ADVERTISEMENT

Trump lawyer humiliates CBSN reporter

She never heard him. It's astonishing. No idea about congressional rules but in a court of law those actions are defined as prosecutional misconduct...and it's a crime.
I kept hearing the following all week. "An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial". Is there a book of rules where fraudulent, doctored evidence is admissible in an impeachment trial? Hearsay is admissible? (Well apparently, the latter must be. That's all they clung to in impeachment #1):rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillCutting4585
I kept hearing the following all week. "An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial". Is there a book of rules where fraudulent, doctored evidence is admissible in an impeachment trial? Hearsay is admissible? (Well apparently, the latter must be. That's all they clung to in impeachment #1):rolleyes:

Honestly I don't know the difference in rules. I do know in a criminal court that both sides must submit evidence before it is admitted as such...the judge being the arbiter. Sometimes both sides will have an opportunity to argue why it should or should not be admitted as evidence.

Even attempting to submit doctored evidence would lead to admonishment, if not worse. If said evidence made it into the trial prior to the discovery of it being bogus, there would be hell to pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillCutting4585
The man is correct, politicians can get away with it because the news hasn’t done its job in decades.

I truly hope the American people see this because this is what we’re dealing with and it has to stop.

This is why I have no problem with DeSantis telling Biden to **** off. These aren’t serious people and therefore should get everything they get. Especially after the 4 years of what Trump went through. No one, left or right, should have to go through that and our elected politicians sat by and let it happen. Spineless cowards!
 
Honestly I don't know the difference in rules. I do know in a criminal court that both sides must submit evidence before it is admitted as such...the judge being the arbiter. Sometimes both sides will have an opportunity to argue why it should or should not be admitted as evidence.

Even attempting to submit doctored evidence would lead to admonishment, if not worse. If said evidence made it into the trial prior to the discovery of it being bogus, there would be hell to pay.
If the presiding "judge" had not been a democratic (who by the way had already stated he feelt Trump guilty), the case would have been dismissed on the spot once it was shown that evidence doctored. The Senate rules do not allow such evidence.
 
If the presiding "judge" had not been a democratic (who by the way had already stated he feelt Trump guilty), the case would have been dismissed on the spot once it was shown that evidence doctored. The Senate rules do not allow such evidence.
Well the judge that was supposed to oversee the hearings bowed out...once again proving we don’t have three coequal branches.

This whole election mess was caused by and could have been prevented by SCOTUS doing its job.

But good for him for standing up to the media. He was salty AF from the jump. She just robotically repeated talking points, and honestly came off looking like exactly what he was accusing her of...a partisan hack trying to score points. Her closing statement while smirking showed that clearly.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT