Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
    How the proceedings were run is a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to but critiquing it for not applying the strictest standards for evidence or meeting the highest threshold of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt is just wrong.
    Not really - this is a political affair where they are attempting to remove a duly elected president. Forget the law (most of it seems to be getting tossed anyway so far) and the Senate trial - the real jury are the American people. The Dems would have been better advised to hold to the highest rational standards they could because this isn't sitting well with the jury.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      How the proceedings were run is a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to but critiquing it for not applying the strictest standards for evidence or meeting the highest threshold of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt is just wrong.
      What really matters is how the majority of Americans perceived it. Perception is reality in the world of politics. Maybe other polling will come out to the contrary, but so far, it appears that the Dems committed an unforced error.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        What really matters is how the majority of Americans perceived it. Perception is reality in the world of politics. Maybe other polling will come out to the contrary, but so far, it appears that the Dems committed an unforced error.
        It's true that public perception is the actual standard they need to meet. Unfortunately if that standard is to demand the rules of evidence and complain about hearsay while also thinking its fine for material witnesses to ignore subpoenas then even the Supreme Court won't be able to meet those standards. Then you've effectively lost the only constitutional protection to remove an oppressive president.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
          It's true that public perception is the actual standard they need to meet. Unfortunately if that standard is to demand the rules of evidence and complain about hearsay while also thinking its fine for material witnesses to ignore subpoenas then even the Supreme Court won't be able to meet those standards. Then you've effectively lost the only constitutional protection to remove an oppressive president.
          The official theory seems to be exec privilege - but there's an open question about the validity of the subpoenas. Here the House Dems have a recourse to the courts - which they utterly ignored. Many of them are attorneys so it's not like they don't know (as litigious as we are it's inconceivable that no Dem reps have considered a suit) which leaves that they don't want the courts to rule. They're in DC - court shopping central - so something's very odd here. Are they afraid of an adverse precedent - or are they unsure about having any possibility of a favorable ruling?
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
            It's true that public perception is the actual standard they need to meet. Unfortunately if that standard is to demand the rules of evidence and complain about hearsay while also thinking its fine for material witnesses to ignore subpoenas then even the Supreme Court won't be able to meet those standards. Then you've effectively lost the only constitutional protection to remove an oppressive president.
            Actually, there's a second, more commonly used one. It's called a National Election. One's coming up in 11 months.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Actually, there's a second, more commonly used one. It's called a National Election. One's coming up in 11 months.
              Touché

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                The official theory seems to be exec privilege - but there's an open question about the validity of the subpoenas. Here the House Dems have a recourse to the courts - which they utterly ignored. Many of them are attorneys so it's not like they don't know (as litigious as we are it's inconceivable that no Dem reps have considered a suit) which leaves that they don't want the courts to rule. They're in DC - court shopping central - so something's very odd here. Are they afraid of an adverse precedent - or are they unsure about having any possibility of a favorable ruling?
                I thought they were waiting for the McGahn ruling which just came out in their favour. Interesting to see if Bolton will talk now.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                  How the proceedings were run is a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to but critiquing it for not applying the strictest standards for evidence or meeting the highest threshold of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt is just wrong.
                  The problem isn't that they didn't apply the strictest standards of evidence or the like but that they apparently had no standards other than "all's fair in love and war." Imagine a "judge" stopping a witness so that he can "clarify" what they said[1]. Not asking the witness to clarify something but actually telling the witness what they meant.

                  As an aside, as I predicted we are seeing a continuous effort to elevate hearsay gossip into something legitimate (let's not worry about strict standards of evidence) like when Rep. Mike Quigley (D - IL) insisted that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."






                  1. Given how Schiff "clarified" the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in his alternate reality "portrayal" of it in his opening statements (and how the MSM dutifully reported it as representing what was actually said) one would be justified in presuming that his "clarification" of witnesses' statements might also be accuracy challenged.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    Eh, if she's playing chess she'd better hope she doesn't need all the pieces she keeps losing.


                    I personally think they're both playing Chutes and Ladders - but neither understands the rules...

                    Click on to play
                    Last edited by rogue06; 11-26-2019, 04:34 AM.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      The official theory seems to be exec privilege - but there's an open question about the validity of the subpoenas. Here the House Dems have a recourse to the courts - which they utterly ignored. Many of them are attorneys so it's not like they don't know (as litigious as we are it's inconceivable that no Dem reps have considered a suit) which leaves that they don't want the courts to rule. They're in DC - court shopping central - so something's very odd here. Are they afraid of an adverse precedent - or are they unsure about having any possibility of a favorable ruling?
                      They didn't ignore the courts. They ran full speed in the opposite direction from the courts when Charles Kupperman appealed to them for guidance dropping their subpoena of him like a hot potato.

                      That they likewise appear to have stopped pressuring John Bolton who said he was awaiting what the courts said in Kupperman's case is interesting. It's almost like Schiff knew that the subpoenas that he issued might not withstand judicial scrutiny.

                      ETA: Since Kupperman was the one to file the suit the Democrats were unable to judge shop for someone likely to grant them a favorable initial ruling.
                      Last edited by rogue06; 11-26-2019, 04:47 AM.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        The problem isn't that they didn't apply the strictest stand
                        ards of evidence or the like but that they apparently had no standards other than "all's fair in love and war." Imagine a "judge" stopping a witness so that he can "clarify" what they said[1]. Not asking the witness to clarify something but actually telling the witness what they meant.

                        As an aside, as I predicted we are seeing a continuous effort to elevate hearsay gossip into something legitimate (let's not worry about strict standards of evidence) like when Rep. Mike Quigley (D - IL) insisted that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."






                        1. Given how Schiff "clarified" the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in his alternate reality "portrayal" of it in his opening statements (and how the MSM dutifully reported it as representing what was actually said) one would be justified in presuming that his "clarification" of witnesses' statements might also be accuracy challenged.
                        I’ll also add to your point that most of the questioning from both sides were either irrelevant, leading or their own testimonies so hardly anything of value was found after the witnesses opening statements.

                        My understanding of this process is that they were trying to establish sufficient cause to write the articles of impeachment. What standards are expected in similar situations?

                        The standards required become greater in relation to the severity of what’s at stake for practicality purposes. It usually costs a lot of money, time and effort to meet the highest standards and it’s absolutely necessary if someone’s life is at stake but it wouldn’t be practical to require the same if seven hundred dollars plus costs was at stake.

                        Hearsay isn’t inadmissible because it’s unreliable but because it’s not as reliable as direct evidence. The rules of evidence demand the best available form of that evidence so hearsay has to be replaced with the actual declarant to meet it. It follows then that if hearsay happens to be the best form of that evidence available then it also meets the required standard and you will find that the hearsay exceptions are for that very purpose and reasoned on the legal principle of ‘inferior evidence is better than no evidence’.

                        So if someone states that hearsay can sometimes be better than direct evidence then I cant see how that could possibly be reasoned. Maybe better if the declarant is lying but then it’s technically no longer hearsay since it’s no longer an assertion for the declarant so they actually become a fact witness to that lie. The other option is better in that the direct evidence isn’t available but does availability make it better? If I want a can of coke but the vending machine is out of coke and only has sprite then does it make sprite better? All I know is it doesn’t taste better.

                        Stating that it can be ‘much’ better is delusional.

                        Comment


                        • Does Mike Quigley happen to be overweight by any chance?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                            I’ll also add to your point that most of the questioning from both sides were either irrelevant, leading or their own testimonies so hardly anything of value was found after the witnesses opening statements.
                            Wow there's a shocker. A bunch of politicians asking irrelevant questions and making speeches and the like. Still, none of that rises to a chairman of a hearing telling the witnesses what they mean as he keeps interrupting them to "clarify" their statements for them.

                            As for nothing of value being said after an opening statement... It was after his opening statement that Sondland had to keep walking back his claim (that there was quid pro quo) so far that it left the building.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              Does Mike Quigley happen to be overweight by any chance?

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                They didn't ignore the courts. They ran full speed in the opposite direction from the courts when Charles Kupperman appealed to them for guidance dropping their subpoena of him like a hot potato.

                                That they likewise appear to have stopped pressuring John Bolton who said he was awaiting what the courts said in Kupperman's case is interesting. It's almost like Schiff knew that the subpoenas that he issued might not withstand judicial scrutiny.

                                ETA: Since Kupperman was the one to file the suit the Democrats were unable to judge shop for someone likely to grant them a favorable initial ruling.
                                or they simply (1) understand that juxtaposing the election and the impeachment is a mistake and the court case would take months to resolve. (2) think the evidence is strong enough w/o it (3) know that even if they had a signed note from Donald Trump requesting Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine and admitting the aid was tied to the investigations (wait, Mulveny said ...) , the GOP controlled senate would still not vote to remove him from office.

                                There are a large number of options beyond 'they know they would not succeed".
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                413 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X