Biden impeachment inquiry

@AverageJoe1
Funny how you want to not talk about the NINETY ONE charges against the dude you said you would not vote for if he was convicted.
Instead, bringing up BS charges brought about by a Chinese arms dealer who has now disappeared. Sure, Biden is a CROOK, right? And if Hunter is let off with no charge or whatever, it will be a political payoff job right?
Because you can't imagine a POTUS who might not be trying to manipulate DOJ.
I guess you want to forget how William Barr was Trumps lap dog, Trump goes JUMP and Barr says HOW HIGH SIR? IS this high enough? Should I hit the ceiling this time?

@no1marauder said
You really don't know what hearsay is, do you?

Any statement by Trump implicating him in illegal activity is admissible at trial. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/hearsay-exceptions-admissions-by-party-opponents/

Another of your endless "false whataboutisms".

@metal-brain said
What statement by Trump?

@no1marauder said
There's more detail here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-burisma-fd1023/

"The release of these documents confirms only that an informant told the FBI these things and an agent wrote them down, but it does not offer anything outside of hearsay as evidence."

"Politico asked Zlochevsky in 2020 to detail any contacts he had with Joe Biden from 2013 to 2019. He ...[text shortened]... ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden's engagement.[/b]"

@no1marauder said
You claimed the informant testified under oath regarding the alleged bribe. They did not.

At least have the good grace to admit you are wrong.

BTW, even if he eventually does, it's still hearsay.

@averagejoe1 said
But No1, shosesky (love how you spell the name of a red Russian perfectly.) could be lying. Yeah, something to consider before you put your eggs in the comments of this person. He could embellish, even …..something to consider.

@no1marauder said
Apparently to you "state run media" means every source but right wing propaganda outlets.

Both of the articles relate facts; which do you dispute?

@no1marauder said
The one you just referred to.

@no1marauder said
He sure could.

Unfortunately for your claim, his comments to the FBI informant are the only "evidence" that he paid a bribe to Joe Biden. So it is you who are "put[ting] your eggs in the comments of this person."

BTW, he's Ukrainian, not Russian.

@metal-brain said
I never said Trump admitted to trying to destroy film at Mar a Lago. I said it was hearsay.

Trump's statement where he told De Oliveira he wanted the server deleted would be admissible and not hearsay under Federal Rule 801(d)(2)(E) the co-conspirator rule. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801

@averagejoe1 said
You don’t know if there is a bribe or not. The thing on this forum is that we believe there is, and you do not. We are getting all of our info from the same sources, but we read them in a different way …..the reason for that is you are a Biden supporter. So that begs for another thread, how can you support this corrupt man?

Of course, an impeachment of President Biden is but a tit-for-tat copycat useless exercise.

it's all bullsit

@no1marauder said
Then you don't know what "hearsay" is.

I'll help:

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

@earl-of-trumps said
Of course, an impeachment of President Biden is but a tit-for-tat copycat useless exercise.

it's all bullsit