If you accept hearsay as evidence then you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. >>>Dem Congressman Reveals Bolton Dropped a Dime on Trump Months Ago: He Told Me to Look Into Yovanovtich Ouster

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/30/20 6:26 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <ufGdnU4l9ftOLq_D...@giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> [I think the bigger question is why the Democrats Eliot Engel and Jerry
>> Nadler held onto this information instead of reporting. Perhaps they
>> should both testify as material fact witnesses. ]
>
> Because it's hearsay?
>
Or was it suppressing evidence? If you accept hearsay as evidence then
you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS. *A convenient NEW CRIME that can be used in many ways* .

--
That's Karma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=UXA--dj2-CY&feature=emb_logo

Biden is guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:45:31 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 1/30/20 6:26 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <ufGdnU4l9ftOLq_D...@giganews.com>,
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [I think the bigger question is why the Democrats Eliot Engel and Jerry
>>> Nadler held onto this information instead of reporting. Perhaps they
>>> should both testify as material fact witnesses. ]
>>
>> Because it's hearsay?
>>
>Or was it suppressing evidence? If you accept hearsay as evidence then
>you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF
>CONGRESS. *A convenient NEW CRIME that can be used in many ways* .

Ooooh!! So very well said!!

Bravo!!

__

"Journalists are extremely rare and shouldn’t be harmed, but propagandists are everywhere and should be hunted for sport"

Yeah..with no bag limit.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:45:31 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 1/30/20 6:26 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <ufGdnU4l9ftOLq_D...@giganews.com>,
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [I think the bigger question is why the Democrats Eliot Engel and Jerry
>>> Nadler held onto this information instead of reporting. Perhaps they
>>> should both testify as material fact witnesses. ]
>>
>> Because it's hearsay?
>>
>Or was it suppressing evidence?

If it's hearsay, it can't be evidence.

>If you accept hearsay as evidence then
>you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF
>CONGRESS. *A convenient NEW CRIME that can be used in many ways* .

Since hearsay can't ever be evidence, it can't be tampering with
hearsay. It's not possible to tamper with hearsay. This also means, if
it happened, it can't be obstruction.

--
Shill #2
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/31/20 5:11 AM, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:45:31 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/20 6:26 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <ufGdnU4l9ftOLq_D...@giganews.com>,
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [I think the bigger question is why the Democrats Eliot Engel and Jerry
>>>> Nadler held onto this information instead of reporting. Perhaps they
>>>> should both testify as material fact witnesses. ]
>>>
>>> Because it's hearsay?
>>>
>> Or was it suppressing evidence?
>
> If it's hearsay, it can't be evidence.
>
>> If you accept hearsay as evidence then
>> you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF
>> CONGRESS. *A convenient NEW CRIME that can be used in many ways* .
>
> Since hearsay can't ever be evidence, it can't be tampering with
> hearsay. It's not possible to tamper with hearsay. This also means, if
> it happened, it can't be obstruction.
>

The problem is that Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler all tell us that
hearsay from a leaker(whistle-blower) and a dozen other hearsay
witnesses is actually enough evidence to impeach a President. If so
then using it as evidence, and tampering with that "evidence" would
also be OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS because it implies that the entire
congress was being obstructed by those members who were tampering with
the hearsay "evidence".

And it's ONLY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS by Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler
because they themselves have made the hearsay equal to actual evidence
that Congress is now forced to listen to what is in their words, is
evidence.

The irony here being that they created OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS and they
were the very first ones to have violates it in this impeachment where
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS was born.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:49:19 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 1/31/20 5:11 AM, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:45:31 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/20 6:26 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> In article <ufGdnU4l9ftOLq_D...@giganews.com>,
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [I think the bigger question is why the Democrats Eliot Engel and Jerry
>>>>> Nadler held onto this information instead of reporting. Perhaps they
>>>>> should both testify as material fact witnesses. ]
>>>>
>>>> Because it's hearsay?
>>>>
>>> Or was it suppressing evidence?
>>
>> If it's hearsay, it can't be evidence.
>>
>>> If you accept hearsay as evidence then
>>> you must also accept that tampering with hearsay is OBSTRUCTION OF
>>> CONGRESS. *A convenient NEW CRIME that can be used in many ways* .
>>
>> Since hearsay can't ever be evidence, it can't be tampering with
>> hearsay. It's not possible to tamper with hearsay. This also means, if
>> it happened, it can't be obstruction.
>
>The problem is that Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler all tell us that
>hearsay from a leaker(whistle-blower) and a dozen other hearsay
>witnesses is actually enough evidence to impeach a President.

They didn't use hearsay. They used direct testimony.

>If so
>then using it as evidence,

Hearsay can never be used as evidence.

>and tampering with that "evidence" would
>also be OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS because it implies that the entire
>congress was being obstructed by those members who were tampering with
>the hearsay "evidence".

Impossible.

>
>And it's ONLY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS by Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler
>because they themselves have made the hearsay equal to actual evidence
>that Congress is now forced to listen to what is in their words, is
>evidence.
>

They did no such thing.

>The irony here being that they created OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS and they
>were the very first ones to have violates it in this impeachment where
>OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS was born.

You clearly don't know legal matters and have no idea how to
research them. Please see 18 U.S.C. 1505 for obstructing congressional
or administrative proceedings. Here's a link to make it easier for
you:

http://gg.gg/gh3ad

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>> were the very first ones to have violated it in this impeachment where

>> OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS was born.
>
> You clearly don't know legal matters and have no idea how to
> research them. Please see 18 U.S.C. 1505 for obstructing congressional
> or administrative proceedings. Here's a link to make it easier for
> you:
>
> http://gg.gg/gh3ad
>

They also told us that this isn't a TRIAL by the JUSTICE SYSTEM... and
that they made the rules... well, their rules on obstruction of
Congress aren't in 18 U.S.C. 1505 and their impeachment was not proper
as they didn't put the impeachment to a proper vote of the House when
they started (and thereby tainted the proceedings prior to any later
HOUSE VOTE) when it is in the Constitution that the HOUSE has the power
to impeach, which means the whole House, NOT The Speaker of the House.

And what they did was to collude or conspire to create false evidence to
entrap or FRAME the President of the United States. That violated the
law, if NOT the impeachment, but we don't impeach Pelosi Schiff and
Nadler, we indict them for their crimes. So thanks for looking up the
law that the Democrats leadership violated it was helpful to making my
point.

The Schiff Congressional staff and Schiff really did violate 18 U.S.C.
1505 by conspiring to commit fraud and to tamper with the whistle-blower
procedure and documentation. That will mean jail time for Schiff who
lied about it, and his staff who were involved. It may extend to Nadler
who will spend time in Prison while his wife dies of cancer.... That's
too bad.

The Democrats are looking like they have some serious criminal charges
in the REAL U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM to overcome.

Thanks for looking that up, because it reinforced what I said
previously. Congress has no impeachment code for OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS
and the one that is in the JUSTICE SYSTEM has to be conducted in the
actual judicial system NOT in an impeachment. The Congress could have
shown where TRUMP violated....

"Section 1505 also specifically prohibits anyone from withholding,
misrepresenting, removing from any place, concealing, covering up,
destroying, mutilating, altering, or by other means falsifying any
documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral
testimony that is the subject of a proper investigative demand under the
Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-14, with the intent of
avoiding, evading, preventing, or obstructing compliance, in whole or in
part, with that demand."

No actual crime was shown by the Democrats to have been committed by
TRUMP.....

All they could do was whine because they didn't actually follow that law
and go to the Courts to enforce their subpoena to settle the dispute
over EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. The reason I'm sure is because they have no
evidence of any crime or reason to subpoena the Presidents staff and
violate the EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE that is a long established power of the
President, one that Obama used to protect e-mails on Hillary's illegal
e-mail server that she was using to avoid FOIA laws.

Which means there was never any actual obstruction by TRUMP, but there
was other obstruction and fraud by the House impeachment managers who
clearly covered up and hid witness tampering, It was Schiff who tampered
with Congressional evidence and documentation from the Whistle Blower
and the IG who was contacted by the Whistle-Blower and Schiff's staffers.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 13:08:30 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

DUH! It's a trial by the legislative branch. Third grade civics
class should have taught you that.

>and
>that they made the rules... well, their rules on obstruction of
>Congress aren't in 18 U.S.C. 1505

Yes, they are. Lying will not help you.

>and their impeachment was not proper

The house seemed to think there was enough to justify an
impeachment.

>as they didn't put the impeachment to a proper vote of the House when
>they started (and thereby tainted the proceedings prior to any later
>HOUSE VOTE) when it is in the Constitution that the HOUSE has the power
>to impeach, which means the whole House, NOT The Speaker of the House.
>

The house voted. You know this. Why lie about it?

>And what they did was to collude or conspire to create false evidence to
>entrap or FRAME the President of the United States. That violated the
>law, if NOT the impeachment, but we don't impeach Pelosi Schiff and
>Nadler, we indict them for their crimes. So thanks for looking up the
>law that the Democrats leadership violated it was helpful to making my
>point.
>

Did you read the code I cited? Your comments suggest you did not.

>The Schiff Congressional staff and Schiff really did violate 18 U.S.C.
>1505 by conspiring to commit fraud and to tamper with the whistle-blower
>procedure and documentation. That will mean jail time for Schiff who
>lied about it, and his staff who were involved. It may extend to Nadler
>who will spend time in Prison while his wife dies of cancer.... That's
>too bad.
>
>The Democrats are looking like they have some serious criminal charges
>in the REAL U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM to overcome.
>

Such as?
And I want ACTUAL crimes. Not the ones your delusions make you
think occurred.

>Thanks for looking that up, because it reinforced what I said
>previously. Congress has no impeachment code for OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS

Any crime can be an impeachable offence under the Constitution.

>and the one that is in the JUSTICE SYSTEM has to be conducted in the
>actual judicial system NOT in an impeachment. The Congress could have
>shown where TRUMP violated....
>
>"Section 1505 also specifically prohibits anyone from withholding,
>misrepresenting, removing from any place, concealing, covering up,
>destroying, mutilating, altering, or by other means falsifying any
>documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral
>testimony that is the subject of a proper investigative demand under the

>Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. งง 1311-14, with the intent of

>avoiding, evading, preventing, or obstructing compliance, in whole or in
>part, with that demand."
>
>No actual crime was shown by the Democrats to have been committed by
>TRUMP.....
>

Your continued lying is no longer amusing.

>All they could do was whine because they didn't actually follow that law
>and go to the Courts to enforce their subpoena to settle the dispute
>over EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. The reason I'm sure is because they have no
>evidence of any crime or reason to subpoena the Presidents staff and
>violate the EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE that is a long established power of the
>President, one that Obama used to protect e-mails on Hillary's illegal
>e-mail server that she was using to avoid FOIA laws.
>

Your OBSESSION with Obama and Clinton is not healthy. I don't
recall either being a part of the impeachment.

>Which means there was never any actual obstruction by TRUMP, but there
>was other obstruction and fraud by the House impeachment managers who
>clearly covered up and hid witness tampering, It was Schiff who tampered
>with Congressional evidence and documentation from the Whistle Blower
>and the IG who was contacted by the Whistle-Blower and Schiff's staffers.

Present your evidence. VALID evidence and not your delusions
about a shadow government.
I'm waiting...