Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 262

Thread: Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis

  1. #231
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,521
    Amen (Given)
    1795
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote 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.

  2. #232
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,394
    Amen (Given)
    12453
    Amen (Received)
    26645
    Quote 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.
    DuckDuckGo - Privacy Simplified

  3. #233
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    123
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote 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.

  4. #234
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,641
    Amen (Given)
    10138
    Amen (Received)
    5793
    Quote 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 at 12:18 AM.

  5. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  6. #235
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,511
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    415
    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
    You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ― Anne Lamott
    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

  7. #236
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,359
    Amen (Given)
    6346
    Amen (Received)
    12115
    Quote 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

    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

  8. Amen Mountain Man, Teallaura, Cow Poke, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  9. #237
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    123
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote 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.

  10. #238
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,641
    Amen (Given)
    10138
    Amen (Received)
    5793
    Quote 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.

  11. #239
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,521
    Amen (Given)
    1795
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote 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.

  12. #240
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,641
    Amen (Given)
    10138
    Amen (Received)
    5793
    Quote 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.

  13. Amen RumTumTugger, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •