How do you legally introduce evidence? Q question

[Cigarlover]

Since I haven't been in the thread in a long time I guess others may have these answers. If so feel free to post them here for all to see.

1)What evidence is this post referring to?

2) if my understanding is correct you introduce evidence at a hearing. This can be from depositions or other sources. The judge makes the ruling on the evidence and then both parties work with the evidence that will be allowed.

3) In Trumps impeachment trial he will be allowed to introduce evidence that he has committed no impeachable offenses. For instance, the transcript from his conversation or depositions from others close to the matter.

People keep referring to this like so much is going to come out in this witch hunt yet I think this is another scam perpetrated by Q. Trumps lawyers will not be able to introduce evidence of anyone else crimes in this trial. Simply provide proof that he did nothing wrong. It's like if I got caught smoking a joint at the park and went to trial. I cant introduce evidence saying all politicians are corrupt so I am not guilty. Or Hillary deleted 33k emails so I am not guilty or even Biden said this on national TV so I am not guilty.

I'm more than happy to eat crow on this so if someone can dispute the above please do and show me some precedent where someone could introduce evidence unrelated to the case. Roberts will also be presiding over the impeachment if there is one and he certainly would not be helpful to Trump.

 

[Cigarlover]

I could think of a few ways...

1. Evidence "collected" from Epsteins safe at his home. Can you imagine the dirt that might have been in there (or put in there)?
2. Trump has invited the Ukraine president to the Oval Office. Perhaps he will bring the Crowdstrike server with him?
3. Rudy's evidence he has collected.
4. Trump can introduce evidence during his impeachment trial.

Evidence from Epstiens safe would have nothing to do with Trumps impeachment defense.
crowd strike server as well would have nothing to do with it.
I certainly believe there are crimes in both places to be sure. I just don't see any judge allowing evidence from another crime to be used in trumps impeachment defense.

 

[Strawboss]

Trump is allowed to formulate a defense that he is the target of an illegal coup to remove him from office - and that the impeachment itself was a part of it.

He is allowed to introduce ANY information that NSA has - as well as any information collected as a result of a legal FISA warrant on any of the players Trump believes are part of the criminal conspiracy to commit treason.

He can declassify anything he wants and introduce it as evidence. He is President. The NSA has it all...which means Trump has it all...all their texts...photos...GPS locations...conversations recorded in the vicinity of anyones cell phone, etc...

ALL of that is fair game and can be legally introduced if Trump can tie it into the conspiracy...

What we saw in Sidney Powells recent court filing on behalf of Flynn is a drop in the ocean of what Trump has available to him...

 

[newmisty]

Since I haven't been in the thread in a long time I guess others may have these answers. If so feel free to post them here for all to see.

1)What evidence is this post referring to?

2) if my understanding is correct you introduce evidence at a hearing. This can be from depositions or other sources. The judge makes the ruling on the evidence and then both parties work with the evidence that will be allowed.

3) In Trumps impeachment trial he will be allowed to introduce evidence that he has committed no impeachable offenses. For instance, the transcript from his conversation or depositions from others close to the matter.

People keep referring to this like so much is going to come out in this witch hunt yet I think this is another scam perpetrated by Q. Trumps lawyers will not be able to introduce evidence of anyone else crimes in this trial. Simply provide proof that he did nothing wrong. It's like if I got caught smoking a joint at the park and went to trial. I cant introduce evidence saying all politicians are corrupt so I am not guilty. Or Hillary deleted 33k emails so I am not guilty or even Biden said this on national TV so I am not guilty.

I'm more than happy to eat crow on this so if someone can dispute the above please do and show me some precedent where someone could introduce evidence unrelated to the case. Roberts will also be presiding over the impeachment if there is one and he certainly would not be helpful to Trump.

This is the only Q post I can find with that type of phrase. Here it is:

Apr 27 2018

1287Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 6e1ca8 No.1215845
Apr 27 2018 19:27:33 (EST)
Cohen raid by FBI?
Public context: re: payment to Stormy Daniels?
SC & FBI raided POTUS’ attorney to pull Stormy Daniels payment info?
RR signed off?
What other docs were collected?
How many places raided?
Raid on the President of the United States’ attorney for payment details re: private case re: Stormy Daniels?
Think logically.
How do you introduce evidence into an investigation (legally)?
Who has everything?
Methods which info collected/ obtained?
Admissible in the court of law?
Insert Rudy.
First public statement.
“It shouldn’t take more than “a week or two” to come to a resolution on the probe.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-giuliani-vows-to-wrap-up-mueller-probe.html
Think resignations.
Who has the POWER?
If POTUS was in a weakened position (about to be impeached/indicted) would ‘they’ resign?
Why are we here?
Public forum.
World watching.
Sharing of intel to bad actors?
Purpose?
Not confirming SC is on /team/.
Question everything.
Timing important.
Planned?
Q


Chatter that I recall pertaining to the statement in the OP revolved around Gen Flynn pleading guilty to a crime he didn't do. Why would he do that? The thinking is, "to put evidence in the public record".

 

[Strawboss]

Chatter that I recall pertaining to the statement in the OP revolved around Gen Flynn pleading guilty to a crime he didn't do. Why would he do that? The thinking is, "to put evidence in the public record".

The official story is he pled guilty because they threatened to go after his son on trumped up charges...

The evidence Sidney Powell just introduced with her latest court filing is DAMNING to the FBI, the DOJ and ties in directly with the attempted coup of Trump...

There are so many facets to all this...Flynn, Huber, Barr, Durham, FISA IG report, Rudy's evidence, Judicial Watch, Epstein (what was in his safe?), Weiner's laptop...

There isnt enough popcorn to supply the need these next few months are gonna generate...

 

[Goldhedge]

If there is an impeachment trial... ALL the effort is on the Democrats.

It would look bad if Trump's DA went after the Democrats. Political persecution would be claimed.

Reverse the tables and Trump's people get to interrogate witnesses and introduce the origins of the impeachment beginning with Russian dossier and lying to FISA judges to get warrants.

"Discovery" is the process.

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3]​

​

​

 

[Cigarlover]

Trump is allowed to formulate a defense that he is the target of an illegal coup to remove him from office - and that the impeachment itself was a part of it.

He is allowed to introduce ANY information that NSA has - as well as any information collected as a result of a legal FISA warrant on any of the players Trump believes are part of the criminal conspiracy to commit treason.

He can declassify anything he wants and introduce it as evidence. He is President. The NSA has it all...which means Trump has it all...all their texts...photos...GPS locations...conversations recorded in the vicinity of anyones cell phone, etc...

ALL of that is fair game and can be legally introduced if Trump can tie it into the conspiracy...

What we saw in Sidney Powells recent court filing on behalf of Flynn is a drop in the ocean of what Trump has available to him...

I see what your saying there and I agree there is certainly evidence "if true" that there is a coup going on and possibly treason. For arguments sake lets assume that everything you say is true and Trump has all the evidence. It doesn't take an impeachment trial to introduce that evidence. It takes charges against those individuals to put a stop to it.
That my friend is how you introduce evidence. You charge people with a crime and then present your evidence. The judge may even look at that and say ok why didn't you charge anyone with a crime then?
The simplest and easiest solution to all of this is charge these people with a crime, arrest them and the narrative completely changes because there is no one left to write the narrative.
Using this evidence as a defense gives everyone have fair warning of what evidence has actually been collected against them. If true this would be one of the dumbest plays in political history.


Of course it all remains to be seen.

 

[Goldhedge]

An aside... not sure how this happens....

Back on July 27, 2019

Q said [ 93 dk]

It's been 93 days and now Q is back. How would Q know this??

 

[Cigarlover]

Reverse the tables and Trump's people get to interrogate witnesses and introduce the origins of the impeachment beginning with Russian dossier and lying to FISA judges to get warrants.

Only if he was being impeached on grounds related to the fisa docs. The dems are being very careful not to go that route and are looking for another angle. The Ukraine thingy.

 

[Cigarlover]

Legal fuckery is very tricky. The dems will create a case thats very limited in stature so as to limit Trumps ability to fight. He may prevail because of it but all of these people are lawyers and you can be sure they will limit the scope of any charges so there is no blowback on them. They will lose because of it though but they wont expose themselves to anything damaging.

 

[Strawboss]

I see what your saying there and I agree there is certainly evidence "if true" that there is a coup going on and possibly treason. For arguments sake lets assume that everything you say is true and Trump has all the evidence. It doesn't take an impeachment trial to introduce that evidence. It takes charges against those individuals to put a stop to it.
That my friend is how you introduce evidence. You charge people with a crime and then present your evidence. The judge may even look at that and say ok why didn't you charge anyone with a crime then?
The simplest and easiest solution to all of this is charge these people with a crime, arrest them and the narrative completely changes because there is no one left to write the narrative.
Using this evidence as a defense gives everyone have fair warning of what evidence has actually been collected against them. If true this would be one of the dumbest plays in political history.


Of course it all remains to be seen.

If this was simply a legal matter - you would be 100% correct in what you are saying...

The reality here is that there is a political component to this...According to Drudge (if you can believe it) 70% of the country believe we are on the brink of a civil war. Count me in that 70%.

That MUST be accounted for in this whole matter.

The "cleansing" must be done in a way that is "above board" and doesnt have the appearance of "dirty politics"...

No one - absolutely no one can accuse Trump of playing dirty politics if he is defending himself in an impeachment trial. The gloves are off at that point...

Remember - the KEY to all of this...the CENTRAL CORE...is the attempt to do this swamp draining using the existing system of justice...and to not have to use the military (very dangerous precedent).

It would be EASY to have the military clean up the mess. Declare martial law and within 30 days - you can have GITMO stuffed. And yeah - that would feel good and we would all cheer and support...

But that would be a Pyrrhic victory...and would ultimately prove to be the demise of our experiment in self government...

 

[Goldhedge]

Legal fuckery is very tricky.

Democrats are masters at this which is what they just "voted on" last week.

The dems will create a case thats very limited in stature so as to limit Trumps ability to fight.

I think folks are beginning to figure out who's zoomin who...

Problem I see is the media. If you chance to watch MSM at some point EVERY comment is negative.

Trump is full of himself. Trump admitted guilt. Trump is guilty. Trump is thwarting justice. Trump disrespected 'someone'... yadda yadda yadda...

It's 24/7 bashing Trump. Unbelievable!!

What I find unbelievable is how brainwashed the population is. Uninformed voters. Freaky....

 

[Strawboss]

Democrats are masters at this which is what they just "voted on" last week.



I think folks are beginning to figure out who's zoomin who...

Problem I see is the media. If you chance to watch MSM at some point EVERY comment is negative.

Trump is full of himself. Trump admitted guilt. Trump is guilty. Trump is thwarting justice. Trump disrespected 'someone'... yadda yadda yadda...

It's 24/7 bashing Trump. Unbelievable!!

What I find unbelievable is how brainwashed the population is. Uninformed voters. Freaky....

The difference this time relating to the media is that they staked their entire reputations on the Russia garbage...they pushed all their chips into the pot on that and lost...BIG. Mueller was a complete dud...

And everyday Americans KNOW it. The media has but a shadow of the power they used to have...

Still dangerous...yes. But severely weakened...

People all across this country are waking up...

 

[hammerhead]

And to add to the media's nonstop barrage, I doubt their support is close to what they want you to believe.

 

[Cigarlover]

If this was simply a legal matter - you would be 100% correct in what you are saying...

The reality here is that there is a political component to this...According to Drudge (if you can believe it) 70% of the country believe we are on the brink of a civil war. Count me in that 70%.

That MUST be accounted for in this whole matter.

The "cleansing" must be done in a way that is "above board" and doesnt have the appearance of "dirty politics"...

No one - absolutely no one can accuse Trump of playing dirty politics if he is defending himself in an impeachment trial. The gloves are off at that point...

Remember - the KEY to all of this...the CENTRAL CORE...is the attempt to do this swamp draining using the existing system of justice...and to not have to use the military (very dangerous precedent).

It would be EASY to have the military clean up the mess. Declare martial law and within 30 days - you can have GITMO stuffed. And yeah - that would feel good and we would all cheer and support...

But that would be a Pyrrhic victory...and would ultimately prove to be the demise of our experiment in self government...

I thought military tribunals were in the cards already? :)

No one would accuse him of playing dirty politics for locking up criminals. Well except the left and the reality is no matter what he does they will never come around and say oh he got em and it was clean.. It's all dirty politics to them and they have mastered it. The left is angry for sure. The right, not so much.
In fact it's really only in online stuff that I see any of the anger. Of course I live in the middle of nowhere and not in any major urban center.

Not sure about a civil war. If there is one it will be over the 2nd amendment. Just wait for the left to turn in their guns first then we can win easier in their gun free zones.
What do we do about our kids and grandkids though? They may have been corrupted by the left.

 

[Strawboss]

I thought military tribunals were in the cards already? :)

No one would accuse him of playing dirty politics for locking up criminals. Well except the left and the reality is no matter what he does they will never come around and say oh he got em and it was clean.. It's all dirty politics to them and they have mastered it. The left is angry for sure. The right, not so much.
In fact it's really only in online stuff that I see any of the anger. Of course I live in the middle of nowhere and not in any major urban center.

Not sure about a civil war. If there is one it will be over the 2nd amendment. Just wait for the left to turn in their guns first then we can win easier in their gun free zones.
What do we do about our kids and grandkids though? They may have been corrupted by the left.

Unfortunately - from a 40K ft. view - I think the progressives/liberals/communists/socialists are gonna win the battle. Sure - Trump may win another 4 years and we may forestall the eventual assimilation with the global government...but rest assured - that assimilation is coming...

I just hope it isnt in my lifetime...

 

[Thecrensh]

Unfortunately - from a 40K ft. view - I think the progressives/liberals/communists/socialists are gonna win the battle. Sure - Trump may win another 4 years and we may forestall the eventual assimilation with the global government...but rest assured - that assimilation is coming...

I just hope it isnt in my lifetime...

I'm with you on that. There's too many young people who have been blinded by the indoctrination in schools and colleges and rather than bust butt and make it by living a frugal life, they want all the stuff their parents have but without the sacrifice and struggle...so socialism it is. Little do they know that their parents had hard times and saved, sacrificed and did without to NOW have stuff...that the kids want and feel they deserve.

Had a guy call Dave Ramsay today asking about a "moral question". He makes $75K and his parents are paying his student loans while he has amassed over $100K in total investments...and he was asking whether he should start paying that off.

DUH. And this is a guy who listens to Dave Ramsay...no some dreadlock punk huffing gas in the back alley.

 

[spinalcracker]

How important is the judge who has to decide what evidence is admitted and what evidence is discarded ?....

 

[Joe King]

It's like if I got caught smoking a joint at the park and went to trial. I cant introduce evidence saying all politicians are corrupt so I am not guilty. Or Hillary deleted 33k emails so I am not guilty

You should be able to though. We're supposed to have equal treatment under the law, right? (yea, I know. Lol)
With the hag they said they couldn't prove intent to break the law, so no charges. You should be entitled to that same treatment. Can they prove that you intended to break the law when you aledgedly smoked the joint down in the park?

Only if he was being impeached on grounds related to the fisa docs. The dems are being very careful not to go that route and are looking for another angle. The Ukraine thingy.

The whole thing revolves around him asking about creepy joe. He can't introduce evidence explaining why he did it? At that point, everything connected to it is suddenly on the table.

 

[Strawboss]

The whole thing revolves around him asking about creepy joe. He can't introduce evidence explaining why he did it? At that point, everything connected to it is suddenly on the table.

Precisely...

 

[Thecrensh]

May not matter much in the long run. Trump's candidate just lost the KY Gov seat to a Dem. Supposedly VA dems are solidifying their hold on Va state legislature. Seems the "red wave" may not happen in 2020.

 

[Buck]

this, this right here...contempt

We've not even begun and just like that...it could be all over before we even wake up in the morning...

It could happen, easily

 

[Cigarlover]

There may be a million or 3 people who actually pay attention to the in depth shit going on in this country. Very few of them are on GIM or even free republic or any of the other political websites.
38% of voters are independent. The rest have already chosen sides. Even amongst the independents only 7% of that 38% don't lean one way or another.
So in the end you could put a dead frog on the Dem ticket and it would get 45% of the vote anyway..

You should be able to though. We're supposed to have equal treatment under the law, right? (yea, I know. Lol)
With the hag they said they couldn't prove intent to break the law, so no charges. You should be entitled to that same treatment. Can they prove that you intended to break the law when you aledgedly smoked the joint down in the park?



The whole thing revolves around him asking about creepy joe. He can't introduce evidence explaining why he did it? At that point, everything connected to it is suddenly on the table.

The trial will be about weather he did it or didn't do it. Why he did it would come in the sentencing phase.
Did he withhold aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate? He did but it was a behind the scenes thing and the President of Ukraine didn't know it was being withheld at the time. Doesn't look like Quid Pro Quo to me. In court though, it isn't about truth and justice, it's about who can tell the most convincing story.

How important is the judge who has to decide what evidence is admitted and what evidence is discarded ?....

Since Roberts will be presiding over the impeachment if it happens, I would say it's pretty important.

 

[Cigarlover]

I'm no legal expert when it comes to impeachment trials though so who knows for sure what will be allowed and what wont.. The dems just kinda make this shit up as they go.

 

[Strawboss]

Roberts will play a pretty hands off role in the Senate trial. It wont be like a regular court trial. The Senate will make the rules and all that and Roberts will give great reverence to what those are. Only in a very egregious circumstance will Roberts deign to overrule the will of the Senate regarding rules, process, etc...

As to the trial itself - Trumps basic defense will be that he is trying to uproot corruption everywhere he encounters it - that Ukraine is hopelessly corrupt (as evidenced on their new president being elected on a campaign to end corruption) - that Ukraine was intimately involved in the 2016 Russia hoax - that the US Justice Department formally announced an investigation to look into the origins of the Russia hoax - that there is a formal treaty between Ukraine and the US related to law enforcement issues - that he was simply facilitating introductions between our AG and theirs.

He will further argue that his motives for wanting to stall the aid package was 2fold. Firstly - he wanted to get other NATO countries to pony up some of the money (US shouldnt have to bear all the financial costs) and secondly - he wanted to ensure that any new aid money given to Ukraine would not be diverted into the old corrupt channels the way old aid money was stolen.

And it is that 2nd channel that will allow him to introduce evidence showing how his attackers are actually linked to the previous corruption in Ukraine - diverting huge sums of money that have been subsequently laundered back into the pockets of the corrupt politicians and political operatives here in the US.

If Trump can make a compelling case along the lines I am describing that is close enough to the election to where it is still fresh in voters minds - he has a good chance of a major victory in 2020 - and that would give him license to commence with arrests/prosecutions...

 

[Cigarlover]

This is the only Q post I can find with that type of phrase. Here it is:

Apr 27 2018

1287Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 6e1ca8 No.1215845
Apr 27 2018 19:27:33 (EST)
Cohen raid by FBI?
Public context: re: payment to Stormy Daniels?
SC & FBI raided POTUS’ attorney to pull Stormy Daniels payment info?
RR signed off?
What other docs were collected?
How many places raided?
Raid on the President of the United States’ attorney for payment details re: private case re: Stormy Daniels?
Think logically.
How do you introduce evidence into an investigation (legally)?
Who has everything?
Methods which info collected/ obtained?
Admissible in the court of law?
Insert Rudy.
First public statement.
“It shouldn’t take more than “a week or two” to come to a resolution on the probe.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-giuliani-vows-to-wrap-up-mueller-probe.html
Think resignations.
Who has the POWER?
If POTUS was in a weakened position (about to be impeached/indicted) would ‘they’ resign?
Why are we here?
Public forum.
World watching.
Sharing of intel to bad actors?
Purpose?
Not confirming SC is on /team/.
Question everything.
Timing important.
Planned?
Q


Chatter that I recall pertaining to the statement in the OP revolved around Gen Flynn pleading guilty to a crime he didn't do. Why would he do that? The thinking is, "to put evidence in the public record".

And 2 years later, we got nothing. You want evidence Q is BS? There it is. I know people will believe anything. Look at the hundreds that drank the Qlaid down in Ghanna years ago.. Jim Jones was their hero, probably right up to the point where they died.
I like you guys though so if Q gives you a recipe for a cocktail don't drink it!!!!!

 

[Thecrensh]

And 2 years later, we got nothing. You want evidence Q is BS? There it is. I know people will believe anything. Look at the hundreds that drank the Qlaid down in Ghanna years ago.. Jim Jones was their hero, probably right up to the point where they died.
I like you guys though so if Q gives you a recipe for a cocktail don't drink it!!!!!

I don't know...I'm more convinced than ever that Q is real now. Just not sure what the intended outcome is anymore....

 

[Strawboss]

Reviewing this thread reminds me that whenever I am convinced about something...go back and re-check...

I am convinced Q is real...the coup against Trump is real...and that there is a battle to the death going on behind the scenes...

I am still not 100% convinced that Trump/Q are white hats...I am like 98% convinced...but there is always that nagging doubt as to intentions...

 

[Thecrensh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325885633294979078

 

[the_shootist]

Why aren't these posts in the Q thread? CL is right, we have to deal with all you Q fags in every thread these days. You have your own Q cesspool. Keep your Q crap in there other wise you'll get people like CL upset. Oh wait....

Since I haven't been in the thread in a long time I guess others may have these answers. If so feel free to post them here for all to see.

1)What evidence is this post referring to?

2) if my understanding is correct you introduce evidence at a hearing. This can be from depositions or other sources. The judge makes the ruling on the evidence and then both parties work with the evidence that will be allowed.

3) In Trumps impeachment trial he will be allowed to introduce evidence that he has committed no impeachable offenses. For instance, the transcript from his conversation or depositions from others close to the matter.

People keep referring to this like so much is going to come out in this witch hunt yet I think this is another scam perpetrated by Q. Trumps lawyers will not be able to introduce evidence of anyone else crimes in this trial. Simply provide proof that he did nothing wrong. It's like if I got caught smoking a joint at the park and went to trial. I cant introduce evidence saying all politicians are corrupt so I am not guilty. Or Hillary deleted 33k emails so I am not guilty or even Biden said this on national TV so I am not guilty.

I'm more than happy to eat crow on this so if someone can dispute the above please do and show me some precedent where someone could introduce evidence unrelated to the case. Roberts will also be presiding over the impeachment if there is one and he certainly would not be helpful to Trump.

Sorry bud, you set yourself up and I couldn't resist! Nothing personal dude!