Did a hearing start today or something?

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

We're going to impeach the President of the United States because we "heard" from some State Department diplomats that he told the Ukrainians to do something they never did before losing some aid they already had been given.

OK...let's vote.

 

[dave]

Hearsay is one of the most complicated areas of the evidentiary rules. Several general points:

1. Hearsay, as folks are referring to some of these statements, is controlled by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Those Rules apply in a court of law. Congress is not a court of law. I don’t know if Congress has agreed to follow those Rules of Evidence in these proceedings or not. I’m guessing not. If not, the clamor is moot.
2. There is hearsay, there is hearsay upon hearsay, there is admissible hearsay . . .
3. There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are exceptions to the exceptions.
4. For example, if a witness refuses to testify based on a privilege of some sort, it is possible that hearsay would be admissible regarding a conversation in which that person was involved.
5. The question of hearsay is not a simple matter, certainly not as simple and clear-cut as being made out regarding these proceedings.
6. Bluntly, well-experienced lawyers and judges often struggle during trial on hearsay questions. I sure have. That’s even after anticipating its occurrence and researching the specific issue ahead of time.

If you want to get some inkling about the twists and turns regarding hearsay, here’s a link to the hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/

Blah blah blah. You know better.

 

[tjebarr]

Let Trump testify to clear his name

 

[WVU82_rivals]

TESTIFY FOR WHAT ?

Read the transcript

His name is clear...

 

[moe]

No, Gunny. Please educate us on how to apply the hearsay rules.

LOL

 

[30CAT]

Board leftists, just like all other leftists in this country, only ignore these annoying facts. They take their truth over facts. They have had pipe dreams of impeachment since election night. This embarrassment for the left happened because they resorted to conjuring up myths and conspiracy theories over being dissatisfied over the 2016 election. If they would have just accepted The People's decision and started focusing on the message The People sent, they would be better off. Focus on the 2020 election, listen to what The People are saying and get to work. It's as simple as that.

Not for them though. They only want power. F#$% The People. Give them our freedoms and liberties and total control. That's what they want. If leftist sheep would just open their eyes and ears, look and listen, they would see it. Current candidates are telling us: Free everything, open borders, how much soda we can have, limit our portion sizes, what our children can and can't eat, everything free to foreign nationals coming here illegally, illegal aliens voting, illegals having more protection and rights than American citizens, eliminating the 1st and 2nd Amendments...etc.

The only way the sheep will ever change their minds is when they have to experience it. Seeing it happen elsewhere, throughout history won't even change their minds. They have to experience it. Their leaders have brainwashed them. Problem is, if they ever get their wish, there won't be any going back. We'll all be stuck in the misery.

 

[Gunny46]

No, Gunny. Please educate us on how to apply the hearsay rules.

Keeping in mind you have to sell this to the American People. You have to convince them.
It's an impeachment inquiry and not a criminal case so unethical ****** lawyers can get by with offering up 3rd and 4th hand information that hasn't been fact checked. Come back in a few weeks I will use the new I.G. report that's coming out to show you what I mean about unethical ****** lawyers. Hopefully you will join me in condemning them.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Hearsay is one of the most complicated areas of the evidentiary rules. Several general points:

1. Hearsay, as folks are referring to some of these statements, is controlled by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Those Rules apply in a court of law. Congress is not a court of law. I don’t know if Congress has agreed to follow those Rules of Evidence in these proceedings or not. I’m guessing not. If not, the clamor is moot.
2. There is hearsay, there is hearsay upon hearsay, there is admissible hearsay . . .
3. There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are exceptions to the exceptions.
4. For example, if a witness refuses to testify based on a privilege of some sort, it is possible that hearsay would be admissible regarding a conversation in which that person was involved.
5. The question of hearsay is not a simple matter, certainly not as simple and clear-cut as being made out regarding these proceedings.
6. Bluntly, well-experienced lawyers and judges often struggle during trial on hearsay questions. I sure have. That’s even after anticipating its occurrence and researching the specific issue ahead of time.

If you want to get some inkling about the twists and turns regarding hearsay, here’s a link to the hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/

You are correct. Congress has not adopted those Rules.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[Gunny46]

 

[dave]

You are correct. Congress has not adopted those Rules.

It doesnt make hearsay more legitimate. It makes their case more illegitimate.

 

[The Dunedein]

Blah blah blah. You know better.

I know better than what? You asked if hearsay is evidence. I viewed your question as a legitimate one. In good faith, i took a chunk of my time late last night to try to give you some idea of the intricacies of the Hearsay Rule. I even looked up a link so you could read the bare Rules yourself if you wanted. Your pithy comment notwithstanding, if you don’t want to garner a basic understanding of a complicated area of law you asked about, that is certainly your prerogative. I was trying to help you.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I know better than what? You asked if hearsay is evidence. I viewed your question as a legitimate one. In good faith, i took a chunk of my time late last night to try to give you some idea of the intricacies of the Hearsay Rule. I even looked up a link so you could read the bare Rules yourself if you wanted. Your pithy comment notwithstanding, if you don’t want to garner a basic understanding of a complicated area of law you asked about, that is certainly your prerogative. I was trying to help you.

He’s simply an ******* who just can’t help himself.

 

[moe]

I know better than what? You asked if hearsay is evidence. I viewed your question as a legitimate one. In good faith, i took a chunk of my time late last night to try to give you some idea of the intricacies of the Hearsay Rule. I even looked up a link so you could read the bare Rules yourself if you wanted. Your pithy comment notwithstanding, if you don’t want to garner a basic understanding of a complicated area of law you asked about, that is certainly your prerogative. I was trying to help you.

Gunny and his ilk aren't seeking the truth, they're just grasping for anything to make them feel better and playing whatabout games.

 

[The Dunedein]

Keeping in mind you have to sell this to the American People. You have to convince them.
It's an impeachment inquiry and not a criminal case so unethical ****** lawyers can get by with offering up 3rd and 4th hand information that hasn't been fact checked. Come back in a few weeks I will use the new I.G. report that's coming out to show you what I mean about unethical ****** lawyers. Hopefully you will join me in condemning them.

Nice topic change. When all else fails, use the universal rallying cry and blame the lawyers.

As to the IG report to which you refer, i look forward to it. If there is legitimate evidence of wrongdoing by people involved in this, the American people should know about it, same as the impeachment inquiry.

 

[Gunny46]

He’s simply an ******* who just can’t help himself.

We prefer John Durham's legal opinion. Michael Horowitz isn't to shabby either since he already got ****** lawyers like McCabe, Stryok, and others fired for unethical behavior.

 

[Gunny46]

Gunny and his ilk aren't seeking the truth, they're just grasping for anything to make them feel better and playing whatabout games.

Post 128 and 137. What is factually incorrect dumbass ?

 

[tjebarr]

Why is the President blocking people with first hand information from testifying and clearing his name?

 

[wvu2007]

Moe, country, ,and dudettein are having rough mornings. L....O.....L

 

[atlkvb]

Why is the President blocking people with first hand information from testifying and clearing his name?

Why are we asking other people with "first hand" information to testify when we have the actual transcript?

 

[Gunny46]

Nice topic change. When all else fails, use the universal rallying cry and blame the lawyers.

As to the IG report to which you refer, i look forward to it. If there is legitimate evidence of wrongdoing by people involved in this, the American people should know about it, same as the impeachment inquiry.

You're the Michael Avenatti of this message board.

 

[Shirley Knott]

You are correct. Congress has not adopted those Rules.

Sooooo, One doesn't have to be guilty of a crime to be convicted of a crime as long as someone is convinced that One is guilty due to hearing from a person who heard third hand that One did something wrong........Yep sounds about left.......

 

[tjebarr]

OPINION | Impeachment Is Not a Fair Fight, and on Day One It Showed
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/13/trump-impeachment-house-070840

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You're the Michael Avenatti of this message board.

Nah, Dune is a good ****. He’s the only person here who has passed the bar and practices law. I think he is more estate planning and marital stuff if I remember correctly, but a good guy none the less. He certainly knows more about the actual law than anyone here. I found his post on the hearsay worth reading explaining the differences and how they can be used/viewed in context of the law and applied effectively in court.

So far, the only morons are the dumb and dumber twins who’ve got no clue what the **** they’re talking about. One lies and the other swears to it. It’s good comedy. Cunty has developed his own ball licking minion in Elmer Fudd similar to the way Cunty enjoys rifle’s throbbing member in his mouth.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

OPINION | Impeachment Is Not a Fair Fight, and on Day One It Showed
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/13/trump-impeachment-house-070840

Thanks for the Op-Ed of a Chicago based Democratic candidate for IL state AG. I’m sure there is zero bias.

got anything written by “Yancy Pelosi”?

 

[tjebarr]

Thanks for the Op-Ed of a Chicago based Democratic candidate for IL state AG. I’m sure there is zero bias.

got anything written by “Yancy Pelosi”?

Stop running scared and let Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and others testify. Otherwise you guys look like scared pussies. Let Trump show up and tell the truth.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Stop running scared and let Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and others testify. Otherwise you guys look like scared pussies. Let Trump show up and tell the truth.

Sorry, the administration is not in the business of supplying more clowns for your circus. That's Schiff's job.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Stop running scared and let Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and others testify. Otherwise you guys look like scared pussies. Let Trump show up and tell the truth.

You’ll have to extract enough of a pressure mechanism out of these bombshell witnesses we heard so much about to compel their need to testify. Otherwise, read the transcript.

 

[Gunny46]

Nah, Dune is a good ****. He’s the only person here who has passed the bar and practices law. I think he is more estate planning and marital stuff if I remember correctly, but a good guy none the less. He certainly knows more about the actual law than anyone here. I found his post on the hearsay worth reading explaining the differences and how they can be used/viewed in context of the law and applied effectively in court.

So far, the only morons are the dumb and dumber twins who’ve got no clue what the **** they’re talking about. One lies and the other swears to it. It’s good comedy. Cunty has developed his own ball licking minion in Elmer Fudd similar to the way Cunty enjoys rifle’s throbbing member in his mouth.

Post 128.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Post 128.

Quote it, providing the number doesn’t work if you have people on ignore because I don’t get the same post counts you do.

 

[moe]

Sorry, the administration is not in the business of supplying more clowns for your circus. That's Schiff's job.

Aw come on, send in the clowns. Just more Obstruction of Congress articles of impeachment, it's all good.

 

[Mntneer]

Nah, Dune is a good ****. He’s the only person here who has passed the bar and practices law. I think he is more estate planning and marital stuff if I remember correctly, but a good guy none the less. He certainly knows more about the actual law than anyone here. I found his post on the hearsay worth reading explaining the differences and how they can be used/viewed in context of the law and applied effectively in court.

So far, the only morons are the dumb and dumber twins who’ve got no clue what the **** they’re talking about. One lies and the other swears to it. It’s good comedy. Cunty has developed his own ball licking minion in Elmer Fudd similar to the way Cunty enjoys rifle’s throbbing member in his mouth.

Plus... he's Dunedain... descended from the Numenoreans.

 

[atlkvb]

Aw come on, send in the clowns. Just more Obstruction of Congress articles of impeachment, it's all good.

Hey moe, will Mueller's obstruction charges also be included in the articles of impeachment?

If Trump objects to the whistle blower giving testimony, is that obstruction too?

 

[Gunny46]

Quote it, providing the number doesn’t work if you have people on ignore because I don’t get the same post counts you do.

I said he's legally correct hearsay laws don't apply in a circus sham show but they still have to convince the American people.

What the American people heard yesterday.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Plus... he's Dunedain... descended from the Numenoreans.

 

[dave]

He’s simply an ******* who just can’t help himself.

That is comical coming from you.

 

[dave]

I know better than what? You asked if hearsay is evidence. I viewed your question as a legitimate one. In good faith, i took a chunk of my time late last night to try to give you some idea of the intricacies of the Hearsay Rule. I even looked up a link so you could read the bare Rules yourself if you wanted. Your pithy comment notwithstanding, if you don’t want to garner a basic understanding of a complicated area of law you asked about, that is certainly your prerogative. I was trying to help you.

I appreciate your response but as it applies to an impeachment hearing to override the will of the American people I would think we'd both agree about the place for hearsay. This isnt a civil case.

Perhaps to be more concise, we have two witnesses who have not talked to the President and who admit they thiought what they thought after hearing second or third hand information verses a transcript first hand knowledge of the conversation. The transcript was certified by others who listened to the call as as correct as they can recall. In what court would hearsay be accepted over transcribed first hand information?

 

[TarHeelEer]

I appreciate your response but as it applies to an impeachment hearing to override the will of the American people I would think we'd both agree about the place for hearsay. This isnt a civil case.

Perhaps to be more concise, we have two witnesses who have not talked to the President and who admit they thiought what they thought after hearing second or third hand information verses a transcript first hand knowledge of the conversation. The transcript was certified by others who listened to the call as as correct as they can recall. In what court would hearsay be accepted over transcribed first hand information?

Sondland is their source, and Sondland got it from the NYT. It's a circus.

 

[dave]

Sondland is their source, and Sondland got it from the NYT. It's a circus.

The NYTimes got it from the whistleblower. Its the steele dossier all over again.