Connect with us


Can the Defense Team of the President In the Senate Call Adam Schiff to Testify? (Opinion)

What say you?



I watched the House committee hearings as much as I could stand this waste of my time and my money. The first hearing is summed up when the witnesses were asked is there anything impeachable in this phone call, and neither did not answer. The point in question is the legal standing of hearsay as admissible evidence.

According to, it defines hearsay:

Although the term itself may seem self-explanatory, there is more to the hearsay rule than is covered on Perry Mason. Broadly defined, “hearsay” is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court, and hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.

Trending: Joe Biden On Camera: ‘I Got to the Senate 180 Years Ago’ — Video

So, simply put, the hearsay rule says that secondhand testimony is not admissible in court.

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. says this about hearsay as evidence: Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise. The hearsay ban aims to prevent juries from considering secondhand information that hasn’t been subject to cross-examination.

You can find many other examples of defining the legitimacy of hearsay as evidence, and almost all of them end as the above two, the absence of cross-examination. Try this one, your wife told you that her friend heard that your boss secretary said to her that he was cheating on his wife. Would you believe that was true?

What about a bureaucrat who testified that he heard recently from one of his staff members of a conversation that took place months ago telling him that he heard from a friend who was in a restaurant and that he told him the staffer could overhear a cell phone conversation in the restaurant and that the person was talking to the President of the United States and staffer was said this person could clearly identify that the person talking on the phone with President Trump. The person listening said that the President was more interested in investigations than support for Ukraine.

This conversation, if it happened was three steps removed, I doubt any prosecutor would put that witness on the stand. The Democrats want to pass a bill of impeachment of Donald Trump so far no witness for the Democrats haven’t presented any witness that produced any evidence that the conversation with the President of Ukraine was an impeachable offense.

We saw the treatment of Congresswomen Elise Stefanik by Chairman Schiff. The Chairman was rude and condescending to Stefanik, and I don’t understand why women leaders are not outraged at her treatment. She is trying to get to the truth, and Schiff is treating Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif. different than Stefanik. When Nunes attempted to yield some of his allotted time to Stefanik, she was immediately shut down by Schiff, citing House procedure.

Now back to the headline, I believe that the Democrats will not hold an impeachment vote because they know that if they do the Senate will hold a trial and have the ability to call a witness that includes Adam Schiff, Joe, and Hunter Biden, Hillary and perhaps even the Speaker of the House. They know that in the trial, things will be much different, and rather than expose all of these Democrats to cross-examination, they will not vote for impeachment.

I fully expect that at the end of the hearings the Democrats will say our hearing has exposed to the American people the wrongdoings of the President and his administration however we feel that a trial would not be productive and even more divisive we think the general election will give the American people the ability to join with us and replace the President.

Perkins Twist: If I’m right, then all the damage that Schiff and the Democrats have done will go unanswered by the President. If the Democrats don’t bring an impeachment resolution to the floor, then the 30 plus House members who won in 2018 will not have to vote on impeachment. By not giving the Republicans a chance to call Adam Schiff or anybody else to testify in a trial, they make the challenge more difficult for the President.

How about this for a dangerous idea. The Democrats do not bring the resolution to the floor for a vote, and a significant number of Democrats are outraged. I know this is going to sound outrageous, but are there enough Democrats along with the Republicans should the Republicans bring their own resolution to vote for impeachment to the floor causing a trial?

Dan Perkins is the host and producer for America’s Cannabis Conversation heard weekly on He is a published author of 7 books, 4 of which are on Islamic terrorism against the United States. His books can be purchased at Dan is a current events commentator and writes periodically for over 20 different news blogs. He appears regularly on over 1,400 radio and TV shows across the nation. He is also the cofounder of a non-profit veterans’ service organization called Songs and Stories for Soldiers. Dan’s website is

Save conservative media!


Ilhan Omar Caught Red-Handed In ‘Cash-For-Ballots Harvesting Scheme’ — Project Veritas Report

Caught ya!

John Salvatore



Everybody knows that Ilhan Omar is corrupt. Her disturbing track record proves it. However, this new blemish on her resume is likely to turn more heads than usual. If the mainstream media was honest with the American public, they’d report on this story from Project Veritas. Here’s the deal, via Project Veritas: [Minneapolis–Sept. 27, 2020] Project Veritas investigators revealed a ballot harvesting scheme here involving clan and political allies and associates of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D.-Minn.) in the first of a series of reports. “Numbers don’t lie. Numbers don’t lie. You can see my car is full. All these here are absentees’ ballots. Can’t you see? Look at all these, my car is full. All these are for Jamal Osman… We got 300 today for Jamal Osman only,” said Liban Mohamed in a series of Snapchat videos posted July 1 and July 2 on his own Snapchat profile. CONTINUED: Mohamed said he was collecting the ballots to help his brother win the city’s Aug. 11 special election for a vacant Ward 6 city council race—which was held the same day as the primary for Omar’s MN-05 congressional seat. Ward 6 is the heart of the city’s Somali community and the Omar’s political base. James O’Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas, said: “Ballot harvesting is real and it has become a big business. Our investigation into this ballot harvesting ring demonstrates clearly how these unscrupulous operators exploit the elderly and immigrant communities—and have turned the sacred ballot box into a commodities trading desk.” LOOK: VIDEO:

Continue Reading


Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Republicans’ Are ‘Spineless, Misogynistic Hypocrites’

How original!

John Salvatore



The New York Times, a hysterically funny satire “news”paper, or, a liberal version of The Babylon Bee, if you will, put out a report on Sunday about President Trump’s taxes. Yeah, they’re back on that train again. AOC gleaned the highlights, then decided to tweet at her uninformed, politically backward social media followers. Check this out, via The Hill: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) slammed President Trump on Sunday over a report in The New York Times detailing his personal tax contributions over the past 20 years. In a tweet, the freshman New York lawmaker pointed to the taxes reportedly paid by the president and former media mogul in 2016 and 2017 — $750 a year — as being less than she paid while working as a bartender in New York City prior to her election to office in 2018. LOOK: Next, Ocasio-Cortez hammered Republicans for being “spineless, misogynistic hypocrites.” For a member of the lower chamber, who swore an oath to the United States of America, to claim that illegal immigration should be accepted, is absolutely preposterous. AOC said, “We can’t go on with kinda these xenophobic narratives that undocumented people are somehow wrong.” See how she words it? She’s making the uninformed believe that conservatives feel that illegals are bad people. No, that’s not it at all – IT’S THE ACT OF CROSSING THE BORDER…ILLEGALLY!! Why is that such a difficult concept for her to grasp? VIDEO: Check this out, via Washington Examiner: Conservative political commentator Candace Owens got involved in a Twitter argument between former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, accusing the New York congresswoman of hypocrisy in her response to the coronavirus. AOC’s tweet: Owens’ response:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend