The Impeachment Trial

[Watermelon]

That's what I said above. If the person Billy told Sally that Bob said he murdered someone, and Sally testified in court it would be hearsay unless Billly was there to corroborate it under testimony. At which point they would cross examine Billy and his hearing Bob say he murdered someone would be direct testimony. It would be the same with a text. If Billy sent a text to Sally saying "Bob said he killed Brenda!" that text would be hearsay until Billy was there to testify to it's validity. Sally could have just made a fake text.

It’s hearsay if the witness is relying on another persons statement to prove a fact in question in that statement.

So if Bob testified that Billy told him that he was the murderer this is regarded as hearsay since Bob has no direct knowledge whether that statement by Billy is true. However, as Billy’s statement to Bob is against Billy’s self interest it will fall under an exception and be admissible.

If Bob had testified that Billy told him that he was not the murderer then the exception wouldn’t apply and it would be hearsay.

Remember, a witness can only testify to what they have direct knowledge of. Bob has direct knowledge that Billy said this statement to him and can only testify that Billy made that statement but it can’t be used as evidence that the statement is true unless an exception applies.

Hearsay is dependent on the purpose behind the questioning.

[rogue06]

From what I understand a witness may testifiy in court as to what another party in the suit told him directly, that is not hearsay. Hearsay would be someone saying what someone else told him about the other party.

If Bob is on trial for murder and he told Sally that he is a murderer, Sally can testify to that in court. If Bob told Billy and Billy told Sally, then it would be hearsay unless Billy was there to testify.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-hearsay-31738

This would be more of a case where we have Tom saying that Dick told him that Harry said he murdered Sally. Or in several of these instances, Tom saying that Dick told him that John said he heard Harry say that he murdered Sally -- or even worse.

[Cerebrum123]

That's what I said above. If the person Billy told Sally that Bob said he murdered someone, and Sally testified in court it would be hearsay unless Billly was there to corroborate it under testimony. At which point they would cross examine Billy and his hearing Bob say he murdered someone would be direct testimony. It would be the same with a text. If Billy sent a text to Sally saying "Bob said he killed Brenda!" that text would be hearsay until Billy was there to testify to it's validity. Sally could have just made a fake text.

I misread you then.

[Sparko]

It’s hearsay if the witness is relying on another persons statement to prove a fact in question in that statement.

So if Bob testified that Billy told him that he was the murderer this is regarded as hearsay since Bob has no direct knowledge whether that statement by Billy is true. However, as Billy’s statement to Bob is against Billy’s self interest it will fall under an exception and be admissible.

um no.

1. Hearsay is only allowed if it is against the testifying person's self-interest, because it could be entirely likely that in your example Bob is lying about what Billy told him.

2. But if Billy is the defendant already at the trial and they call Bob to testify what Billy told him, it would be a direct communication from the defendant and it would be allowed, it would not be hearsay. But it would probably need some evidence to back up the statement because Bob could still be lying.

[Mountain Man]

This is all academic, really, because nobody testified hearing anything damning directly or even indirectlyfrom the President. In fact, Sondland, the only witness who spoke to Trump, ended up exonerating him, saying that the President didn't do what he was accused of, and this from the prosecution's own witness! I suppose Shifty and his gang of miscreants could have tried to salvage it by proving that Sondland was lying when he said that Trump wanted no quid pro quo, but nothing will kill a case faster than having to undermine the credibility of your own witness.

[Watermelon]

um no.

1. Hearsay is only allowed if it is against the testifying person's self-interest, because it could be entirely likely that in your example Bob is lying about what Billy told him.

2. But if Billy is the defendant already at the trial and they call Bob to testify what Billy told him, it would be a direct communication from the defendant and it would be allowed, it would not be hearsay. But it would probably need some evidence to back up the statement because Bob could still be lying.

1. No that’s not how it works. If a statement is against the testifying persons self interest then it’s not hearsay at all. How would that even work?

2. The hearsay exception is for hearsay against the defendants self interest. In this example what Billy tells Bob is an admission of guilt. Bob can testify to that since confessions are an exception not. So it would be allowed but not for the reason given by you.

If Billy told Bob that he was far away at the time of murder then Bob can’t testify that Billy is innocent because Billy was far away at the time of the murder and therefore couldn’t have done it. That would be hearsay.

Bob can, however, testify that Billy told him that he was far away at that time if the line of questioning makes it relevant for any other purpose other than to prove that Billy was in fact far away.

Also any witness could be lying about anything in their testimony.

[Watermelon]

This is all academic, really, because nobody testified hearing anything damning directly or even indirectlyfrom the President. In fact, Sondland, the only witness who spoke to Trump, ended up exonerating him, saying that the President didn't do what he was accused of, and this from the prosecution's own witness! I suppose Shifty and his gang of miscreants could have tried to salvage it by proving that Sondland was lying when he said that Trump wanted no quid pro quo, but nothing will kill a case faster than having to undermine the credibility of your own witness.

This post is a clear example of why that is hearsay and inadmissible. How does Sondland exonerate Trump? By testifying that Trump told him he didn’t do it? Can you see how ridiculous that reasoning is?

There’s no need to prove Sondland was lying about what Trump said because it doesn’t matter if Trump said that or not. It doesn’t help prove Trump is innocent.

It’s also fairly common for prosecutors to undermine the credibility of their own witnesses. That’s called a hostile witness.

I’m sure that if it was anyone other than Trump you wouldn’t question the validity of the witnesses. With Trump you seem to think that only a direct confession by Trump could be considered evidence. Many witnesses never spoke with Trump or heard from him but were witnesses to the quid pro quo in progress. That will always be relevant and admissible in court.

[Watermelon]

This would be more of a case where we have Tom saying that Dick told him that Harry said he murdered Sally. Or in several of these instances, Tom saying that Dick told him that John said he heard Harry say that he murdered Sally -- or even worse.

Can you provide examples?

[The Pendragon]

That you believe the House didn't conduct a proper investigation is irrelvant to the fact that the Senate refused to conduct a proper trial, and the fact that they didn't conduct a proper trial was admitted to by MoscowMitch himself.

The fact that the House failed to come up with any valid evidence and did not afford any due process is completely relevant, because it invalidates the trial.

No valid evidence (JimL you have not given any) No trial.
If a witness that asks for a lawyer, and the investigators keep pressing him for answers what ever they get is invalid. Tainted trial and reason for acquittal.
If the witness has privilege, Say attorney Client privilege, Doctor Client privilege, Confession to a Priest, and Yes, Presidential Executive Privilege. The investigators need to go to court to compel the said witness to testify.
Also every one has the right to challenge a subpoena in court. In other words if Shifty issues subpoenas before the House vote him the ability to issue them, Shifty needs to either go to court and explain that the subpoenas are valid, or re-issue them after the house votes him the ability. What did Shifty do, he canceled the a subpoenas and did not re-issue them.

It is the Houses Job to investigate all the witnesses to get testimony as they worth to the case. They did not do this. Calling the witnesses you wanted where not part of the trial they are part of the investigation.

On more note Shifty held back on exculpatory evidence, the testimony of the AG was never decalcified and Shifty did not allow the AG to testify. he also did not allow the Republican to call any of their witnesses (Allowing them to call witnesses that Shifty was going to call anyway don't count). This is also not allowed in a trial and if the prosecution did this in a real trial it would be a mistrial. and if know before as is the case here it would never make it to trial.

So Yes JimL, it all this is relevant, and it was the Houses Job to call the witnesses you wanted. The House does not stop functioning during an Impeachment the Senate does nothing get done in the Senate until the Impeachment Trial is over, they do not have time to go through everything it takes to subpoena new witnesses and waste time on witnesses that haven't gone through questioning in the House first. Or are you for shutting Down the government for a few months?

You still need real evidence JimL, witnesses that where never called aren't real evidence. If Shifty wanted to hear from your witnesses he should have call them on his own and not try to blackmail the Senate into doing he job.

This is wishful thinking but it might good it JimL and Watermelon either answer my posts of just concede that they are wrong and Trumps Acquittal is valid.

After all they have not come up with any evidence that would be admissible in court let alone convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove him from office. Still waiting for you evidence.

Remember, No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little.

[Watermelon]

As has been said before, Hearsay is not evidence. So any witness that only testifies to what they heard second, third or fourth hand, are not valid witnesses. So to answer your question what you call witnesses are not evidence.
The only witnesses that where not hearsay proved the defense's case.

One was Sondland, who testified as to what Trump told him directly. That Trump did not want a Quid Pro Quo. as to Trump motive in saying that until someone comes up with evidence as to ulterior motive, we must presume Trump was telling the truth under “Presumption of Innocence”.
The second was Vindman, who was on the call and while he testified that the transcript of the call was not accurate on cross examination it was found that what Vindman wanted to add did not change the call so only proved that the transcript was accurate.

So no Watermelon, Hearsay Witnesses are not true Witnesses.

I gave a more detailed reason in my post above but is seems like it disproves your assertion so you ignored it:


“Watermelon keeps using that word (Witness), I do not think it means what he thinks it means”

Nothing you wrote is correct. Which witness only testified with hearsay evidence?

Presumption of innocence is about burden of proof not whatever it is you’re trying to use it for.

I didn’t ignore it, I hadn’t read it yet. Now I’ve read it and it doesn’t make sense. Hearsay is difficult to understand at first because it needs to consider several things. The first is how the information was known - this is where most people stop and just assume that’s what hearsay is. If the information became known through another person then you need to consider whether that information contains an assertion of a fact in question. If it does contain an assertion then you need to consider the purpose of presenting that information. If the purpose is to prove that information is true then it’s hearsay.

[Watermelon]

The fact that the House failed to come up with any valid evidence and did not afford any due process is completely relevant, because it invalidates the trial.

No valid evidence (JimL you have not given any) No trial.
If a witness that asks for a lawyer, and the investigators keep pressing him for answers what ever they get is invalid. Tainted trial and reason for acquittal.
If the witness has privilege, Say attorney Client privilege, Doctor Client privilege, Confession to a Priest, and Yes, Presidential Executive Privilege. The investigators need to go to court to compel the said witness to testify.
Also every one has the right to challenge a subpoena in court. In other words if Shifty issues subpoenas before the House vote him the ability to issue them, Shifty needs to either go to court and explain that the subpoenas are valid, or re-issue them after the house votes him the ability. What did Shifty do, he canceled the a subpoenas and did not re-issue them.

It is the Houses Job to investigate all the witnesses to get testimony as they worth to the case. They did not do this. Calling the witnesses you wanted where not part of the trial they are part of the investigation.

On more note Shifty held back on exculpatory evidence, the testimony of the AG was never decalcified and Shifty did not allow the AG to testify. he also did not allow the Republican to call any of their witnesses (Allowing them to call witnesses that Shifty was going to call anyway don't count). This is also not allowed in a trial and if the prosecution did this in a real trial it would be a mistrial. and if know before as is the case here it would never make it to trial.

So Yes JimL, it all this is relevant, and it was the Houses Job to call the witnesses you wanted. The House does not stop functioning during an Impeachment the Senate does nothing get done in the Senate until the Impeachment Trial is over, they do not have time to go through everything it takes to subpoena new witnesses and waste time on witnesses that haven't gone through questioning in the House first. Or are you for shutting Down the government for a few months?

You still need real evidence JimL, witnesses that where never called aren't real evidence. If Shifty wanted to hear from your witnesses he should have call them on his own and not try to blackmail the Senate into doing he job.

This is wishful thinking but it might good it JimL and Watermelon either answer my posts of just concede that they are wrong and Trumps Acquittal is valid.

After all they have not come up with any evidence that would be admissible in court let alone convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove him from office. Still waiting for you evidence.

Remember, No More Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little, Pick, Pick, Pick, Talk, Talk-a-Little.

I answered that the witness testimonies are evidence. If you don’t think they would be admissible then explain why. Someone has convinced you that they are all hearsay so it would be good exercise for you to summarize the testimonies of a few witnesses and explain exactly why the evidence they present is hearsay.

I can admit I’m wrong if you do that for just one witness.

[Tassman]

So all in all, I just can't give it to much thought when the Senate did not call witnesses that the House decided where not worth their time.

In an impartial trial (which all senators swore an oath to uphold) it is not up the senate to pick-and-choose on the basis of what it considered was appropriate – especially given the partisan nature of this trial. Their constitutional duty was to hold a trial of a president who had been impeached. And in this they failed to do their duty.

Tass, you don't understand (because you don't live here) how things work in America but here the prosecution needs to prove guilt, and there is a presumption of innocence and Due Process. when these things are not met the accused is acquitted.

An Impeachment inquiry is NOT a criminal trial – it is a trial about the inappropriate behavior of the president. The President does not need to commit a crime for there to be an impeachable offense. In this instance it was Trump’s abuse of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest….” And this was established by the House inquiry beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Sparko]

1. No that’s not how it works. If a statement is against the testifying persons self interest then it’s not hearsay at all. How would that even work?

2. The hearsay exception is for hearsay against the defendants self interest. In this example what Billy tells Bob is an admission of guilt. Bob can testify to that since confessions are an exception not. So it would be allowed but not for the reason given by you.

If Billy told Bob that he was far away at the time of murder then Bob can’t testify that Billy is innocent because Billy was far away at the time of the murder and therefore couldn’t have done it. That would be hearsay.

That would be Billy making a conclusion that he has no right to conclude.

Bob can, however, testify that Billy told him that he was far away at that time if the line of questioning makes it relevant for any other purpose other than to prove that Billy was in fact far away.

um what? He can't testify that Billy said he was far away in order to prove that Billy was far away? That makes no sense. He can testify as to what Billy told him, regardless of what it is, as long as he doesn't try to make conclusions as above.

Also any witness could be lying about anything in their testimony.

true.

[Mountain Man]

How does Sondland exonerate Trump?

Better question: How does he not?

Trump was accused of asking for an illegal quid pro quo, yet not a single person testified hearing this demand directly or even indirectly from the President. On the contrary, the only person on record who spoke to Trump testified that he did NOT ask for a quid pro quo and that the President's instructions on this point were "crystal clear".

You would think that if the President did what he was accused of then the Democrats could have found just one witness who would testify to it.

[Watermelon]

Better question: How does he not?

Trump was accused of asking for an illegal quid pro quo, yet not a single person testified hearing this demand directly or even indirectly from the President. On the contrary, the only person on record who spoke to Trump testified that he did NOT ask for a quid pro quo and that the President's instructions on this point were "crystal clear".

You would think that if the President did what he was accused of then the Democrats could have found just one witness who would testify to it.

In the July 25 call Trump asks Zelensky for a ‘favor’ which was considered a demand in exchange for the aid. The call on its own can be argued one way or the other, however, the testimonies of the witnesses regarding relevant events before and after that phone conversation makes it clear that the aid was conditioned on the public announcements.

You would think if the President didn’t do what he was accused of then he wouldn’t be trying so hard to block and intimidate anyone who tries to testify.