Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You keep skipping a fundemental component of admissibility of prior sworn testimony.
For example, an affidavit is sworn. But it is hearsay. The main reason is you cannot cross examine the affiant.
Next
Who cannot cross?
The defendant! The party it is being offered against.
Trump wasn’t present to cross. All of the house evidence is hearsay.
So
Any vote to admit it as the evidentiary record in the Senate is going to not follow the rules of evidence. Hope that is clear now.
If they vote to have no witnesses, how can you argue hearsay, a rule that is intended to exclude
Out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?
It is a rule that imposes a policy of hearsay. Lol
 
Last edited:
Dems can have Bolton testify but they don’t want witness like Hunter Biden being called. They dont want that “trade” because having the “republicans wont allow witnesses” talking point is better for them than any potential damage from Biden testifying
 
You are partly correct, partly not. Here’s the federal rule. Likely there are differing state rules.

§ 201.235 Introducing prior sworn statements or declarations.

(a) At a hearing, any person wishing to introduce a prior, sworn deposition taken pursuant to § 201.233 or § 201.234, investigative testimony, or other sworn statement or a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, of a witness, not a party, otherwise admissible in the proceeding, may make a motion setting forth the reasons therefor. If only part of a statement or declaration is offered in evidence, the hearing officer may require that all relevant portions of the statement or declaration be introduced. If all of a statement or declaration is offered in evidence, the hearing officer may require that portions not relevant to the proceeding be excluded. A motion to introduce a prior sworn statement or declaration may be granted if:

(1) The witness is dead;

(2) The witness is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the prior sworn statement or declaration;

(3) The witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, imprisonment or other disability;

(4) The party offering the prior sworn statement or declaration has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or

(5) In the discretion of the Commission or the hearing officer, it would be desirable, in the interests of justice, to allow the prior sworn statement or declaration to be used. In making this determination, due regard shall be given to the presumption that witnesses will testify orally in an open hearing. If the parties have stipulated to accept a prior sworn statement or declaration in lieu of live testimony, consideration shall also be given to the convenience of the parties in avoiding unnecessary expense.

(b) Sworn statement or declaration of party or agent. An adverse party may use for any purpose a deposition taken pursuant to § 201.233 or § 201.234, investigative testimony, or other sworn statement or a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, of a party or anyone who, when giving the sworn statement or declaration, was the party’s officer, director, or managing agent.

[60 FR 32796, June 23, 1995, as amended at 81 FR 50238, July 29, 2016]
 
Biden isn’t relevant to any issue.
I get the Democrat objection.
Trump went through thiS elaborate scheme to trASH his political opponent for political reasons and now can do it on TV. A REWARD FOR IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?
 
Xystus said:
This seems like an admission that President Trump is not guilty of any impeachable offences and is only being impeached because Democrats think he “deserves” to be.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, he’s guilty of the two counts. But there are many other things he’s also guilty of.

My post was in no way meaning he didn’t do what he is accused of. Remember, he admitted it yesterday in Davos.
 
That entire rule is a policy to Garner in court statements as a preference.
You see the problem. The idea of following Federal Rules of Court break down with a rule excluding all witnesses. But the Senate is not bound any way.
It sounded good on Hannity for a week.
Peace!
 
Maximus1 said:
You don’t know what the impeachment is about?
Click to expand...
I do, do you? Do you know what the Dems are claiming? To say no relevance when the Dems claim he is the said “political opponent” is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
You see the problem. The idea of following Federal Rules of Court break down with a rule excluding all witnesses. But the Senate is not bound any way.
Click to expand...
I never said the Senate is bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. But deference should not be given to hearsay if that’s all the Democrats have, and it appears to be. As near as I can tell there are only two actual facts in the whole thing; a) that Trump said he “wanted nothing” from Ukraine, no “quid pro quo”, and b) the telephone call notes, c) the Dems did not call the people as witnesses that they now want the Senate to call.

If any other facts are going to be admitted in the Senate hearing, I don’t know about it.
 
Did Trump participate and cross examine?
If not it is FUNDEMENTALLY hearsay for that reason alone.
 
But that call has context. And I get why you would want to ignore it. The Dems are beating the public over the head with Context. Including the no quid pro quo statement to Sondland followed by a quid pro quo demand. You cannot omit the second half of the statement. And HERE:
There are contemporanios notes of that conversation.
Trump blocked it. It cannot be privileged its entire content is in the house record. It corroborated BOTH HALVES of the statement. If we see the notes, your argument dies
 
As you know, counselor, there are exceptions. Even I know that one of them is a statement of a party, and that doesn’t even have to be sworn testimony. There are others, including sworn testimony under some circumstances.
 
At least you thought about it. People throw around words like Hearsay on TV and you want to spasm.
ORDER OF PROOF is the artwork. How you get evidence in.
 
What inuendo and speculation? You mean Trump didn’t give us a video confession?
 
The Democrats had ample opportunity to call any witness they wanted. Trump claimed privilege as to some of them, but not all. The Dems could have brought the issue to court to decide, but they didn’t. In this impeachment, they are supposed to be the investigators and the Senate is the “jury”. The Dems now appear to want the Senate to be an investigative body because the didn’t want to fulfill their proper role.

I’m not ignoring the context. Everybody knows the context. The speculations of various people who don’t know any relevant facts are not “context” in any meaningful way.
Maximus1 said:
a quid pro quo demand
Click to expand...
Which Trump did not make.
Maximus1 said:
If we see the notes, your argument dies
Click to expand...
No. If we see the notes, it’s just one more admission of hearsay statements; perhaps with a bit of sensitive information thrown in. Why didn’t the Dems just call those people to testify that they didn’t call? Obviously, they called some of them.
 
It isn’t hearsay. It is an exception( the notes).
Those notes memorialize the full Sondland statement. The Sondland statement is a recount of Trump’s words to him. The witness has testified to those words based on hearing them first hand. His notes eliminate all doubt.
Your ample opportunity argument is an argument that Trump hid the evidence fair and square. And America knows it.
All trial courts would let it into evidence. Especially Parnas who came to light after impeachment and Bolton who changed his mind.
You think if the murder weapon is found after the indictment, to bad, can’t use it in evidence?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top