Biden impeachment inquiry

@metal-brain said
Stop being stupid. You know I know what it means. You are just trying to evade my question.
Admit Trump never admitted he tried to destroy video evidence and you relied on hearsay.

As I already showed, his statements to fellow conspirators are not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

@no1marauder said
As I already showed, his statements to fellow conspirators are not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

shytweasel 😂

@no1marauder said
As I already showed, his statements to fellow conspirators are not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Once again, what statements? You didn't post any.

@metal-brain said
Once again, what statements? You didn't post any.

Yes I did and a link to them.

@no1marauder said
Yes I did and a link to them.

No you didn't.

@metal-brain said
No you didn't.

Are we really going to go through this idiocy AGAIN? Will you read for a change?

From the last page, moron:

"@metal-brain said
MB: What statement by Trump?

no1: The one you just referred to. Specifically, where he told De Oliveira he wanted the server deleted. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/trump-mar-a-lago-worker-face-new-charges-in-documents-case.html

@metal-brain said
Biden keeps obstructing the investigation to hide the evidence. That is their game.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/theres-no-evidence-anything-if-you-sweep-it-all-under-rug

Hiding, obstructing, what ever it is.................

Why not cut to the chase,,,what in the hell is this game? There Are 330M souls at stake. Why does Joe not SIMPLY EXPLAIN HIS UNUSUAL ACTIVITIES.
JESUS H CHRIST.

@no1marauder said
Are we really going to go through this idiocy AGAIN? Will you read for a change?

From the last page, moron:

"@metal-brain said
MB: What statement by Trump?

no1: The one you just referred to. Specifically, where he told De Oliveira he wanted the server deleted. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/07/trump-mar-a-lago-worker-face-new-charges-in-documents-case.html

You stupid moron.
That link proves me right. Hearsay from the valet.
And Jack Smith admitted he withheld evidence violating the Brady Rule in that very case.

https://conservativebrief.com/smith-tells-76500/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=539

@metal-brain said
You stupid moron.
That link proves me right. Hearsay from the valet.
And Jack Smith admitted he withheld evidence violating the Brady Rule in that very case.

https://conservativebrief.com/smith-tells-76500/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=539

Hahaha conservativebrief

@no1marauder said
Actually I'm not a Biden supporter; I didn't vote for him and wish he wouldn't run again.

No, the point is the sources you use don't come anywhere near providing any convincing evidence of your claims. That you believe they do is only based on you doing what you are told and not on the basis of any fair minded assessment of the claims.

You do support Biden, and, you have your own def of hearsay, you just make it fit the moment.
If you were asked if you support the cartels, I am quite sure that you would NOT say no.
Not that you support them, it is just that you are argumentative and it becomes tiresome.
Let's try it. Do you support cartels?

@metal-brain said
You stupid moron.
That link proves me right. Hearsay from the valet.
And Jack Smith admitted he withheld evidence violating the Brady Rule in that very case.

https://conservativebrief.com/smith-tells-76500/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=539

Except the Federal Rules specifically state that statements from co-conspirators are not hearsay, you illiterate moron. As I already told you:

no1: 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 do support Biden, and, you have your own def of hearsay, you just make it fit the moment.
If you were asked if you support the cartels, I am quite sure that you would NOT say no.
Not that you support them, it is just that you are argumentative and it becomes tiresome.
Let's try it. Do you support cartels?

GFY.

My definition of hearsay is the same as the law's.

@no1marauder said
Except the Federal Rules specifically state that statements from co-conspirators are not hearsay, you illiterate moron. As I already told you:

no1: 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

YOU FARGIN MORON!

The valet was not a co conspirator. He was a hearsay witness that heard things from the co conspirators. The valet was not a co conspirator. Read your own link you idiot!

@metal-brain said
YOU FARGIN MORON!

The valet was not a co conspirator. He was a hearsay witness that heard things from the co conspirators. The valet was not a co conspirator. Read your own link you idiot!

He most certainly is a co-conspirator; Nauta is charged along with Trump and De Oliveria was acting under Trump's orders to further the purpose of the conspiracy.

EDIT: Actually De Oliveria is charged with Trump, too.https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/politics/carlos-de-oliveira-plea/index.html

It's funny when you make a fool of yourself and then get mad about it. Just admitting you were wrong would be sooooooooo much easier.

@no1marauder said
He most certainly is a co-conspirator; Nauta is charged along with Trump and De Oliveria was acting under Trump's orders to further the purpose of the conspiracy.

EDIT: Actually De Oliveria is charged with Trump, too.https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/politics/carlos-de-oliveira-plea/index.html

It's funny when you make a fool of yourself and then get mad about it. Just admitting you were wrong would be sooooooooo much easier.

He was a hearsay witness, but they charged him with a crime he did not commit to get him to testify against Trump for a plea deal. He was scared enough to recant his testimony. He did not even know about it until the other two told him and since it was hearsay we don't even know it is true.

If he was a co conspirator what did he do to be one? Be specific. He changed his story when he was railroaded with false charges to avoid being financially ruined with endless lawyer fees. Government did that to John Kiriakou. They prosecuted him on bogus charges they knew would not stick. Then after he was financially ruined they dropped the charges.

Just because the charges are bogus does not mean they cannot ruin you to punish you for being a whistleblower. And it is just as much to send a message to anyone else that may think about blowing the whistle on the CIA.

You naivety about how things really work is noted.