- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Lawyers on here please answer this question for me
Posted on 9/29/19 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 9/29/19 at 8:54 pm
Is there any way that hearsay is allowed? I fully expect we will hear whatever made up reasons on CNN all week but are there any actual ways to allow hearsay?
11
Posted on 9/29/19 at 8:55 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
quote:
but are there any actual ways to allow hearsay?
Ya there's like two dozen exceptions
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 9/29/19 at 8:58 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
There is no way to prove a crime with the kind of hearsay that’s in the Whistleblower Statement.
There is no prohibition against the use of hearsay in newspaper articles.
There will be no impeachment. This is a publicity campaign by the Democrats to try to put their stink on Donald Trump. That’s it. They can use hearsay to do that - unfortunately.
There is no prohibition against the use of hearsay in newspaper articles.
There will be no impeachment. This is a publicity campaign by the Democrats to try to put their stink on Donald Trump. That’s it. They can use hearsay to do that - unfortunately.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:00 pm to Wednesday
They are simply trying to bring the entire political process down. Trumps election is illegitimate in their eyes
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:00 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
I think it speaks volumes the Dems have already publicly come out saying they want to subpoena the conversations with other world leaders. That will be the new talking point.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:01 pm to Wednesday
quote:
There is no way to prove a crime with the kind of hearsay that’s in the Whistleblower Statement.
If the statements are statements he “heard” from someone else, can’t they make that “someone else” come forward? And when it’s proven that someone else is a fictional person it ends the whole charade?
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:04 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
Hearsay is regularly admissible in grand jury deliberations and proceedings before administrative bodies.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:05 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Ya there's like two dozen exceptions
Fer sure....hearsay prohibition is a tiny little road bump. There's an exception for most every hearsay statement. But which one will apply here? 
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:07 pm to Magician2
quote:
I think it speaks volumes the Dems have already publicly come out saying they want to subpoena the conversations with other world leaders. That will be the new talking point.
It irritates me to hear this but it will never happen. It's unconstitutional. And Trump can claim executive privilege anyway.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:08 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
quote:
can’t they make that “someone else” come forward?
Yip. The accused has the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:10 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
I'm not a lawyer but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express and I'm a regular on the PT forum. It appears the Swamp is writing/amending the rules they believe are necessary to oust Trump...it ain't gonna work.
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:11 pm to davyjones
quote:
Yip. The accused has the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify.
Just asking, who is the accused in this case?
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:13 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
If there were a trial in any American courtroom, and a person took the witness stand and attempted to state that he was told by someone else that the defendant talked on the phone with someone and in that conversation the defendant said he was going to kill the victim, that proposed testimony would be excluded subject to a timely hearsay objection. Period.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:21 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
In an impeachment trial of the President? Donald Trump would be the "accused" who has the right to compel witness testimony. I do not specifically mention any right to compel testimony of the accuser, rather witnesses. Now, I use the term "accused" simply out of habit. Substitute whichever term that's more appropriate.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:25 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
Yeah - Lindsey’s talking point on hearsay is bogus. Lindsey knows it’s bogus (he’s not a loon like Rudy), but it plays well as a deflection.
There are two things Lindsey won’t say. The first is that hearsay is used all the time in investigations - regardless of whether it is ultimately admissible in court. The second is that whistle blowers are usually unidentified because the whole concept is that a whistle blower’s identity needs to be confidential to protect him from retaliation.
Lindsey knows he is spinning, but at this stage he’s all in and it’s about as good of a tactic as he has right now.
Watching the transformation of Lindsey Graham has been remarkable. He was on the path to be a statesman in the tradition of Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings. A longtime senator with great power despite coming from a small state - who was respected on both sides of the aisle.
He made the political calculus that going from a never Trumper to a full on Trump sycophant would pay off in the long run. And it may, even if Trump goes down. His defense of Kavanaugh will let him survive politically in South Carolina and may position him to pick up the pieces of the Republican Party. And of course, if Trump avoids impeachment and is re-elected, Lindsey could aim for higher office.
There are two things Lindsey won’t say. The first is that hearsay is used all the time in investigations - regardless of whether it is ultimately admissible in court. The second is that whistle blowers are usually unidentified because the whole concept is that a whistle blower’s identity needs to be confidential to protect him from retaliation.
Lindsey knows he is spinning, but at this stage he’s all in and it’s about as good of a tactic as he has right now.
Watching the transformation of Lindsey Graham has been remarkable. He was on the path to be a statesman in the tradition of Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings. A longtime senator with great power despite coming from a small state - who was respected on both sides of the aisle.
He made the political calculus that going from a never Trumper to a full on Trump sycophant would pay off in the long run. And it may, even if Trump goes down. His defense of Kavanaugh will let him survive politically in South Carolina and may position him to pick up the pieces of the Republican Party. And of course, if Trump avoids impeachment and is re-elected, Lindsey could aim for higher office.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:30 pm to SpringBokCock
quote:
Lindsey’s talking point on hearsay is bogus
Lindsey will likely be one of the top guys facilitating the adoption of the federal rule of evidence prohibition against hearsay in a Senate impeachment trial, if it gets that far. Senate gets to set their own rules of evidence and procedure. So there's that.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:35 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Hearsay is regularly admissible in grand jury deliberations and proceedings before administrative bodies.
What about "admissible" for impeaching a president or to set a track in motion to FIND reasons to smear a president to hinder re-election?
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:37 pm to Cali 4 LSU
Not if Mitch McConnell says it isn't.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:38 pm to SpringBokCock
quote:
His defense of Kavanaugh...
Was the most admirable thing he’s done.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 9:47 pm to KevinFaulkDaGawd
The transcript has the entire conversation! It doesn’t matter what’s in the complaint. There was nothing wrong with the conversation.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News