who is intended to be impartial, shall preside over such political trials, so I do agree with you about that.

Justice Roberts wanted nothing to do with this political theater, and that's why he declined. It does seem to send a message that it is unconstitutional or similarly flawed, otherwise, it would be his job to preside, and he should dutifully accept the obligation.

Regarding trying a private citizen, I think a president can be impeached after serving, because it simply makes sense. If you think about it, if a president did something really terrible, like sell secrets to China so his son could buy crack and is resulted in many US servicemen dying, I would want that POTUS impeached. Otherwise, the POTUS could simply resign and then run for another office. Or if it happened near the end of his term and was not discovered until later, he would be immune. That doesn't make sense.

Article I Section 3 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

Regards,
Jim

 

[ColonelAngus]

These House Managers are fucking shameless. Just fucking shameless.

How times are these assholes going to pull the race card?

How many times are these assholes going to try to use personal stories of injured cops as evidence? Its not evidence of Trump inciting the violence.

Utter utter tumbling dickweeds.

 

[ColonelAngus]

“THIS TRIAL IS NOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP”?????


This fucking asspipe just said that!!

Holy fuck....you have got to be shitting me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

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

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

They got destroyed..LOL!!

I cant argue with that. Thanks for engaging.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

They manufactured their bullshit story, no truth in it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Notice how these pieces of shit are not sticking to evidence of inciting insurrection?

How many kids one of the cops who was injured has is not relevant whatsoever.

We just had another race card! 2:44pm

Someone needs to go back and count how many times the race card was pulled.

I hpe these lawyers rot in hell. They are human debis.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Here we go....Philly style closing!

van der Veen.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside. He isn't. That makes this trial unconstitutional, along with the fact that Congress can't impeach a private citizen.

That is arguable.

The COTUS says, in Article I Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Since Trump is not president, that's how they are getting away with having a Dem preside.

I think the intent of A1S3C6 is that the chief justice, who is intended to be impartial, shall preside over such political trials, so I do agree with you about that.

Justice Roberts wanted nothing to do with this political theater, and that's why he declined. It does seem to send a message that it is unconstitutional or similarly flawed, otherwise, it would be his job to preside, and he should dutifully accept the obligation.

Regarding trying a private citizen, I think a president can be impeached after serving, because it simply makes sense. If you think about it, if a president did something really terrible, like sell secrets to China so his son could buy crack and is resulted in many US servicemen dying, I would want that POTUS impeached. Otherwise, the POTUS could simply resign and then run for another office. Or if it happened near the end of his term and was not discovered until later, he would be immune. That doesn't make sense.

Article I Section 3 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

Regards,
Jim

The Constitution doesn't allow for a private citizen to be impeached.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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

WHY THE RUSH, DEMS?

Now you want witnesses?????

So exposed.

Is this what you mean by being 'destroyed'. One of Trump's lawyers demanded that impeachment proceedings be moved to his office in Philadelphia and got laughed at..

 

[ColonelAngus]

House Managers never ONCE referred to the law or Constitution in their closing arguments....they went for emotional faggottry.

What a joke.

 

[ColonelAngus]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP!

I will remember that one forever. Holy shit.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why wasnt it an insurrection when the Federal Courthouse in Portland was attacked?

 

[dudmuck]

Why wasnt it an insurrection when the Federal Courthouse in Portland was attacked?

because breaking into a courthouse isnt an attempt to take over the country.
The portland federal courthouse event occurred in the middle of the night; only federal agents were in there.

 

[Polishprince]

Why wasnt it an insurrection when the Federal Courthouse in Portland was attacked?

Because there was no way they could tie Antifa/BLM to Donald J. Trump.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Raskin just said he wont refute any of Trump’s attorney’s closing argument because it was all bullshit....so why bother going point by point.

Holy shit.

 

[easyt65]

Here's Why the Democrats Didn't Want Trump's Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The House impeachment managers folded Saturday morning and backed off witnesses after Trump’s legal team announced that Speaker Pelosi would be called in to testify.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Democrats caved to spare Pelosi being exposed as a criminal and a traitor