(no message)
Easier to sweep under the rug without confronting the factual allegations.
Senators on both sides of the aisle, because apparently OANN has reported that other senators were laundering our tax payer aid money to the Ukraine back to their families besides Biden.
Lindsey Graham’s name was supposedly mentioned (not confirmed yet). But Trump wants himself vindicated and is likely going to battle these senators about having witnesses.
Drain the swamp - all swamp on both sides.
(no message)
These would preclude all hearsay and all opinions by fact witnesses. Also, any expert testimony could only be based on admissible fact evidence. I'm not sure that any of the House witnesses would have anything to offer that would be admissible.
Let us start with Rule 17 -- subpoenas for witnesses to appear and production of documents.
Let the GOP try to explain to the trial judge (Chief Justice Roberts) that Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry + all their communications are immaterial.
(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
(3) Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About a Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.
(no message)
(no message)
It is what defendants do when they have exposure on the facts.
BTW, there is no "exclusionary rule" in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rather, it is a rule crafted from US Supreme Court case law.
Stick to your day job.
Good tactic though...make it seem like your opponent said something they didn't, and then contradict the thing they didn't say. A tactic used by attorneys when they have exposure on the facts.
Rest assured, I assume you know far more than I do on criminal law. I would never enter that arena in real life. Not my game.
(no message)
(no message)