Posted on 09/29/2019 4:55:52 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Margaret Brennan on Sunday's Face The Nation seemed to place her faith in the veracity of second hand information produced by the whistleblower concerning the phone call between the Ukrainian president and President Donald Trump. Secondhand information which could be properly labeled as "hearsay" which is what guest Senator Lindsey Graham called it.
The sparks flew as Graham vigorously pushed back on Brennan's assertion that a secondhand source, or hearsay, for the phone call in question, is something that an impeachment inquiry could be based upon.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
So the Democrats want to impeach based on... RUMOR?
Democrats will impeach first and fill it in as they go.
Enumerate the rumors and present them as “charges”. Expect that from Schiff. He’s a crumb.
Defecate or discommode!
Famous Pelosi quote “Pass it first to find out what is in it”.
Explains democrat impeachment strategy in one short sentence!
The coming democrat presidential debate will probably be a love fest as the democrat candidates take turns pushing MSM and democrat impeachment hysteria.
One step away from testimony like the witch trials. They aren’t saying that Donald Trump appeared to them in his demonic form of a pitbull that proceeded to make wild passionate love to their shins, thus tempting them to fornicate with the neighbor’s goat, resulting in the neighbor catching them in the act, but both the “whistleblower” charges and the witch hunt would result in a long painful and thoroughly barbaric discovery phase where the accused is presumed guilty in the court of public opinion... or so the Dems hope.
I think it’s more like third had hearsay.
Uh no. Because in addition to the hearsay rule the best evidence rule suggests that there is better evidence and that will come from the first hand sources as soon as the anonymous whistleblower identifies them.
What has gotten into Lindsey? Is he running for President already?
It’s like everyone is now ignoring the notes Trump provided and the media is just buying into this b.s. from a second hand account and news reports. It’s so frustrating.
I think there is some sort of crap on 60 minutes right now on it all and I just had to turn the channel.
Our courts call it “hearsay” and it is inadmissible in any court in the country.
In that case, why not use the Steele dossier? It's also second-hand information.
It doesn't matter that it was ultimately proven false as long as the second-hand thought it was true?
-PJ
This is what you get when jackals like Brennan get into positions of power. We have Obama to blame for all of this.
“So the Democrats want to impeach based on... RUMOR?”
Demonrats will impeach for no reason. I believe there is a reason why the intensity sudden increased to volume 11.
1) Lucifer’s hammer is finally going to come crashing down on the dems. This is kind of plausible since the media is collectively and forcefully shutting down any and all allegations against Biden Very intensely with absurd levels of feigned outrage the split second the word. Biden even begins to sub vocalize.
Since Republicans never ever charge dems with anything, the more likely scenario is that Ruth Buzzard has croaked and there is no way they will allow a president under impeachment investigation to replace her and will keep up this farce with the hope of wearing out enthusiasm simply from fatigue for Trump as long as it takes.
The dems have succeeded, I am now a hater
So why didn't the FIRST HAND witnesses come forward as whistleblowers?
Graham’s right. As it stands Trump has a right to face his accusers. If somebody had good information that would be one thing, but they changed long standing rules regarding whistleblower status, and the likeliest reason for doing that would seem to be out of bias if not outright malice. Neither is a good look for an agency that is supposed to be non-political and unbiased.
Just like you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.
You have to impeach the President to find out if he did anything wrong.
I think it should fall to the agency to prove that they had a unbiased reason to change the rule making hearsay evidence admissible, even though it is inadmissible in court. If they cannot prove that they had a valid reason to do this everyone with a hand in this should be answerable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.