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

Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

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

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Same meeting, same message. You're repeating yourself, CP. Again, he's simply warning candidates that the American people are cautious, not that the candidates themselves are "way out there." He actually lauded them all and vowed to vigorously support any one of them as the nominee.
    Sure, Jim.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Hearsay is valid testimony.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • I'll just leave this here . . .

        hearsay.jpeg
        We know J6 wasn’t peaceful because they didn’t set the building on fire.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
          I'll just leave this here . . .

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]40945[/ATTACH]
          Somebody git a rope!
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            He's not suggesting that they are really "out there,"...
            “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”
              Try not to take every word out of someones mouth literally, CP. He lauded and said he would vigorously support any of the Democrat candidates. He's simply talking about Healthcare reform for which he thinks Warren and Sanders are going too far too fast for the average American. That approach is what he thinks is "crazy," not the end goal or the candidates pushing for it. He lauded, and said that he would vigorously support any one of the democrat candidates.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Try not to take every word out of someones mouth literally, CP.
                So, don't be like you?

                He lauded
                Out loud?

                and said he would vigorously support any of the Democrat candidates.
                No doubt.

                He's simply talking about Healthcare reform for which he thinks Warren and Sanders are going too far too fast for the average American.
                Yeah, CRAZY STUFF. And don't even get him started on AOC, your party's cheerleader.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  No, they don't.

                  It's a political process with judicial overtones - and the Dems are grossly underestimating how seriously Americans take Due Process and the procedural fairness it implies. Can get away with it legally isn't the same as can get away with it politically.

                  But the hearsay issue has more to do with the quality of the evidence - which is another political pitfall here. Hearsay won't cut the political mustard - hence the closed hearings until the protests got a bit too loud.
                  Im sorry but this doesn't make any sense, its either judicial or it's not. A judicial process is vested with judicial power by the constitution. The hearsay rule only applies to judicial processes because they have the authority to force witnesses to testify or face consequences.

                  I only work on civil cases and the hearsay rule is not as strict as criminal law because the threshold we have to meet is different. Criminal requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' while in civil it's 'a balance of probabilities' so in a situation where a witness won't testify or it would be too burdensome in costs or time to have that witness testify then hearsay would generally be allowed.

                  In any case, there are first hand witnesses who have testified such as Vindman and Holmes. Other testimonies have all been consistent so far.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    Im sorry but this doesn't make any sense, its either judicial or it's not.
                    Removal isn't punitive - and impeachment isn't civil. So, removal isn't relief, either. Nor is it governed by the Judicial branch.



                    A judicial process is vested with judicial power by the constitution.
                    Only the Judicial branch has judicial power - not the Legistlative, Impeachment is not an exception, having neither punishment nor relief.

                    Impeachment is primarily political - only the Senate trial per se uses a definite judicial process (trial) but again, removal or acquittal are the only possible outcomes with the Constitution expressly setting punitive measures outside impeachment.

                    So, I'll concede impeachment might be better described as a hybrid - but it is not strictly a judicial process.



                    The hearsay rule only applies to judicial processes because they have the authority to force witnesses to testify or face consequences.
                    Here's another reason why it's political - that is true, but simply will not fly. Nor should it - hearsay is inadmissible for good reason - it's unreliable and denies the accused the right to face the accuser (cross examination).

                    Most Americans can't give a detailed explanation of Due Process - but they also are very committed to the ideal. The present 'inquiry'comes off as a kangaroo court - I keep expecting an actual kangaroo. Judicially, the House can do it (since the Court won't step in - and really, really shouldn't) but politically, they are likely going to pay dearly for it. We Americans prefer our proceedings, judicial, political or otherwise, to come in size fair, thankyouverymuch.



                    I only work on civil cases and the hearsay rule is not as strict as criminal law because the threshold we have to meet is different. Criminal requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' while in civil it's 'a balance of probabilities' so in a situation where a witness won't testify or it would be too burdensome in costs or time to have that witness testify then hearsay would generally be allowed.
                    Our civil standard is 'preponderance of evidence' - but we frankly allow things into the civil courts that should be judged at the higher reasonable doubt standard - but that's another debate.

                    Not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but I'm pretty sure our hearsay exceptions are the same for both - unless you're counting deposition as hearsay (there are some allowances for deposition testimony to be entered into the trial - usually involving severe illness or death). Otherwise, witness boy can just answer the subpoena.

                    To be honest, I'm most familiar with constitutional law and least with civil - and it's one am so why am I even still here...


                    In any case, there are first hand witnesses who have testified such as Vindman and Holmes. Other testimonies have all been consistent so far.
                    ? Neither Vindman nor Holmes are primary witnesses - and neither testified publicly nor was subject to cross (per committee members). Vindman is contradicted by another first hand witness (who has a name - why do I try answering this stuff at one am?!) and thus far no primary besides Sondland has testified - and he lied once already under oath ().
                    Last edited by Teallaura; 11-19-2019, 01:18 AM.
                    "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


                    • I am getting the sense now that this thing is even bigger than Watergate. The wrongdoing is spectacular in scope. Pence is in the poo too.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        I am getting the sense now that this thing is even bigger than Watergate. The wrongdoing is spectacular in scope. Pence is in the poo too.
                        As always, your trolling is refreshingly obvious.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Removal isn't punitive - and impeachment isn't civil. So, removal isn't relief, either. Nor is it governed by the Judicial branch.



                          Only the Judicial branch has judicial power - not the Legistlative, Impeachment is not an exception, having neither punishment nor relief.

                          Impeachment is primarily political - only the Senate trial per se uses a definite judicial process (trial) but again, removal or acquittal are the only possible outcomes with the Constitution expressly setting punitive measures outside impeachment.

                          So, I'll concede impeachment might be better described as a hybrid - but it is not strictly a judicial process.




                          Here's another reason why it's political - that is true, but simply will not fly. Nor should it - hearsay is inadmissible for good reason - it's unreliable and denies the accused the right to face the accuser (cross examination).

                          Most Americans can't give a detailed explanation of Due Process - but they also are very committed to the ideal. The present 'inquiry'comes off as a kangaroo court - I keep expecting an actual kangaroo. Judicially, the House can do it (since the Court won't step in - and really, really shouldn't) but politically, they are likely going to pay dearly for it. We Americans prefer our proceedings, judicial, political or otherwise, to come in size fair, thankyouverymuch.



                          Our civil standard is 'preponderance of evidence' - but we frankly allow things into the civil courts that should be judged at the higher reasonable doubt standard - but that's another debate.

                          Not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but I'm pretty sure our hearsay exceptions are the same for both - unless you're counting deposition as hearsay (there are some allowances for deposition testimony to be entered into the trial - usually involving severe illness or death). Otherwise, witness boy can just answer the subpoena.

                          To be honest, I'm most familiar with constitutional law and least with civil - and it's one am so why am I even still here...


                          ? Neither Vindman nor Holmes are primary witnesses - and neither testified publicly nor was subject to cross (per committee members). Vindman is contradicted by another first hand witness (who has a name - why do I try answering this stuff at one am?!) and thus far no primary besides Sondland has testified - and he lied once already under oath ().
                          The only thing we seem to be in disagreement over is the fairness of these proceedings. I understand that any court like process is going to be seen through judicial standards and that is perfectly fine. If parties in a tribunal agrees to use the same rules as the courts then there's no issue as long as both parties stick to the rules. So my point is that you can't claim unfairness unless you're also playing by the same rules, its similar to the legal concept of 'unclean hands'. Eg. claiming hearsay while ignoring subpoenas....

                          The hearsay exceptions are the same (I think) but the application is different. For instance the 'maker not available' exception requires the maker to be dead (pretty much) in criminal while in civil it requires the maker to be considered too much of an inconvenience to attend. A few months ago I was involved in a case where the main witness would've had to miss a whole day of work and catch a 2 hour flight and that was good enough. Just to put in context the plaintiff sued the defendant for $9000 so normally local court but the defendant countered for $20,000 pushing it to the supreme court. Also even without using the exceptions the judge has the power to allow hearsay if they consider it important enough.

                          Vindman and Holmes both directly heard the conversations they are testifying about which makes them primary.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                            The only thing we seem to be in disagreement over is the fairness of these proceedings. I understand that any court like process is going to be seen through judicial standards and that is perfectly fine. If parties in a tribunal agrees to use the same rules as the courts then there's no issue as long as both parties stick to the rules. So my point is that you can't claim unfairness unless you're also playing by the same rules, its similar to the legal concept of 'unclean hands'. Eg. claiming hearsay while ignoring subpoenas....
                            I haven't gone back to it but MM appears to be correct - the subpoenas are not valid. Ignoring an invalid subpoena isn't the same thing as entering unreliable and otherwise inadmissible evidence. Cheating isn't following the rules - which is the effect of the invalid subpoenas.

                            The hearsay exceptions are the same (I think) but the application is different. For instance the 'maker not available' exception requires the maker to be dead (pretty much) in criminal while in civil it requires the maker to be considered too much of an inconvenience to attend. A few months ago I was involved in a case where the main witness would've had to miss a whole day of work and catch a 2 hour flight and that was good enough. Just to put in context the plaintiff sued the defendant for $9000 so normally local court but the defendant countered for $20,000 pushing it to the supreme court. Also even without using the exceptions the judge has the power to allow hearsay if they consider it important enough.
                            Interesting. I don't know enough about civil law here to comment on whether there is a similar allowance. I suspect so in the allowing of written testimony which is legally hearsay here.

                            Vindman and Holmes both directly heard the conversations they are testifying about which makes them primary.
                            Quibble - makes them material (and yay, direct evidence!) - but neither can testify to motive which is crucial here, so not primary.

                            Vindman proved to be a rather humorous disaster for the Dems.
                            "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 Teallaura View Post
                              I haven't gone back to it but MM appears to be correct - the subpoenas are not valid. Ignoring an invalid subpoena isn't the same thing as entering unreliable and otherwise inadmissible evidence. Cheating isn't following the rules - which is the effect of the invalid subpoenas.

                              Interesting. I don't know enough about civil law here to comment on whether there is a similar allowance. I suspect so in the allowing of written testimony which is legally hearsay here.

                              Quibble - makes them material (and yay, direct evidence!) - but neither can testify to motive which is crucial here, so not primary.

                              Vindman proved to be a rather humorous disaster for the Dems.
                              Your'e a smart person, Tea, but saying stupid stuff makes you look bad. Every day of these hearings have been a disaster for the President and his republican supporters including the testimony of Vindman.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Your'e a smart person, Tea, but saying stupid stuff makes you look bad. Every day of these hearings have been a disaster for the President and his republican supporters including the testimony of Vindman.
                                No, they haven't. Quit concentrating on the grandstanding (I admit, that is the fun part) and look at what the witnesses are actually bringing to the table. Thus far, it's been a big load of nothing - most being inadmissible at trial, one literally providing nothing material and no one able to testify to requisite motive. Sondland undermined the case further today.

                                To actually do anything, the House would have to pass a resolution, get subpoena power and get the principles to testify. But that's hideously risky - and I doubt they have the votes to pass it now.
                                "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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X