Here is 'Kanga':
Zand here is 'Roo':
Or maybe they are just jesters in the kangaroo court that is this trial.
Posted on 11/13/2019 5:19:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Ratcliffe also scored points by asking both witnesses if they had come before the committee to report any offenses stemming from the Trump-Zelensky call that warranted impeachment. Neither would say yes, which for Democrats was a deflating moment.
But according to Chris Wallace it’s practically the end for Trump.
It’s dead, Jim.
The burden of proof is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) to do more than secure impeachment, which is all but certain.
That’s the key point. While it is enjoyable to see Ratcliffe dunk on Schiff all day it won’t change the outcome in the House.
Any small- or large-town gossip monger could do the same--and the results would amount to about the same as did his testimony.
Day 1 of the Trump impeachment hearing was a lost day for DemocratsAs well as the NY times, FNC and the slobbering, blubbering liver lipped dimwit AKA Chris Wallace
Hearsay is not allowed in courts, why is it allowed here?
Taylor, the “star witness” testified today: he’s never met the President, never listened to his calls, never spoke with anyone in his Cabinet who has listened to his Ukraine calls, that Ukraine President Zelensky has never mention to him anything about a quid pro quo, and that all this information about such is coming to him 4th hand.
I’d say day 1 was a complete embarrassment for Schiff.
According to Rep. Mike Quigley hearsay is SUPERIOR to actual first hand witnesses.
Because it’s all they have. They want to impeach Trump over RUMORS spread by proven anti-Trump Rat operatives in the deep state.
This is a purely political process and it’s played under Calvinball Rules.
Here is 'Kanga':
Zand here is 'Roo':
Or maybe they are just jesters in the kangaroo court that is this trial.
It’s all about Shifty Schiff and obfuscation.
screw nancy and shitt head. they have not proven a crime was committed. they failed.
The senate will not convict. The senate can make up their own rules and that means that Trumps lawyers will be able to question anyone they want under oath about anything they want.
BRING IT ON.
Madam secretary Clinton, why did your order your illegal unprotected server scrubbed after the congress requested that it be protected as evidence?
The FBI gave many or her aids amnesty so when put back on the stand they are not ever in fear of self incrimination which means they have to answer every question honestly or the amnesty disappears instantly and every word they have said can be used against them.
This is going to be fun.
Wouldn’t it be funny if, at the end of this charade, the dhimmis have so bungled their case that they can’t even get unanimity from their own stooges?
The one that would theoretically be most applicable here is an "admission against interest", where you are seeking to introduce an out of court statement made by someone that makes themselves look bad. The problem is that would really be applicable only to out of court statements made by Trump himself, and that doesn't appear to be relevant here.
If these two dinner party brown nosers are the starting lineup, what can we expect from the bench?
I was thinking Radcliff could have ended his time with the question, So, what are you guys doing here today?
LA Times is more honest than Chris Wallace ?
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.