Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rules

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Again, Nunes leaks to Trump when he was the chairman before the mid-elections cannot be compared to any leaks you see now which by the way are not coming just from the liberal press. There have been leaks to the right-wing press also when distorted parts of testimonies have been used to justify their narrative. And for every personal opinion Schiff has expressed, I can cite the same thing with Graham and other like minded senators.In the end though, Schiff will not be the one who will impeach Trump. It will be the Congress.
    If Nunes is leaking information to Trump as you propose, Trump has a vested interest here and really a right to know what's happening in the proceedings. Both Nixon and Clinton were afforded the right to council present during all impeachment proceedings. Trump has not been given that courtesy, particularly by Schiff.

    Schiff on the other hand is leaking information to the MSM to gain political advantage. This is devious and wrong, particularly since the closed door hearings are supposedly sensitive or classified in nature.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      Let's say that the hearsay is all admisible. That preponderance of evidence shows Trump was using withholding aid to get the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden, so what? Does being the son of an ex vice-president shield you from investigation?

      There is a chain of consequences from a central evil. That evil is Hillary Clinton. Had she or her surrogates not used the intimidation of the U.S. government to pressure the Ukrainians to participate in smearing the opposition candidate and got away with it perhaps Joe Biden would not have been so cavalier about using U.S. aid to get a prosecutor investigating a company his son was working for dismissed. Had she not destroyed her illegal servers and had the DNC turned over their servers Wikileaks and Russian collusion would have been irrelevant. Had she not been running for president the head of the FBI would not have discredited the intelligence community by creating the fictitious defense of intent. Had the intelligence community and media not supported her Barr and Durham would have little to investigate. If the mess of covering up her misdeeds had never happened Trump would have been able to go through normal channels to investigate what happened in the Ukrainian.
      So from your post Trump needs to be investigated a hell of lot more because there stories out there with more proof than what you listed about him. Cool lets do it. Where his tax returns. Oh lets see the files Russia has on Trump. Matter of fact we need him to tesify before congress since Hillary did.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



        Sigh.
        I keep forgetting about your expertise with the rules you don't understand.

        Bolton can testify. he isn't unavailable. As such, a witness repeating bolton's out of court statements for proof of the matter asserted is hearsay. "Other witnesses" cannot testify as to what Bolton heard. In the cart collecting world we call that "double hearsay" and speculative.
        But in your desperation not to be proven wrong by a guy who just collects shopping carts you keep changing your point.

        As to anything trump said. Trump is the declarant.
        Trump's statements cannot be used as proof of the matter asserted absent applicability of one of the exceptions.
        Your belief that the declarant need not be trump is funny. He's the target. Remember?
        So please tell me more.


        I also note that you are backing away from your claim that the declarant is "all the first hand people"
        Bolton is unavailable just like many witnesses who follow Trump's orders. And in fact some of them have requested courts to issue a specific decision that they can testify in court.

        Your attempt to equate the declarant with Trump makes no sense since the hearsay from the witnesses is not about what Trump told them. In fact, some of the diplomats did not even talk to Trump.

        Moreover, if the diplomats had talked to Trump and they said that Trump told me "x", this can certainly be admitted to courts and cannot be discarded as a :"hearsay" just because the defendant pleads the fifth and decides not to talk about what he said to the witness.

        So, your desperation to change the meaning of the definition of declarant and equate it with the defendant is obvious and makes no sense
        Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 18:12.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Bolton is unavailable just like many witnesses who follow Trump's orders. And in fact some of them have requested courts to issue a specific decision that they can testify in court.

          Your attempt to equate the declarant with Trump makes no sense since the hearsay from the witnesses is not about what Trump told them. In fact, some of the diplomats did not even talk to Trump.

          Moreover, if the diplomats had talked to Trump and they said that Trump told me "x", this can certainly be admitted to courts and cannot be discarded as a :"hearsay" just because the defendant pleads the fifth and decides not to talk about what he said to the witness.

          So, your desperation to change the meaning of the definition of declarant and equate it with the defendant is obvious and makes no sense


          Um, sure.
          Whatever you say.
          Please note that immediately after telling me trump is not the declarant, your third paragraph describes trump as the declarant.
          You don't even know when you are contradicting yourself.
          But do go on.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



            Um, sure.
            Whatever you say.
            Please note that immediately after telling me trump is not the declarant, your third paragraph describes trump as the declarant.
            You don't even know when you are contradicting yourself.
            But do go on.
            This is because you do not understand the concept behind what hearsay is and why it exists which does not include the case when a defendant makes a statement to a witness and the witness is called to testify in court about what the defendant told him.

            You do not need to have any exception based on the rules I provided about the unavailability of a declarant to admit as evidence the testimony of a witness who said that the defendant told him "x"

            So, it is not that I contradicted myself. It is just that you failed to understand the explanation I provided for why it makes no sense to have the rule's word "declarant" associated with the defendant.
            Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 19:25.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              This is because you do not understand the concept behind what hearsay is and why it exists which does not include the case when a defendant makes a statement to a witness and the witness is called to testify in court about what the defendant told him.

              You do not need to have any exception based on the rules I provided about the unavailability of a declarant to admit as evidence the testimony of a witness who said that the defendant told him "x" So, it is not that I contradicted myself. It is just that you failed to understand the explanation I provided for why it makes no sense to have the rule's word "declarant" associated with the defendant.

              Sure.
              You win.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #37
                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                Comment


                • #38
                  The tweo democrats who testified today were forced to admit that all they had was hearsay, hearsay that was unprovable .
                  Under the bus .
                  The bus has a lot of work today .

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    So from your post Trump needs to be investigated a hell of lot more because there stories out there with more proof than what you listed about him. Cool lets do it. Where his tax returns. Oh lets see the files Russia has on Trump. Matter of fact we need him to tesify before congress since Hillary did.
                    What files ? Where is your proof that Russia has files on Trump ? Do you have a mole in the FSB ? If yes, why did you not produce these files earlier ? If not, this means that you don't know if such files exists.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X