Purge the resistance

And Adam Schiff can commit perjury in the House(fake Transcript) with absolutely no reprecussions whatsoever. Yes, lying to the American People is now a given for our elected leaders.

 

He neither extorted them, nor did he bribe them. If he had extorted them, there would have been some sort of blackmail material or negative consequence(I know, you're citing the aid for that missing link.) but Donald Trump never mentions the aid. It's the Ukrainian President that mentions the Javelins.

Javelins that as noted, were given by THIS administration, not the Obama Administration. I don't even agree with the premise of weapons to Ukraine(in much the same fashion that I don't want to fight for Kurdistan. That, Mitt Romney, was HIS promise not mine. I never promised my fellow citizens blood and treasure, for a semi-existent State that's bound to be a new Iraq rather than a positive contributor to Western Society.)

If he had bribed them, he would've actually given something far more direct than the military aid itself. You know, maybe he would've worked to secure an American job for one of the Ukrainian President's progeny like a certain VP *cough, BIden cough*.


There's no need for a bailout because bribery doesn't exist, extortion doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is that Democrats want a get-out-of-jail free card from the debates, 12 months before an election. Oh, I forgot according to Pelosi our votes are now "dangerous".

The only thing that's dangerous is Nancy Pelosi's continued abuse of power as Speaker of the House, and that a former VP whose Son is now under investigation by the Ukrainians for money laundering is in a position to where he can win the Presidency.

Trump aside, do you trust him? Do you really trust a guy who abused his position as VP, fingered Obama to actually uphold the law?

 

Talk to Henry Hyde and House Speaker Robert Livingstone about the green beans but we know what they did with impeachment and House ethics.

 

Did they attempt to impeach the president of an opposing party for a non existent crime and then bring in "witnesses" who neither witnessed anything or even testified that they COULD witness something?

Pelosi said she was willing to live with being the minority party again, well it's one thing to say it and it's another thing to live it. 2020, Republicans reclaim the House in overwhelming margins. Trump was literally beatable, then she does this stupid stunt.

 

It’s as if Nancy was working for the Russians whom the Democrats believe were working to get Trump elected.

 

You have decided that there is no crime before the articles have been written describing one. As for the quality of the witnesses, they are ALL just fine to bring an indictment. There are no hearsay rules applicable before a trial commences. These are all better lawyers than you are, and they all know the hearsay rule better than you do, and they all know the multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule better than you do and they will have a far better idea on which witnesses they will depend in testimony to prove which facts to buttress the charges in the articles, better than you do.

Stop second guessing what Chief Justice Roberts might rule on these matters, and let him do his job. If I were Roberts, I might bone up a bit, and hit the library. its been awhile since he has had to argue or make these calls in a courtroom. But he is more than able with his august background.

 

So, what do you think should happen to Earl Blumenauer and Maxine Waters?

 

I think all the complaints should be heard by the House Ethics Committee in the format for review provided, to see if there is substance or not.

 

Except that what congressman Nunes actually did was highly inappropriate and had absolutely nothing to do with the exhibition of "ethics" in government.

Instead, lets simply purge all Politics and Political Parties from Federal Government entirely and institute a Pure Management style of Federal Government. That would solve all problems overnight - literally. The United States Congress would do no more or less than what The People instruct them to do via National Independent Vote procedures. No more "Representative form of Government" lie. That has given us government by the Elites where the consent of the governed has been completely ignored.

A Pure Management Referendum would cause each State to hire (not elect - that form of government would be gone) its Federal Manager. That Federal Manager would go to Washington D.C., along with the other 49 Federal Managers to execute the Orders Of The People given to them to execute via a series of Annual National Independent Votes. As a Citizen of this country, you would be responsible for engaging in the National Independent Voting Process and its National People's Ballot Process. That would be YOUR duty as a Citizen of this country - to get involved in the voting process and the ballot preparation process.

Any State would be able to raise an issue to the National Ballot via an In-State Independent Voting Process. In other words, the way you get something on the National Ballot for the rest of the country to recognize through the National Independent Voting Process, is to first raise the matter in your own State and gain sufficient votes there. If your Ballot issue cannot gain sufficient votes in your own State, then it cannot be be brought to a National Independent Vote. This will strengthen the National Legislative Process and bring that process to the literal doorstep of each registered Voter in the country.

So, as just one of many examples, if California, wants Constitutional Carry as law of the land, then California Citizens can bring that matter to the National Ballot by passing it through its own State Ballot Process. However, let's say that Texas, wanted to make Constitutional Carry the law of the land - then Texas, would bring the matter through its Statewide Ballot process. If California, fails to get it done - Texas could get it done and the entire country would then head out to the polls to engage in a 1-Person-1-Vote National Independent Voting Process. The matter would then be decided for the entire country by way of NIV (National Independent Vote).

Once Constitutional Carry is passed by The People through NIV, it becomes enacted Federal Law. All Federal Managers would do is simply show up in the Congress to cast the votes from their individual State so the national record can be extant and historically recognized as having been lawfully tabulated. That would be the role of Federal Managers, formerly known as Congressmen and Congresswomen.

Each State hires their Federal Manager and pays them a Salary. Each State also has the power to fire said Federal Manager at will. All employment is At Will Employment at the Federal level and all Federal Employees in the new Management Congress would be subject to At Will Employment law.

- Want to spend some money on a new F-36 Stealth Fighter? Good. Then you (The People) will be entirely responsible for it - unlike the new F-35 Lightening.
- Want to spend money on supporting McDonald's Restaurants? Good. Then YOU The People will vote on that directly through the NIV, if your State can pass it on its own ballot.
- Want to spend money on Stem Cell Research? Wonderful. Then get your rear-ends in gear and pass it on your own State ballot, so the entire country can vote it up or down in the NIV.
- Want to spend money on National Infrastructure? Blessings to you. Now, get it passed via State ballot so we can all vote on improving our National Infrastructure through NIV participation.

Do you see how much more efficient this kind of Federal Government would be? This removes all the BS politics from the National level entirely and it places all matters directly into the hands of We The People.

This would be a truer Democracy than what we have right now. Right now, we have BS being passed off as Representative Democracy, which is being executed as nothing more than Elite Minority Control of the masses. Oh, in case you don't know who - YOU are the "Masses." And, right now, your vote does not matter - at all. Your vote means Jack in the Congress today. In fact, your vote is laughed at in Congress today. They laugh at your vote. That's the truth. They literally laugh at you in Congress right now.

He who laughs last always laughs best. Let's send them a message in a bottle that reads: Dear Congressional Representative. Your Job Description Has Been Permanently Changed by We The People. Go Home. We Will Hire a New National Manger To Replace You. We Will Take Control Of Our Congress Effective Immediately. We Have The Pentagon to Back Us. So, No Funny **** As Your Ass Hits the Front Door On Your Way Out. Goodbye, Congressman/Congresswoman. See ya.

 

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/

Here's the aforementioned exception rules, good luck getting so much as a single witness to not be objected by Sekulow.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not as grossly incompetent as Speaker Pelosi is either. There's about 5-6 plausible theories that the Democrats can try to thread through, but I'm going to knock down each and every one of them.

One of the reasons why Republicans can say hearsay so strongly, is that #1 is nonexistent. Not a single witness can attest to the facts as it occurred in real time. Indeed, a great deal of them have openly testified that they have received second and third hand
information.

We can't use #2 either(and no, Sondland's statement doesn't count because he virtually eliminated himself as a witness with "2+2=4".) You see, supposition is not evidence. Nor is it an evidentiary statement. His opinion, is not educated by the matter at hand. He supposes based on what he believes. So we can't call it a "excited utterance", or at the very least not by the actual events as they occurred, but as he THOUGHT they occurred.(He also contradicted his own testimony multiple times, and is the furthest thing from a reliable witness possibly in court history.)

#3 obliterates everything that happened in Schiff's star chamber, and virtually eliminates all of the "witnesses"(I'm having fun with examining the hearsay rules.)

We can't use #5 either, laughably Ms. Jennifer actually had to go back to her notes to clarify what we all knew from the transcript(that the Ukrainian President mentioned burisma, not Donald Trump.)

Interestingly though, #6/7 will be the bulk of the President's attack. There, he'll submit WH documentation, including most probably the affidavit and statements collected by Rudy GIuliani(which weren't present in the House facade.) He'll also use #7 to claim quite firmly and obviously that there isn't a record of this supposed bribery, extortion or quid pro quo ANYWHERE.

If you want to use hearsay as a basis for an indictment against the President, you'll lose. You'll lose badly. Just use the Mueller report. Ukraine is a dead fish for Democrats.

 

Hearsay evidence will not be allowed in a Senate trial.

 

You mean "blackmail material" like the Memo (that Trump calls a "transcript") in which Trump demands a bribery from President Z?

Yep! Trump only mentions the dirt on Biden that he wants in exchange for what President Z mentions.

I have no clue what it is you're trying to say. Obvioiusly Trump would not have been able to extort Zelenski for the missiles is fhey had been given by Obama.

So that means Trump is too stupid to even demand a proper bribe.

Look... Your post is not going help Trump much. Denying that what all witnesses underoath, plus Mulvaney, plus Trump's own WH memo (that he calls a "transcript") have shown, is not going to convince a single American. Especially given that Trump has stonewalled the process. Only thing that would most definitely convince all Americans that Trump is guilty is some evidence... even an indication... that the facts are different from what everything (facts, witnesses, documents, ...) have shown. That would seal the case in favor of Trump. One problem though: that evidence would have to exist.

Biden is not in my top 10 Democrats for President. I'd vote for him if he gets nominated. And I'm sure he'd do a fine job. But not my personal preference.

 

If they run it like a criminal trial using the federal rules of criminal procedure taught by my Dad, they will indeed allow plenty of hearsay evidence under the following exceptions under 803 hearsay rule https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ There are 23 in the link and they are none to narrow either. Lawyers spend a lot of time in law school learning the basics how to get testimony including or excluded in trial under either rule 803 or their state version of same. Justice Roberts will be well versed in all of this. Now of course the Senate can rewrite this whole thing to tailor their rules to hamstring House managers, in their rush to kill all this depending on how obvious they want to be.

 

Hearsay may be admissible in a federal grand jury proceeding but not in an actual trial.

 

There is no evidence of Trump bribery. There is the admission from Biden that he did indeed bribe Ukraine.

End of story.

 

Don't try to kid me. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-xi/rule-1101/ Now these exceptions do not apply to grand jury proceedings because there is even greater tolerance in grand jury proceedings and a different definition of what it means. There are some other exceptions mentioned (d)3. Otherwise, reread rule 1101 and the entire list of federal courts and proceedings under which that list of exceptions under 803 apply. Now what the Senate does or does not do with hearsay I do not know, but these are the applicable exceptions to the hearsay rule in federal criminal courts

 

And the Senate will not allow hearsay testimony.

 

Are you going to mention that of the 23, only about 5-6 are relevant and of those, 2 of them will actually be used in the President's defense? There's a reason most prosecutors don't use hearsay as the basis of their prosecutions.

 

Juries won’t stand for it. Neither will the opposition council or the judge.

This goes back to the presumption of innocence. Allowing hearsay is tantamount to “guilty until you prove yourself innocent”.

 

You are kidding right? You are going to tell me with the articles not written, and the witness list not prepared and the physical evidence still coming in boxes and more testimony to be called and taken, let alone which questions will be asked of which witnesses, that you have figured all that out?

 

That will depend on how much they decide to tie the hands of these prosecutors and how much freedom they give to Roberts.

From a political standpoint, you could not be more right. They will kill this in the crib and they will do whatever, however and whenever to do so.

 

What dirt? If we're being literal here, Hunter Biden would be investigated for the money laundering, and Joe Biden would be investigated for his undue influence on a foreign office, and violating his own office as VP. Those are very serious manners. If Trump could be investigated in 2016, if HRC could be investigated in 2016 there's absolutely ZERO reason Biden can't be investigated.

 

LOL. Physical evidence of bribery? If they had that, Sarah Palin's bridge to Alaska would've been built. So, among the eight sham witnesses, who was able to hint even slightly at physical evidence of a bribe?

 

Knock it off American, we don't know what the articles will say, or how broad they will be drafted. We do know that anything that can be said, can be written . We do know that the votes will not be there and would not be there if Trump shot a baby in cold blood on the White House steps. The impeachment ends the day it gets voted out of the House because the several members of the jury have already clued us that they believe in jury nullification. The trial will be a sham.

 

The trial will be run as a criminal trial. And Roberts would be in full agreement with that.