Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[nOOky]

I'm still waiting to hear what other corruption DJT is having investigated, sine he's so concerned about it? Anyone?

This a bit old, but may help understand why arguing with the conservative Trump supporters here is futile: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...j9YzAYrO9BrZtBFop8dLawqKcaw0xAY5RNeurfRN6EwkA

 

[fskimospy]

According to this, it would be hearsay so long as the statement is used to prove the subject matter of the statement. In other words, if you're trying to provide evidence that Trump was attempting to coerce Ukraine into opening an investigation into the Bidens, and the evidence is someone stating that they were in the room and heard Trump say "I want you to do us a favor though...", then that's hearsay. You could argue that it's not hearsay because it meets the conditions of 801.2 "An Opposing Party's Statement". Although, that is shaky and may only work if you argue that an impeachment is effectively the People of the United States vs. Donald Trump. (That means any American citizen would effectively be part of the opposition party.)

Regardless, I think you're missing my main point. I'm trying to say that just because it's hearsay doesn't mean it's inadmissible. If you take a look at the exceptions listed in the same article, you could argue that it's valid under "declaration against interest". I think it's important to push against the whole "it's hearsay so it doesn't matter" narrative.

Hearsay is when someone makes a statement to events they did not witness. Saying you heard trump say 'I want you to do us a favor' is not hearsay, it's eyewitness (earwitness!) testimony. Saying 'fskimospy told me he heard Trump say that' would be hearsay as it relates to Trump's statements.

Yes though, I agree that just because something is hearsay does not mean it should be dismissed, especially when the person in question is deliberately blocking the testimony of a large number of direct witnesses. Our system of courts and evidence is not set up to deal with this situation because in all other circumstances the courts can compel testimony from relevant witnesses and here they can't.

 

[Aikouka]

Hearsay is when someone makes a statement to events they did not witness. Saying you heard trump say 'I want you to do us a favor' is not hearsay, it's eyewitness (earwitness!) testimony. Saying 'fskimospy told me he heard Trump say that' would be hearsay as it relates to Trump's statements.

At least from what I understand, there are really two factors that deem something hearsay...

1. The statement being presented as evidence was made out of court.
2. The testimony in court is not being made by the person that made the out-of-court statement.

(For evidence of this, see this page section c.)

That's why hearsay isn't strictly limited to a witness's oral testimony, because an audio recording, written transcript, or video recording also matches the two aforementioned rules. Although, things get a bit confusing, because there are exceptions to things being deemed hearsay (such as the opposing party rule) and there are also exceptions that allow hearsay to be admissible in court. If it is classified under the prior, then even though it meets #1 and #2, it isn't considered hearsay.

Now, I think what's going on is that we've sort of befuddled ourselves by mixing the commonplace definition of hearsay with the (United State's Federal) legal definition. What you describe is how I assume most people describe hearsay, and it matches what you get in the dictionary. Honestly, if I didn't see that Legal Eagle video a few months back, I'd be right with you!

 

[zinfamous]

were they supposed to? The house should have had their ducks in a row. presented credible and irrefutable evidence. apparently that is not how members of the senate saw it

They did. you just don't care.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm still waiting to hear what other corruption DJT is having investigated, sine he's so concerned about it? Anyone?

This a bit old, but may help understand why arguing with the conservative Trump supporters here is futile: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...j9YzAYrO9BrZtBFop8dLawqKcaw0xAY5RNeurfRN6EwkA

He's looking for the real corruption and he's also helping OJ look for the real killers.

 

[Paratus]

The Dems that won in 18 were moderate and there is always a swing the other way in similar elections.

I'd make the argument 2020 is the real indicator.

The whole Hillary thing.. LMFAO. Maybe she should have followed a strategy that won the votes that mattered.

Your argument was the Democrats were not providing what “Americans want”. Since they obviously are your forced to move the goalposts

So by default, you have a wholly untestable position, determined by explicit internal bias, wholly rejecting standards of evidence and argumentation, and you are upset that people aren't providing you the answers that you have already pre-determined to be the correct answers to your questions, in complete rejection of the actual available evidence.

That is literally what you just said.

You have rejected the notion that the standards of evidence are valid, and have then determined that your baseless arguments (because you refuse evidence) are somehow just as valid as those that rise to the standard of common rational discourse. You believe that no one is listening to you because your baseless position somehow deserves the same attention as others.

This is why conservatives are treated like children.

I’ll quote Isaac Asimov
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

So you are okay with corruption and abuse of power (heck even some GOP senators admit he did this for his own benefit) so long as the stock markets (or you specifically) are doing okay?

If that is your position you should have just started with that instead of saying he didn't commit any crimes, which he clearly did and has done. And following on from that, assuming you believe he did commit crimes, the only explanation for him not being removed is that the GOP is not interested in justice, and that's your answer for why "it's not sticking".

You need to remember that politicians are a reflection of their voters.

 

[fskimospy]

At least from what I understand, there are really two factors that deem something hearsay...

1. The statement being presented as evidence was made out of court.
2. The testimony in court is not being made by the person that made the out-of-court statement.

(For evidence of this, see this page section c.)

That's why hearsay isn't strictly limited to a witness's oral testimony, because an audio recording, written transcript, or video recording also matches the two aforementioned rules. Although, things get a bit confusing, because there are exceptions to things being deemed hearsay (such as the opposing party rule) and there are also exceptions that allow hearsay to be admissible in court. If it is classified under the prior, then even though it meets #1 and #2, it isn't considered hearsay.

Now, I think what's going on is that we've sort of befuddled ourselves by mixing the commonplace definition of hearsay with the (United State's Federal) legal definition. What you describe is how I assume most people describe hearsay, and it matches what you get in the dictionary. Honestly, if I didn't see that Legal Eagle video a few months back, I'd be right with you!

That makes sense and I think you’re right. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1230193529114243073

perfectly legal now i guess

 

[hal2kilo]

Just go to who actually did the ask, Rohrabacher. He freely admits it. Nobody really cares anymore.

Former Congressman Says He Offered a Trump Pardon to Julian Assange for Evidence of DNC Conspiracy Theory

The former congressman wanted evidence denying Russian involvement in the DNC hack.

slate.com

 

[hal2kilo]

Some more stuff that people don't care about. Seems Kushner's has a big hand in identifying who is worthy (paid cash) to be on the pardon list.

Trump’s controversial pardons came after Kushner wrestled control from Justice Department: report

Kushner supported clemency for Rod Blagojevich even as White House officials allegedly “argued heavily against it"

www.salon.com

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250782601129930759

 

[JEDIYoda]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250782601129930759

The problem is the court is stacked by good ole boys who have Trumps back.....

 

[dank69]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250782601129930759

Can RBG hold out til then? Does it even matter when everything rests on Robert's shoulders?

 

[cytg111]

Just a friendly reminder of that alternate timeline where the Senate did its job and got Trump out.
Good times eh?

 

[woolfe9998]

That makes sense and I think you’re right. Thanks for the clarification!

If the person accused - in a criminal case, meaning the defendant - makes an out of court statement, it is always admissible. It's an exception to the hearsay rule called a party admission. If that wasn't case, then no one could testify they heard the defendant admit to the crime.

So if we're going to analogize to a criminal proceeding, then anything Trump says is admissible.

 

[UNCjigga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250782601129930759

I heard that the court has asked for an additional hearing—apparently some on the court aren’t convinced they should even be hearing this case because it’s “too political”. In other words, if the conservative justices can find a way to run out the clock on these subpoenas before the election without actually setting a horrible precedent, they will weasel their way out of a decision.

 

[shortylickens]

I bet somehow the guy finds a way to weasel out of trouble.
Thats all he does. Start shit and avoid consequences.

 

[fskimospy]

I heard that the court has asked for an additional hearing—apparently some on the court aren’t convinced they should even be hearing this case because it’s “too political”. In other words, if the conservative justices can find a way to run out the clock on these subpoenas before the election without actually setting a horrible precedent, they will weasel their way out of a decision.

They are asking on a briefing as to whether it is a political question or not, yes, but I'm not aware of anything in it that suggests a delay in the decision.

I 100% agree that deciding that the courts enforcing congressional subpoenas is a political question is a HORRIBLE precedent but in this case that doesn't help Trump because the people being subpoenaed are Mazars and Deutsche Bank.

Trump is asking SCOTUS to block the subpoenas and deeming it a 'political question' means SCOTUS won't get involved - ie: subpoenas go through and I see no reason why Mazars or Deutsche would defy a congressional subpoena. The real problem is that it would make the executive branch immune from all congressional subpoenas going forward because they could simply ignore them. This would effectively overturn the unanimous US v. Nixon holding, but through the back door.

 

[DarthKyrie]

They are asking on a briefing as to whether it is a political question or not, yes, but I'm not aware of anything in it that suggests a delay in the decision.

I 100% agree that deciding that the courts enforcing congressional subpoenas is a political question is a HORRIBLE precedent but in this case that doesn't help Trump because the people being subpoenaed are Mazars and Deutsche Bank.

Trump is asking SCOTUS to block the subpoenas and deeming it a 'political question' means SCOTUS won't get involved - ie: subpoenas go through and I see no reason why Mazars or Deutsche would defy a congressional subpoena. The real problem is that it would make the executive branch immune from all congressional subpoenas going forward because they could simply ignore them. This would effectively overturn the unanimous US v. Nixon holding, but through the back door.

The Reich would throw a fit if this was a Demonrat doing this.

 

[UNCjigga]

The Reich would throw a fit if this was a Demonrat doing this.

Well if Biden wins, a decent chunk of Democrats will argue he should govern as Trump did—abuse the EOs and ignore a divided or opposition Congress and any oversight. They’ll argue “well Republicans under Trump set the precedent so deal with the consequences!” and I fear all the talk about getting back to normal will be for naught. Not that Biden would actually govern this way—but I fear the Dem base are almost as likely to abandon their principles and rally around “their” leader. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well if Biden wins, a decent chunk of Democrats will argue he should govern as Trump did—abuse the EOs and ignore a divided or opposition Congress and any oversight. They’ll argue “well Republicans under Trump set the precedent so deal with the consequences!” and I fear all the talk about getting back to normal will be for naught. Not that Biden would actually govern this way—but I fear the Dem base are almost as likely to abandon their principles and rally around “their” leader. I hope I’m wrong.

so.....what is good for the goose.....

 

[cytg111]

I heard that the court has asked for an additional hearing—apparently some on the court aren’t convinced they should even be hearing this case because it’s “too political”. In other words, if the conservative justices can find a way to run out the clock on these subpoenas before the election without actually setting a horrible precedent, they will weasel their way out of a decision.

The law is too political.
God you are fucked.

 

[cytg111]

Well if Biden wins, a decent chunk of Democrats will argue he should govern as Trump did—abuse the EOs and ignore a divided or opposition Congress and any oversight. They’ll argue “well Republicans under Trump set the precedent so deal with the consequences!” and I fear all the talk about getting back to normal will be for naught. Not that Biden would actually govern this way—but I fear the Dem base are almost as likely to abandon their principles and rally around “their” leader. I hope I’m wrong.

They absolutely have to!! If they dont guess what happens next time again? The GOP is doing a slowmotion realtime coup on your democracy... and what, they are 2/3rds done? You cant just take ground back... Gotta cut out the sick tissue.

 

[fskimospy]

They absolutely have to!! If they dont guess what happens next time again? The GOP is doing a slowmotion realtime coup on your democracy... and what, they are 2/3rds done? You cant just take ground back... Gotta cut out the sick tissue.

I 100% agree, although I doubt Biden will do this. What has to happen is Democrats need to go balls out if they get the house and senate too, maximum pressure. Pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster and pass your dream list of legislation.

Then offer a carrot to the GOP and offer a series of constitutional amendments to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. If the Democrats return to business as usual the GOP will just see this as weakness and once they get power again will do what they’ve done for the last 3 years.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I 100% agree, although I doubt Biden will do this. What has to happen is Democrats need to go balls out if they get the house and senate too, maximum pressure. Pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster and pass your dream list of legislation.

Then offer a carrot to the GOP and offer a series of constitutional amendments to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. If the Democrats return to business as usual the GOP will just see this as weakness and once they get power again will do what they’ve done for the last 3 years.

Yeah Biden isn't gonna do that. I doubt he'd support any of the stuff people have suggested (increasing the number of judges and then packing the courts).

I honestly don't think doing that will accomplish anything but hasten what seems to be the inevitable goal of right wingers: literal war. They'll view that as their only option then. You don't honestly think they'll take anything like that offered by Democrats in that manner, do you? (Do I need to cite the studies showing overwhelming support for the ACA policies until its called the ACA, or how even gun owners overwhelmingly agree there should be stricter gun regulations?) Republicans will claim its something else and so right wingers will refuse to accept it (while making up their own version which will be so batshit insane that it'll just further the rift). It'll finally be Democrats looking to literally change the Constitution (which has been perhaps the biggest boogeyman they've had throughout and is why they were so afraid of both Obama and Hilary).

There's not enough benefits in it for Democrats either so I don't see them looking to do that. I don't think they would even with a relatively radical liberal in the White House.

Only way that happens is if Americans literally stop any politics from happening at both federal and state levels and demand they do that. And I don't see that happening. Americans don't want to be involved in politics any more than posting about it on Facebook, and they damn sure aren't gonna be able to agree on Constitutional Amendments.