Originally posted by Watermelon
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Whistleblower identified
Collapse
X
-
"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
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostHow the proceedings were run is a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to but critiquing it for not applying the strictest standards for evidence or meeting the highest threshold of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt is just wrong.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWhat really matters is how the majority of Americans perceived it. Perception is reality in the world of politics. Maybe other polling will come out to the contrary, but so far, it appears that the Dems committed an unforced error.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostIt's true that public perception is the actual standard they need to meet. Unfortunately if that standard is to demand the rules of evidence and complain about hearsay while also thinking its fine for material witnesses to ignore subpoenas then even the Supreme Court won't be able to meet those standards. Then you've effectively lost the only constitutional protection to remove an oppressive president."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 Watermelon View PostIt's true that public perception is the actual standard they need to meet. Unfortunately if that standard is to demand the rules of evidence and complain about hearsay while also thinking its fine for material witnesses to ignore subpoenas then even the Supreme Court won't be able to meet those standards. Then you've effectively lost the only constitutional protection to remove an oppressive president.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe official theory seems to be exec privilege - but there's an open question about the validity of the subpoenas. Here the House Dems have a recourse to the courts - which they utterly ignored. Many of them are attorneys so it's not like they don't know (as litigious as we are it's inconceivable that no Dem reps have considered a suit) which leaves that they don't want the courts to rule. They're in DC - court shopping central - so something's very odd here. Are they afraid of an adverse precedent - or are they unsure about having any possibility of a favorable ruling?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostHow the proceedings were run is a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to but critiquing it for not applying the strictest standards for evidence or meeting the highest threshold of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt is just wrong.
As an aside, as I predicted we are seeing a continuous effort to elevate hearsay gossip into something legitimate (let's not worry about strict standards of evidence) like when Rep. Mike Quigley (D - IL) insisted that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."
1. Given how Schiff "clarified" the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in his alternate reality "portrayal" of it in his opening statements (and how the MSM dutifully reported it as representing what was actually said) one would be justified in presuming that his "clarification" of witnesses' statements might also be accuracy challenged.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostEh, if she's playing chess she'd better hope she doesn't need all the pieces she keeps losing.
I personally think they're both playing Chutes and Ladders - but neither understands the rules...
Click on to playLast edited by rogue06; 11-26-2019, 04:34 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe official theory seems to be exec privilege - but there's an open question about the validity of the subpoenas. Here the House Dems have a recourse to the courts - which they utterly ignored. Many of them are attorneys so it's not like they don't know (as litigious as we are it's inconceivable that no Dem reps have considered a suit) which leaves that they don't want the courts to rule. They're in DC - court shopping central - so something's very odd here. Are they afraid of an adverse precedent - or are they unsure about having any possibility of a favorable ruling?
That they likewise appear to have stopped pressuring John Bolton who said he was awaiting what the courts said in Kupperman's case is interesting. It's almost like Schiff knew that the subpoenas that he issued might not withstand judicial scrutiny.
ETA: Since Kupperman was the one to file the suit the Democrats were unable to judge shop for someone likely to grant them a favorable initial ruling.Last edited by rogue06; 11-26-2019, 04:47 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe problem isn't that they didn't apply the strictest stand
ards of evidence or the like but that they apparently had no standards other than "all's fair in love and war." Imagine a "judge" stopping a witness so that he can "clarify" what they said[1]. Not asking the witness to clarify something but actually telling the witness what they meant.
As an aside, as I predicted we are seeing a continuous effort to elevate hearsay gossip into something legitimate (let's not worry about strict standards of evidence) like when Rep. Mike Quigley (D - IL) insisted that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct."
1. Given how Schiff "clarified" the phone call between Trump and Zelensky in his alternate reality "portrayal" of it in his opening statements (and how the MSM dutifully reported it as representing what was actually said) one would be justified in presuming that his "clarification" of witnesses' statements might also be accuracy challenged.
My understanding of this process is that they were trying to establish sufficient cause to write the articles of impeachment. What standards are expected in similar situations?
The standards required become greater in relation to the severity of what’s at stake for practicality purposes. It usually costs a lot of money, time and effort to meet the highest standards and it’s absolutely necessary if someone’s life is at stake but it wouldn’t be practical to require the same if seven hundred dollars plus costs was at stake.
Hearsay isn’t inadmissible because it’s unreliable but because it’s not as reliable as direct evidence. The rules of evidence demand the best available form of that evidence so hearsay has to be replaced with the actual declarant to meet it. It follows then that if hearsay happens to be the best form of that evidence available then it also meets the required standard and you will find that the hearsay exceptions are for that very purpose and reasoned on the legal principle of ‘inferior evidence is better than no evidence’.
So if someone states that hearsay can sometimes be better than direct evidence then I cant see how that could possibly be reasoned. Maybe better if the declarant is lying but then it’s technically no longer hearsay since it’s no longer an assertion for the declarant so they actually become a fact witness to that lie. The other option is better in that the direct evidence isn’t available but does availability make it better? If I want a can of coke but the vending machine is out of coke and only has sprite then does it make sprite better? All I know is it doesn’t taste better.
Stating that it can be ‘much’ better is delusional.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostI’ll also add to your point that most of the questioning from both sides were either irrelevant, leading or their own testimonies so hardly anything of value was found after the witnesses opening statements.
As for nothing of value being said after an opening statement... It was after his opening statement that Sondland had to keep walking back his claim (that there was quid pro quo) so far that it left the building.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostDoes Mike Quigley happen to be overweight by any chance?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThey didn't ignore the courts. They ran full speed in the opposite direction from the courts when Charles Kupperman appealed to them for guidance dropping their subpoena of him like a hot potato.
That they likewise appear to have stopped pressuring John Bolton who said he was awaiting what the courts said in Kupperman's case is interesting. It's almost like Schiff knew that the subpoenas that he issued might not withstand judicial scrutiny.
ETA: Since Kupperman was the one to file the suit the Democrats were unable to judge shop for someone likely to grant them a favorable initial ruling.
There are a large number of options beyond 'they know they would not succeed".My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
5 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 02:27 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
10 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
462 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Comment