By FBI Agent J. Gary DiLaura, retired
What is the evidence of any High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Those of us who followed the House debacle they called a “Hearing” saw no direct evidence of anything illegal!
The leaders of the House put forth a “Hearing”, appropriately, named a “Hearing”, because all we “heard” was what their witnesses “heard” that somebody else “heard” and passed on as evidence.
That’s called “hearsay” evidence and is not allowed in any court of the United States, no matter what Adam Schiff claims.
To firm up their “case”, the Democrats brought in four US Constitutional professors that they called experts and then asked for their expert “opinions”, if they believed the President committed a High Crime or Misdemeanor, based upon all the evidence they saw/heard/reviewed, by his actions and three of them said “yes” and one said “no”.
They were then asked if any of them saw or heard anything that would constitute “direct evidence or personal knowledge evidence” and all said, no!
In the first place, an expert witness must be qualified as such, in order to testify as an expert.
I have personal knowledge of that fact as I have attended many trials involving experts at every level and have, myself, testified in federal court, after qualification, as a firearms expert. So how were they qualified, as constitutional experts?
Most important, however, is none of us heard anything that came even close to direct personal knowledge of any crimes by the President, let alone High Crimes or Misdemeanors!
The best evidence, under the “Best Evidence Rules”, is the conversation between the two Presidents and the transcript of their conversation! That evidence, clearly shows no personal Quid Pro Quo by President Trump at any point during the conversation!
Folks, please understand this …people can say anything they want to believe but that doesn’t make it true!
There is almost always a clear line between what evidence of a crime is and what is not.
It’s tough enough to discern between what some people thought they heard, let alone what somebody else said that they heard…and passed it on!
There can still be gray areas and that is exactly why “hearsay” is not allowed in ANY court in the US.
When we FBI Agents, were called upon to “sit a wire” we received refresher instructions on what is allowed and what is not…what is evidence and what is not.
We took notes, protected them as evidence, we taped the conversations and we did our 302s within five days using our notes recordings and training.
[A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct”. It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.]
After many wiretaps, trials, interviews, confessions we can usually discern between what is an admission and what is not… if the conversation is clear.
Trump’s conversation is transcribed and I saw no “unintelligible” markings!
In the world of evidence, to me, the President did not look for anything to benefit him, his family or anybody else. He was looking to benefit America.
Anyone who tells you that the conversation between President Trump and the Ukraine President is evidence of a crime probably would also state that he “has personal evidence that is not direct and not indirect but in-between that this President broke the law”
Do you know who said that?
That “evidence” that Congressman Schiff claimed he had never surfaced.
I submit that the evidence Schiff never showed… he never had… and it was more valuable than the fictitious 3rd hand evidence he produced during the debacle Schiff called a Hearing that led to the President’s Impeachment.
Along those lines, there is no doubt about what I heard Joe Biden admit to regarding the identical allegation!
Biden admitted to extorting, an action, that financially benefited his family, and personally harmed Ukraine Shokan financially, by using the color of official office and thereby interfering in interstate or foreign commerce, a clear violation of Title 18 Section 1951,2403 and several others USC!
On top of that, these people denied the President Due Process and Equal Rights resulting in a REAL Constitutional expert, Alan Dershowitz, to state that, “If this House Impeaches this President on the evidence they have, it will be a violation of the Constitution”.
The evidence put before the Senate requesting a trial for Impeachment has not met any threshold of evidence of Constitutionally required criminal activity and I would dismiss the charges based upon no evidence of any crime. Further, no court in the United States would allow any case to go to trial where the defendant has been denied Due Process, as this President has!
I rest my case!
