Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

[Teallaura]

That was in response to the poster ridiculing the fact that hearsay could even be considered legitimate evidence.

This isn’t a judicial process so it’s ridiculous to expect adherence to the rules of evidence especially while thinking the other side doesn’t have to play by the same rules. That’s why the Supreme Court held that rules of evidence including hearsay don’t apply in grand jury proceedings. They don’t apply in any proceedings without judicial power.

This whole hearsay defence isn’t valid and only used by people that either don’t understand the process or have no substantial defence to the claims. In Trumps case, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t understand much of anything and his followers seem to just take whatever he tweets as gospel. That’s how we get to things like Nunes opening statement...

In any case I’m going to try and see if any hearsay exceptions could potentially apply to any claims made yesterday after work. I enjoyed doing these exercises at uni but I don’t work in criminal law so I’ll have to brush up on it.

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.

[NorrinRadd]

Oh please enlighten us and tell us exactly how the case for impeachment was advanced by yesterday's hearings.

Personally I find it telling that the impeachment wasn't even the lead story for much of the MSM today. It looks like they lost a whole lot of interest in the story that they were incessantly covering right up to yesterday. I wonder why.

Thursday Night Football!!!

(R.I.P., Stillers. )

[rogue06]

Nope - it's crap. Aide boy can only testify to hearsay if they even call him. Kevin Bacon is more connected to Trump than 'my aide said he overheard Sondland's side of the conversation'.

The "witnesses" could hardly be called witnesses. In one case there was something like four degrees of separation. George Kent said that he believed that there was quid pro quo because he heard it from William Taylor who heard it from Tim Morrison (who has denied Taylor's claim), who heard it from Sondland. And where did Sondland get it? He presumed that there was a quid pro quo despite Trump having explicitly told him that he wanted nothing in exchange and that there was no quid pro quo.

That's real solid evidence that the TDS crowd is hanging their hat on.

[rogue06]

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.

Moreover they are relating what amounts to double and triple hearsay. Like the old REO Speedwagon song puts it:


Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another...

[demi-conservative]

How was the theatre today? Are we expecting the TDS to finally return to sanity after this nothingburger blows over, or will the Fake News spin up more BS for them to consume?

[Roy]

Nope - it's crap. Aide boy can only testify to hearsay if they even call him. Kevin Bacon is more connected to Trump than 'my aide said he overheard Sondland's side of the conversation'.

Sigh.

If Taylor testifies that his aide heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's hearsay.

If the aid testifies that he heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's not hearsay.

[Mountain Man]

Sigh.

If Taylor testifies that his aide heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's hearsay.

If the aid testifies that he heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's not hearsay.

The issue is not what Sondland said but what Trump himself said, if the aide testifies that Trump was unusually interested in investigating the Bidens based on Sondland's say-so, or based on hearing only Sondland's half of a phonecall, then that is inadmissible hearsay.

[Cow Poke]

Sigh.

If Taylor testifies that his aide heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's hearsay.

If the aid testifies that he heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's not hearsay.

Is it alleged that the aide heard both sides of the conversation - as in being present with both parties, or, in the case of a phone call, on speaker phone?

[Cow Poke]

The issue is not what Sondland said but what Trump himself said, if the aide testifies that Trump was unusually interested in investigating the Bidens based on Sondland's say-so, or based on hearing only Sondland's half of a phonecall, then that is inadmissible hearsay.

"Inadmissible" to Schiff is like "is" is to Big Dog Bill Clinton.

[Teallaura]

Sigh.

If Taylor testifies that his aide heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's hearsay.

If the aid testifies that he heard Trump and Sondland talking about Ukraine investigations, that's not hearsay.

Granted, Taylor's testimony is hearsay.

So is the aide's (assuming he testifies as Taylor indicated) with regard to Trump. He overheard the call - he wasn't on the line - he can only testify to what he heard of Sondland's side. Beyond that it is what Sondland told him about what Trump may or may not have said and it's hearsay.

Basically, everything they need - direct connection to Trump showing motive - is either nonexistent or crap.