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: Tokyo Woke No Mo’: IOC Bans BLM Apparel for Olympics

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

take our poll - story continues below

Did Derek Chauvin Receive Proper Due Process?

  • Did Derek Chauvin Receive Proper Due Process?  

  • 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


CDC Readies Cruises, Complete with Human Guinea Pigs

Fingers crossed!



As the world prepares for its grand reopening, there are a number of high value industries that are eagerly awaiting permission from medical authorities to resume operations. First and foremost, there are the service industries:  Places like restaurants, bars, music venues, and sports arenas whose entire livelihood depends on whether or not people are being allowed to gather in public.  While many of these venues are now beginning to ramp up their capacity, there are issues bringing some of these workers back into the fold thanks to the enhanced unemployment benefits provided by the federal government. And then there’s the tourism industry, whose regulatory structure is far more susceptible to interference by government agencies. Now, after over a year of stagnation, it appears as though at least one facet of this wide-ranging corporate amalgam will be given a chance to sail on. Cruise lines can soon begin trial voyages in U.S. waters with volunteer passengers helping test whether the ships can sail safely during a pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave ship operators final technical guidelines Wednesday for the trial runs. The CDC action is a step toward resuming cruises in U.S. waters, possibly by July, for the first time since March 2020. A spokeswoman for the cruise industry’s trade group said the group was reviewing the CDC instructions. So, how will this work? Each practice cruise — they’ll run two to seven days — must have enough passengers to meet at least 10% of the ship’s capacity. Volunteers must be 18 or older and either fully vaccinated or free of medical conditions that would put them at high risk for severe COVID-19. The ship operator must tell passengers that they are simulating untested safety measures “and that sailing during a pandemic is an inherently risky activity,” the…

Continue Reading


Strange New Correlation Discovered Between COVID and Bald Men

This strain of coronavirus just keeps getting weirder.



From the very onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community appeared stumped.  Sure, this was a novel virus and, as such, came complete with a number of strange and unknown consequences. There were your “long-haulers”; folks who seemed to continually have issues recovering from the illness.  Others lost their senses of taste and smell, sometimes for months on end.  There were even reports of so-called “COVID toes” – an ailment that affected the coloration of the skin on toes and fingers of a small percentage of patients. Now, in another odd correlation within the coronavirus spectrum, it appears that men who’d gone bald are at particular risk for certain side effects of COVID-19. New research suggests they spend up to twice as long in hospital with Covid than those who still have a full head of hair. Science seems to have at least some idea of why this is. They are also admitted to intensive care in higher numbers. Scientists say men’s Covid vulnerability largely comes down to male sex hormones called androgens. Men who are genetically more sensitive to androgens appear to be more likely to suffer severe Covid. They are also more likely to have hair loss, called androgenetic alopecia, which affects around half of men over the age of 50. The science seemed to back this up. A team of US doctors measured men’s sensitivity to androgens by counting a chemical called CAG. High levels indicate that a man is more likely to have hair loss. Of 65 men hospitalised with the infection, those with high CAG levels had worse Covid outcomes in the 60 days following their hospitlisation. They spent 47 days in hospital, on average, and 70.6 per cent were admitted to ICU. For comparison, those with low CAG levels spent an average of 25 days…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week