Originally posted by JimL
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
Trump Derangement Is Destroying Political Analysis
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by alaskazimm View PostI'll just leave this here . . .
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40945[/ATTACH]The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHe's not suggesting that they are really "out there,"...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe average American doesnt think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think its 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 dont 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostTry 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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostIm 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.
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.
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.
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.Last edited by Teallaura; 11-19-2019, 01:18 AM."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 firstfloor View PostI 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.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostRemoval 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostThe 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.
Vindman proved to be a rather humorous disaster for the Dems."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 Teallaura View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYour'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.
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."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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 07:59 AM
|
6 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 10:02 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
|
13 responses
96 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:03 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 05:24 AM
|
37 responses
185 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-18-2024, 11:06 AM
|
49 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:14 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-18-2024, 07:03 AM
|
19 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 09:58 AM
|
Comment