No. of Recommendations: 3
Well.
There’s your democrat party of today. Hope you true blue Defenders of the Constitution are happy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Hope you true blue Defenders of the Constitution are happy.

I'll be happy when this nightmare presidency finally comes to an end.
Are you enjoying it? Do you like seeing a sick, desperate man disgrace our country and weaken the cause of democracy around the world?

Are you happy when a president lies in your face? Please don't tell me that you believe the garbage that flows out of him daily.

And, as far as hearsay goes, what will you say when the rest of the witnesses back up today's testimony?

Oh no....wait....I'll help you. "Yeah, but Obama...…"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don’t notice trump coming out with much of a defense other than to attack the investigation.

Let’s see the full notes of the call.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Failure.

Hearsay isn’t evidence. Leastways, not in a real country.

I realize your party is hopelessly broken and married to corrupt stupidity, but real people are getting tired of it trying to melt down the rest of the nation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I realize your party is hopelessly broken and married to corrupt stupidity, but real people are getting tired of it trying to melt down the rest of the nation.

Only in Republican la-la land can one side not produce any documentation AND forbid anyone to testify and then complain about hearsay.

But the good news for real Americans is that your entire argument is completely irrelevant.

No need to rely on hearsay. We have Trump’s own words as released in the summary transcript.

Now, here’s a unique idea. Instead of whining about process, try to defend your president’s illegal actions instead.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And, as far as hearsay goes, what will you say when the rest of the witnesses back up today's testimony?

The facts don’t back your side up. At all.

The democrats are engaged in a mass delusion.

BTW, nobody seems to have picked up on the thread title. It’s a quote from a democrat Congresscritter:

”Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."

Real Americans would recoil in horror at this, especially coming from an actual member of Congress.

But the nevertrumpies won’t.

They’ve sadly lost their minds and face a reality where there’s no going back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only in Republican la-la land can one side not produce any documentation AND forbid anyone to testify and then complain about hearsay.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!
And now we’ve had the Bong Hit take.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Failure.

Hearsay isn’t evidence. Leastways, not in a real country.


Failure, in spades. Actually, hearsay IS evidence. Wrong again, doobie. Let's discuss and educate;

...
Hearsay Defined

Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but they can also constitute documents or even body language. The rule against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone.

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.

Generally, state law follows the rules of evidence as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not in all cases. The states can and do vary as to the exceptions that they recognize.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid...
...

You should really look things up before pronouncing 'facts' you don't actually know. But that would really be time consuming, eh?

Of course, your hard stance, incorrect as it was, only applies in court - even with the noted exceptions at the link above. And, of course, an impeachment hearing is a political process, not a court of law, so even that does not apply here.

But do carry on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
”Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."

Real Americans would recoil in horror at this, especially coming from an actual member of Congress.

Only the poorly educated that Trump so loves - and the ones who willfully engage in ignorance. No, Bluto, real Americans realize the quoted sentence above is 100% correct and historically accurate.

The horror we witnessed today was trained seals repeating their talking points, offering no defense of Dear Leader, but rather attacking the process, the witnesses, all while never offering a sensible rebuttal to the truth being told and corroborated. After having complained so much that they were left out of the process (they weren't), they spent most of their time bloviating to Trump via the cameras - rather than actually asking questions of the witnesses.

Says something.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Those with first hand knowledge are being ordered by Trump not to testify.

It sounds really, really funny on the one hand to say that the evidence so far is hearsay.

While on the other hand, preventing those with first hand knowledge from testifying.

In any event, there is that Taylor staffer who did hear Trump ask the EU Ambassador how the investigations were coming along in Ukraine.

And in a double "in any event".... the hearsay evidence is darned near overwhelming, and this ain't no criminal trial.

.... and then there's the matter of obstruction, which is clearly the case with Trump ordering so many not to cooperate, and refusing to release subpoenaed documents.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Somebody tells Vito that the defendant diddles little kids, as a strike against him, and he repeats it in court. That's hearsay.

The diplomat in charge of Ukraine is told by his superiors that aid is contingent on Biden investigations?

That's chain of command. Not hearsay.

Or does every private need to speak directly to the generals?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I hope all the whining about hearsay results in Pinocchio himself testifying -- that's what you want, right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
I hope all the whining about hearsay results in Pinocchio himself testifying -- that's what you want, right?>>



Of course not.

I presume and hope that Trump will be acting very Presidential while Democrats in the Senate make themselves look foolish.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
As though trump is capable of acting presidential for a single nanosecond.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Somebody tells Vito that the defendant diddles little kids, as a strike against him, and he repeats it in court. That's hearsay.

The diplomat in charge of Ukraine is told by his superiors that aid is contingent on Biden investigations?

That's chain of command. Not hearsay.

Or does every private need to speak directly to the generals?


Sorry, hearsay is hearsay. What you've done hear is speculate.

Which is why we don't use it in court.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Those with first hand knowledge are being ordered by Trump not to testify.

They can testify if they wish.

It sounds really, really funny on the one hand to say that the evidence so far is hearsay.

LOL. It's hearsay because...it is. Nobody who's testified has said "I personally heard x".

You people have nothing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<That's chain of command. Not hearsay.

Or does every private need to speak directly to the generals?

Sorry, hearsay is hearsay. What you've done hear is speculate.

Which is why we don't use it in court.>>





"The Family had a lot of buffers"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK9OgXRDXxs


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It sounds really, really funny on the one hand to say that the evidence so far is hearsay.

LOL. It's hearsay because...it is. Nobody who's testified has said "I personally heard x".>>



How many people from the Deep State were listening in on Trump's phone calls?

He must have a Party Line in the Oval Office.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Those with first hand knowledge are being ordered by Trump not to testify.

They can testify if they wish.

Guilty people don't normally wish to testify.

And Trump's giving them cover not to testify.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Which is why we don't use it in court.

But this isn't a court.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How embarrassing for the Democrats, the so called wizards of smart! lol..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I hope all the whining about hearsay results in Pinocchio himself testifying -- that's what you want, right?

They will NEVER let him testify under oath. He can't tell the truth for more than a few minutes at a time. His default state is lying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sorry, hearsay is hearsay. What you've done hear is speculate.

Which is why we don't use it in court.


Except that we do, sometimes. Yes, it is evidence. No, the impeachment hearings are not a court of law.

Don't you ever tire of being wrong so often?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democrats, the so called wizards of smart!

Who calls us that? First I've heard that, err, term - "Wizards of smart."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Dear TheDope1,

Since you ignored my questions, I'll ask them again. Here:

I'll be happy when this nightmare presidency finally comes to an end.
Are you enjoying it? Do you like seeing a sick, desperate man disgrace our country and weaken the cause of democracy around the world?

Are you happy when a president lies in your face? Please don't tell me that you believe the garbage that flows out of him daily.

And, as far as hearsay goes, what will you say when the rest of the witnesses back up today's testimony?

Oh no....wait....I'll help you. "Yeah, but Obama...…"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Which is why we don't use it in court.

But this isn't a court.>>



You do realize the implications of that fact?


Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

The House can impeach a President by a majority vote for any reasons it chooses.

The Senate can vindicate a President by failing to muster a 2/3rds majority to convict, for any reasons it chooses.

That's what's going to happen.

Democrats are poisoned with hate because Trump defeated their candidate in 2016 and has been taking away their power and political legitimacy.

Impeachment is a tempest in a teapot and the efforts of Democrats will properly end in the vindication of Trump in the Senate, and then his re election in the 2020 election.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But this isn't a court.>>

You do realize the implications of that fact?"

Remember the Dems are the party that believes in Truth not Facts{per Joe Biden}
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Which is why we don't use it in court.

But this isn't a court.

Exactly. It's not even the impeachment equivalent to court.

This is still an investigation. Heresay is incredibly valuable in an investigation. It's how you follow the trail to the eyewitnesses. Those are the people you want to have testify in court.

One example I noticed from the testimony on Wednesday:

Ambassador Taylor testified that one of his aides overheard a conversation between Ambassador Sondland and Trump which might be relevant. Since this is an investigation and not the presentation of evidence at a trial, that's good information. Now the investigators know they need to talk to two more people: Sondland and this aide. They've already talked to Sondland. So back to the transcript of that testimony to see if Sondland mentioned this conversation and what was said. That might give some information about the veracity of other parts of Sondland's testimony.

All of this is good and relevant information for an investigation.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"The Senate can vindicate a President by failing to muster a 2/3rds majority to convict, for any reasons it chooses."

That AIN'T vindication. If anything, as to Trump, it's abdication of the responsibilities to heed their Constitutional obligations and oath.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just about any attorney worth his salt can get around a hearsay objection with the many, many recognized exceptions.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sorry, hearsay is hearsay. What you've done hear is speculate.


We're not speculating. We've heard from Sondland and we have the "transcript". They corroborate the same thing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The Senate can vindicate a President by failing to muster a 2/3rds majority to convict, for any reasons it chooses."

That AIN'T vindication. If anything, as to Trump, it's abdication of the responsibilities to heed their Constitutional obligations and oath.

Ken>>


Just WATCH it be vindication! You keep imagining this is a legal process, not a political process.


Trump will be vindicated by having any charges voted on fail, and others wont be voted on at all.


Once vindicated by the Senate, Trump will use that to roll on to electoral victory in the election.

I expect the Republicans to win back control of the House so that the loose cannon Democrats wont repeat their futile efforts.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We're not speculating. We've heard from Sondland and we have the "transcript". They corroborate the same thing.

You’re speculating. Sondland says he heard something from his father’s cousin’s uncle’s former roommate. That’s useless.

You’re playing a game of telephone. Everyone knows it.

By the way, the Ukrainian foreign minister says that Sondland...never told him a thing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You’re speculating. Sondland says he heard something from his father’s cousin’s uncle’s former roommate. That’s useless.

You're lying. That's not what he said. His testimony is not useless. It is evidence, corroborated multiple times.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You’re speculating. Sondland says he heard something from his father’s cousin’s uncle’s former roommate.

What?? Sondland was in direct contact with Trump. Who are you thinking of?
Print the post Back To Top