Calls for gun confiscation
Calls for government funding of abortion on demand.
Calls for government dictated healthcare.
Calls for limits on speech, due process, religious free exercise.
Lots more
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Calls for government funding of abortion on demand.
Calls for government dictated healthcare.
Calls for limits on speech, due process, religious free exercise.
Lots more
S
sallybutler
Guest
I guess we should be glad he didn’t wear a tan suit
M
mrad25
Guest
Just as the President says BS.
M
Maximus1
Guest
You if what I said, or you didn’t understand it.
Lay witnesses are not competent to opine about crime, vel non. A judge wouldn’t allow it. And as it turns out your post perfectly illustrates why.
The danger of letting someone even opine on the subject runs the rid that someone just like you would consider it other than incompetent. You could actually think it relevant. It is excluded because an unjust decision could result just hearing the answer. And asking such a question could result in an ethics complaint.
Of course unethical is the stock in trade of Trumpism.
You don’t dispute what I said about Nixon. That’s good
Lay witnesses are not competent to opine about crime, vel non. A judge wouldn’t allow it. And as it turns out your post perfectly illustrates why.
The danger of letting someone even opine on the subject runs the rid that someone just like you would consider it other than incompetent. You could actually think it relevant. It is excluded because an unjust decision could result just hearing the answer. And asking such a question could result in an ethics complaint.
Of course unethical is the stock in trade of Trumpism.
You don’t dispute what I said about Nixon. That’s good
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the proponents of pro choice in ROE V WADE. THEY were the champions of a woman’s right to choose. SUPRISE!
M
Maximus1
Guest
Tonight’s revelation is Trump and Rudy were the Curruption in Ukraine
I am perfectly capable of recognizing certain crimes. One die not need to be an expert to do so in a House committee hearing. If the were not competent to answer questions sbout what they had no knowledge of, they should not have been called as witnesses.You if what I said, or you didn’t understand it.
Lay witnesses are not competent to opine about crime, vel non.
Then they should not have been called. Further, this standard eliminates the observations of Ciaramella, as well, MN s as king his whistleblowing irrelevant.The danger of letting someone even opine on the subject runs the rid that someone just like you would consider it other than incompetent.
Has such a complaint been filed? No? Is that because it is a committee hearing and not a trial? Therefore, your alleged standard holds no water. The questions were spot on, despite the fact you didn’t like the answer.You could actually think it relevant. It is excluded because an unjust decision could result just hearing the answer. And asking such a question could result in an ethics complaint.
Of course unethical is the stock in trade of progressivism. (I fixed your comment).
Reading comprehension. I said I doubted your conclusion.You don’t dispute what I said about Nixon. That’s good
Tonight’s delusion is Trump and Rudy were the Curruption in Ukraine. (Fixed this one, too.)
Last edited:
What about the child’s right to choose? Which southern Baptist or evangelical wants to eliminate the Hyde Amendment so that taxpayer dollars can be used to kill more babies?Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the proponents of pro choice in ROE V WADE. THEY were the champions of a woman’s right to choose. SUPRISE!
M
Maximus1
Guest
Yes they should testify.
No they should not be asked to render expert legal opinion. Their answers are incompetent. You are the very best example of why in a court of law, the question should not even be asked.
No they should not be asked to render expert legal opinion. Their answers are incompetent. You are the very best example of why in a court of law, the question should not even be asked.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Sorry you didn’t like the history lesson
Who asked them expert to express expert opinions? They were asked if they saw or were aware of. That’s not a professional expert opinion. If I’m asked if I say a car run a red light, do I have to be a law enforcement expert to answer? Of course not.Yes they should testify.
No they should not be asked to render expert legal opinion.
- Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”
- “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with, at all?”
Who was talking about a court of law?You are the very best example of why in a court of law, the question should not even be asked.
Let me ask you; in a court of law, does the prosecutor get to decide which witnesses the defense gets to call?
Last edited:
lol. Is that your answer to my question?Sorry you didn’t like the history lesson
M
Maximus1
Guest
Asking if a crime has been committed seeks a legal opinion. Period!
M
Maximus1
Guest
The hearing has a presiding member by rule who decides the witnesses who will testify. In a courtroom a judge decides in much the same way.
Something you fail to consider is that the president has totally refused to allow key witnesses to testify and refused to allow the committee access to documents. This no doubt will result in an article of impeachment. Trump is not going to be allowed to then furnish irrelevant witnesses to disrupt the proceeding.
One issue, the question that calls for an expert opinion, is one of relevancy and competency to render an expert opinion in the rules of evidence. The question I ask addresses the inadmissibility of evidence because it is incompetent and prejudicial.
Your question about witness is a completely different question with it’s own considerations of administration.
Something you fail to consider is that the president has totally refused to allow key witnesses to testify and refused to allow the committee access to documents. This no doubt will result in an article of impeachment. Trump is not going to be allowed to then furnish irrelevant witnesses to disrupt the proceeding.
One issue, the question that calls for an expert opinion, is one of relevancy and competency to render an expert opinion in the rules of evidence. The question I ask addresses the inadmissibility of evidence because it is incompetent and prejudicial.
Your question about witness is a completely different question with it’s own considerations of administration.
Last edited:
No, it doesn’t. Laymen are asked if they witnessed a crime all the time.Asking if a crime has been committed seeks a legal opinion. Period!
Schiff is not a judge. Here again we see the difference between the legal and the political.The hearing has a presiding member by rule who decides the witnesses who will testify. In a courtroom a judge decides in much the same way.
And if, like McGahn, the courts require them to appear, they will appear. It is another difference between a court and a House hearing: separation of powers.Something you fail to consider is that the president has totally refused to allow key witnesses to testify and refused to allow the committee access to documents.
And those articles will be thrown out with the garbage. The Senate will allow the defectors call relevant witnesses. As I said, I look forward to seeing Schiff and his pal, Ciaramella, testify.This no doubt will result in an article of impeachment. Trump is not going to be allowed to then furnish irrelevant witnesses to disrupt the proceeding.
What’s curious is Schiff, who didn’t allow the Republicans to do much, seemed perfectly fine with the questions I mentioned above. He allowed the witnesses to answer. He showed no reticence in preventing questions to be answered about his crony, Ciaramella.The question I ask addresses the inadmissibility of evidence because it is incompetent and prejudicial.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I am an expert. 30 years of education and courtroom experience. I know the difference. That a lay person cannot opine that a crime like extortion or bribery, or a RICO violation has been committed is correct.
In a courtroom asking alone is an ethics violation because the lawyer is charged with knowing it is not a good faith question.
One of the witnesses, Sondland I think testified he is basically not competent to answer. Obviously his answer had more sophistication.
Bottom line, the answer offers nothing probative either way for someone who is not qualified to give it. Lay testimony on a legal conclusion should not be asked either way. Testimony there WAS A CRIME is prejudicial to the target. And a reluctance to answer can be explained because the ensuing questions cross examine on the theory ," how do you know, your not a lawyer."
This is my last comment on this. As I said before the importance you place on the answer is precisely why it should never happen.
Thus far it seems clear that the idea of an absolute privilege is ludicrous. To fully form the article of impeachment, I would issue subpoenas again. Ordering witnesses to not show up is legally untenable and therefore obstruction. They have to show up and make a record, where individual questions might be objectionable but there is a right to ask and an affirmative obligation to state good faith objections on the record.
For McGhann, objections may easily have been waived now that his testimony was published to the public.
In a courtroom asking alone is an ethics violation because the lawyer is charged with knowing it is not a good faith question.
One of the witnesses, Sondland I think testified he is basically not competent to answer. Obviously his answer had more sophistication.
Bottom line, the answer offers nothing probative either way for someone who is not qualified to give it. Lay testimony on a legal conclusion should not be asked either way. Testimony there WAS A CRIME is prejudicial to the target. And a reluctance to answer can be explained because the ensuing questions cross examine on the theory ," how do you know, your not a lawyer."
This is my last comment on this. As I said before the importance you place on the answer is precisely why it should never happen.
Thus far it seems clear that the idea of an absolute privilege is ludicrous. To fully form the article of impeachment, I would issue subpoenas again. Ordering witnesses to not show up is legally untenable and therefore obstruction. They have to show up and make a record, where individual questions might be objectionable but there is a right to ask and an affirmative obligation to state good faith objections on the record.
For McGhann, objections may easily have been waived now that his testimony was published to the public.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
This was not a trial. And I a prosecutors office you would never have the targets own advocates( dozens of questioners that were Republican) to advocate the targets case. So Trump had exceptional due process no criminal defendant ever gets. Impeachment I not a trial, it is an indictment. A Target does not get to call witnesses in a grand jury. The prosecutor has a right to develope his side of the case. The proceeding then become adversarial at trial.
I suppose it is good politics to cry victim, but Trump is no victim.
I look forward to a trial. I see no legitimate defense calling Biden for example. Trump’s push for investigation happened based upon facts that proceed the testimony. He cannot properly say what is solicited at the hearing fed his conduct. So we will see. Calling Schiff is the same thing. “He is partisan” is not relevant to the facts. Although I think Schiff will cause the Trump team more problems than benefits.
In a trial, Trump’s defense will be exposed if all he has is ," rule for me because they are Democrats."
I suppose it is good politics to cry victim, but Trump is no victim.
I look forward to a trial. I see no legitimate defense calling Biden for example. Trump’s push for investigation happened based upon facts that proceed the testimony. He cannot properly say what is solicited at the hearing fed his conduct. So we will see. Calling Schiff is the same thing. “He is partisan” is not relevant to the facts. Although I think Schiff will cause the Trump team more problems than benefits.
In a trial, Trump’s defense will be exposed if all he has is ," rule for me because they are Democrats."
Last edited:
C
CradleRC58
Guest
Cool! How many House committee hearings have you been involved in?I am an expert. 30 years of education and courtroom experience. I know the difference.
In a committee hearing? Apparently not. Even Schiff didn’t object to the questions, and he’s done everything he could to keep the hearing biased against Trump.In a courtroom asking alone is an ethics violation because the lawyer is charged with knowing it is not a good faith question.
He also said he had no evidence of a quid pro quo. Only his own assumption.One of the witnesses, Sondland I think testified he is basically not competent to answer. Obviously his answer had more sophistication.
But that wasn’t the question. Yovanovitch was not asked was there a crime. She was asked about any information she might have.Testimony there WAS A CRIME is prejudicial to the target. And a reluctance to answer can be explained because the ensuing questions cross examine on the theory ," how do you know, your not a lawyer."
There was no reluctance on her part. She said flat out, “no”.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.