Whistleblower

[Conager]

Dude, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to FEC compliance, and you really don’t want to try and sportosplain to me anything that has to do with the FEC. Trust me in this one.

Okay I'll bite, Miss Junior Civitan. Let me know when the last time somebody was prosecuted or even investigated as having made an in-kind contribution because they provided dirt to another candidate.

I'll wait.

 

[Conager]

But..... they have all this so-called evidence and no named crime. That makes zero sense, but that’s what can be expected with blind Trump rage from the Left.

That sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Colluded to do what? I asked that question for about two-and-a-half years. Never did get an answer.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay I'll bite, Miss Junior Civitan. Let me know when the last time somebody was prosecuted or even investigated as having made an in-kind contribution because they provided dirt to another candidate.

I'll wait.

oooh look at little Queerbait mooooooooooooooooooooooove those goalpists!

#HeTriesSooooHard
#Transplaining

 

[KeithD]

oooh look at little Queerbait mooooooooooooooooooooooove those goalpists!

#HeTriesSooooHard
#Transplaining

These fuckers are really getting tiresome. They just lie and lie and lie. They have no effect on what's happening and they refuse to acknowledge it's happening. Ignore is the best place for them.

 

[Conager]

Still waiting. . .

 

[doowdniw]

It rarely is. That's why a hearsay exception is called an exception. About the only time it's allowed when we're talkin about something you heard a living person say is to show state of mind. This is only probative in coming to a conclusion on the why someone did something not whether or not they did something.

Not quite sure where to begin with this. When you say hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence, define rarely. Are you sure that about the only time hearsay is allowed as evidence is to show why someone did something? Do you mean why as in motive? I want to be clear, because the following are just a few of the exceptions to the hearsay rule that are most relevant to a statement one would hear (as opposed to read) and have little to do with motive:

Admission of a party opponent;
Statement against interest;
Dying declaration;
Excited utterance
Present sense impression;
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition;
Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment;
Reputation;
Prior inconsistent statement

It's been a few years since I actually tried a case, so I may have missed some other exceptions that pertain to statements heard (as opposed to written), but I think I got most of them.

The statement that hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence is inaccurate. The case law is replete with admitted hearsay.

 

[Conager]

Not quite sure where to begin with this. When you say hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence, define rarely. Are you sure that about the only time hearsay is allowed as evidence is to show why someone did something? Do you mean why as in motive? I want to be clear, because the following are just a few of the exceptions to the hearsay rule that are most relevant to a statement one would hear (as opposed to read) and have little to do with motive:

Admission of a party opponent;
Statement against interest;
Dying declaration;
Excited utterance
Present sense impression;
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition;
Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment;
Reputation;
Prior inconsistent statement

It's been a few years since I actually tried a case, so I may have missed some other exceptions that pertain to statements heard (as opposed to written), but I think I got most of them.

The statement that hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence is inaccurate. The case law is replete with admitted hearsay.

Define "replete."

I'd say *exceptions* to the hearsay *rule* is certainly more rare than cases being "replete" with it. What courts cases *are* replete with our objection to hearsay evidence that are sustained. You can sneak it in under all of the ways that you suggested but if the thing you're trying to bring forward can be brought forward by any other method it will be denied admission.

Full written signed confessions can be tossed at times are a statement against interest and those can be thrown out entirely so don't tell me that cases are replete with examples of such.

I don't care how many of those exceptions you could potentially shoehorn into a given case if the only thing you have is hearsay evidence you're not even getting to trial. Those above exceptions as I pointed out are used to supplement and flesh out a case that is otherwise made on non hearsay evidence..

I mean you can try someone for capital murder without a body but it's pretty uncommon.

Just because exceptions can and have been made doesn't make it anything but exceptional. That's why they're called exceptions.

None of those exceptions apply to where you have the responsibility of the person who actually uttered the thing to just say it in court. That's what subpoenas and treating a witness as hostile are for.

The ability to confront your accuser is one of the strongest principles underpinning our particular Criminal Justice System. Hearsay evidence denies that opportunity. Judges don't take that lightly.

 

[Conager]

Not quite sure where to begin with this. When you say hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence, define rarely. Are you sure that about the only time hearsay is allowed as evidence is to show why someone did something? Do you mean why as in motive? I want to be clear, because the following are just a few of the exceptions to the hearsay rule that are most relevant to a statement one would hear (as opposed to read) and have little to do with motive:

Admission of a party opponent;
Statement against interest;
Dying declaration;
Excited utterance
Present sense impression;
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition;
Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment;
Reputation;
Prior inconsistent statement

It's been a few years since I actually tried a case, so I may have missed some other exceptions that pertain to statements heard (as opposed to written), but I think I got most of them.

The statement that hearsay is rarely allowed in evidence is inaccurate. The case law is replete with admitted hearsay.

And yes most of those above when they are used and allowed it's because you're defining motive which would otherwise be unknowable.

You're never going to get hearsay evidence in at all that does something like place someone at the scene of the crime at a particular time based on a witness that's not in court but said that they saw them.

If someone else said it why can they not appear in court to say it again? If they're alive where's the deposition where they stated this on the record? If they're dead why didn't you get a video tape deposition before they died?

Nothing like the "whistleblower" asserting that "senior government officials were saying," has a chance in hell of being uttered in court, and you know it.

 

[phrodeau]

Trump says that he has the right to face his accusers. It sounds like his accusers are members of Congress, so let’s set up a hearing so that he can face them.

 

[doowdniw]

Define "replete."

I'd say *exceptions* to the hearsay *rule* is certainly more rare than cases being "replete" with it. What courts cases *are* replete with our objection to hearsay evidence that are sustained. You can sneak it in under all of the ways that you suggested but if the thing you're trying to bring forward can be brought forward by any other method it will be denied admission.

Full written signed confessions can be tossed at times are a statement against interest and those can be thrown out entirely so don't tell me that cases are replete with examples of such.

I don't care how many of those exceptions you could potentially shoehorn into a given case if the only thing you have is hearsay evidence you're not even getting to trial. Those above exceptions as I pointed out are used to supplement and flesh out a case that is otherwise made on non hearsay evidence..

I mean you can try someone for capital murder without a body but it's pretty uncommon.

Just because exceptions can and have been made doesn't make it anything but exceptional. That's why they're called exceptions.

None of those exceptions apply to where you have the responsibility of the person who actually uttered the thing to just say it in court. That's what subpoenas and treating a witness as hostile are for.

The ability to confront your accuser is one of the strongest principles underpinning our particular Criminal Justice System. Hearsay evidence denies that opportunity. Judges don't take that lightly.

Define rarely. Try substituting replete with common, often occurring, full - does that help you understand my point. I'm going to anticipate the answer is probably no.

Hearsay is not something you "sneak by" either opposing counsel or the judge, unless opposing counsel is asleep and fails to raise the objection - nothing "sneaky" about it - just bad lawyering, but if it falls under an exception, it's generally coming in.

If you can bring forth the evidence by any other method, you wouldn't need hearsay to begin with, and an exception would be moot.

What do full written signed confessions have to do with it - you were talking about "something you heard a living person say". Are you suggesting a written document is the same as "something you hear a living person say"? Because there are more exceptions to the hearsay rule related to written documents.

If you have an admission by a party opponent, depending on what is admitted, you may not need to go to trial.

What does trying someone for murder without a body have to do with hearsay?

Just because something is an exception to a rule does not necessarily mean that the occurrence of the exception is exceptionally rare.

I don't understand your paragraph about responsibility of the person. Can you rephrase it?

Not all hearsay denies an opportunity to examine the declarant, most particularly hearsay used during cross examination to impeach a declarant. I suppose we could get into a discussion about whether it is even hearsay at all if not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but let's not. Unless you really want to.

 

[doowdniw]

Trump says that he has the right to face his accusers. It sounds like his accusers are members of Congress, so let’s set up a hearing so that he can face them.

"I can't come today, I'm too busy tweeting and playing golf".

 

[doowdniw]

And yes most of those above when they are used and allowed it's because you're defining motive which would otherwise be unknowable.

You're never going to get hearsay evidence in at all that does something like place someone at the scene of the crime at a particular time based on a witness that's not in court but said that they saw them.

If someone else said it why can they not appear in court to say it again? If they're alive where's the deposition where they stated this on the record? If they're dead why didn't you get a video tape deposition before they died?

Nothing like the "whistleblower" asserting that "senior government officials were saying," has a chance in hell of being uttered in court, and you know it.

I don't know that. Do you know how the rules of evidence are applied in a presidential impeachment investigation and subsequent trial?

 

[Conager]

I don't know that. Do you know how the rules of evidence are applied in a presidential impeachment investigation and subsequent trial?

There is no such thing as "rules of evidence" for any investigation. You gather evidence where and how you find it. You take secondhand information with a grain of salt and follow it up to where it leads.

There is no such thing as an "impeachment investigation" or an "impeachment inquiry," for that matter. It is not an impeachment process of any description until the full house votes to have one. Once they draft articles of impeachment, the process of bringing those articles forward and any debate and testimony they decide to hold is entirely for the house to devise. They can do anything from a kangaroo court to a serious attempt to flesh out the issues that will be brought forward at the trial in the Senate if it gets that far. Stunts like Schiff's nonsense would likely prejudice the Senate whose members consider themselves more deliberative and statesmanlike.

In the Senate there is no chance that playing fast and loose with the traditions of our criminal jurisprudence system such as Mueller's nonsense about ". .but not exonerated, either" or the Kavenaugh circus where he was required to prove he didn't do something no one remembers anything verifiable such as time and place would be met with anything but scorn in the Senate.

This particular Senate will not remove, regardless. Dems are just continuing the campaign started on election night to delegitimize Trump's presidency.

Not a chance in hell the Dems get away with sham process with anonymous "sources," even in the house.

 

[Conager]

So nothing, huh? Let me let you off the hook. . .

You used to have much better sources for your talking points. You apparently don't know that the herd has already moved on past, "This was totally a crime!!" to "We don't need a crime, we don't have to have a crime, we don't have to show you any stinking crime!"

Pretty interesting that the New York Times has decided not to put this particular article behind their pay wall. It's almost like they have an agenda or something.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/trump-impeachment.html

Catch up, "sporto," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I wouldn't think that you're even old enough for a Breakfast Club reference and that's probably right because you don't seem to know how to use it.

 

[Hal9000_]

Old trumpy thinks his shady business dealings will fly as a gov. employee.

As per usual, he sees himself as a monarch. He fails to see his duty as keeper of the people.

KEEPER= as in keeper of freedom, justice and liberty for all.

 

[DawnODay]

The call with Ukrainian President Zelensky did take place, so that part is true. From there, the lies begin.

“There was a quid pro quo” they said. The President threatened to withhold aid money from Ukraine unless Zelensky investigated Joe and Hunter Biden, we were told. The transcript showed that did not happen.

That fact did not stop any Democrat from saying it did. It did not stop anchors at CNN and MSNBC from saying it did.

On MSNBC, Katy Tur summarized the transcript this way: “Will you do me a favor and investigate Vice President Biden’s son? Will you do me a favor and get involved in the 2020 election? Vice President Biden is my chief political opponent.”

On CNN, Brianna Keillor said President Trump told Zelensky, “’I would like you to do us a favor…’ the President asks Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden and his son, Hunter.”

The only problem is the President said nothing of the sort.... To get to any mention of Biden you have to skip 540 words, fully three quarters the length of an op-ed. But CNN and MSNBC simply erased those words and created their own version of the conversation....

Also memory-holed is the truth about withholding US aid to Ukraine. For there to be a “threat,” for there to be a quid pro quo, Ukraine would have to be aware of the fact that the aid was put on hold. But the New York Times, of all places, noted that Ukraine did not know the aid was put on hold until a month AFTER the call....

Then there’s the charge of a “cover-up!” It’s one of the left’s favorite buzzwords because it evokes a visceral reaction when you hear it. But when you think about it, and look at what they’re using to back it up, it’s another in a long list of scams....

How can anyone claim the White House is withholding information when the President declassified every piece of paper associated with the call? The transcript, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General’s report, all of these are classified and could have been held back with a perfectly valid claim of executive privilege. That didn’t happen. The President released the information so quickly that Democrats were still calling for their release after they’d already been released.​

D. Hunter, If The Case For Trump’s Impeachment Is So Strong, Why Are Liberals Lying About It?, Town Hall (Sep. 29, 2019) (emphasis added) These are just some highlights; there are a lot more examples in the essay. Here are some more examples from another article:

The Washington Post reported "two former U.S. officials" said "Trump's interaction with the foreign leader included a 'promise' that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint."

Well, it turns out Trump makes no "promise" anywhere in the transcript. He makes no threats, either. Indeed, it was Zelensky who raised the issue of investigating corruption, not Trump....

NBC's Katy Tur claimed that the transcript showed Trump said, "Will you do me a favor and investigate Vice President [Joe] Biden's son?" No, he didn't. When Trump asked Zelensky to "do us a favor," it had nothing to do with Biden.

According to the transcript, Trump was asking Zelensky to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe....

In his complaint, the whistleblower (who admits "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described") describes Trump asking Zelensky to cooperate with this investigation as an effort "to advance his personal interests." That is ridiculous. Since when is it inappropriate for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation?

...

The transcript also backs up Trump's claim that he put a temporary hold on some U.S. military aid to Ukraine because he was concerned that the European allies were not doing enough....

The whistleblower offers no evidence that Trump had any other motivation....

The irony is, thanks to Democrats' impeachment push, the president is going to get his investigation of Biden's son – except it won't be carried out by Ukraine, but by the U.S. Congress.​

M. Thiessen, Democrats sprint ahead of the evidence, Washington Post (Sep. 26, 2019) (emphasis added).

 

[BotanyBoy]

Old trumpy thinks his shady business dealings will fly as a gov. employee.

As per usual, he sees himself as a monarch. He fails to see his duty as keeper of the people.

KEEPER= as in keeper of freedom, justice and liberty for all.

Last I checked POTUS is supposed to execute the laws that Congress writes, pardon/appoint some folks, receive ambassadors as the head of state and command the military. And that's pretty much it.

Keeper of freedom, justice and liberty for all? The 3 things "progressives" can't fucking stand and are explicitly seeking the destruction of in the USA???

Yea that's up to the voters not to vote those things away for promises of "free everything for everyone!!".

 

[SpeareChucker]

I love it.

This so energizes the Left.
It gives them an opportunity to rant, to rail, to

indict by picture and quote...




You now know that they have given up on the election,
kitchen-table issues and, "It's the economy stupid."

We cannot win by building us up
only by tearing them down [to our level].

 

[Adre]

Last I checked POTUS is supposed to execute the laws that Congress writes, pardon/appoint some folks, receive ambassadors as the head of state and command the military. And that's pretty much it.

Which just proves you’ve accepted the very low bar set by our current President. Fortunately Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Roosevelt, and others thought the office demanded much much more.

 

[phrodeau]

Trump says, “We’re trying to find out about a whistleblower.”

Has Trump ever followed through on anything he claims to be looking into?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which just proves you’ve accepted the very low bar set by our current President.

It also proves I payed attention in my basic US history classes and read the Constitution, Article II.

Fortunately Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Roosevelt, and others thought the office demanded much much more.

Frankie Roosevelt yes.....Teddy? No.

Lincoln and the uber radical libertarians who led a revolution against a monarch and did their best to make sure Article II neutered POTUS of as much authority as possible Washington and Jefferson???

LOL that's just fucking laughable, you've pretty obviously never read anything from either on the subject.

 

[Adre]

It also proves I payed attention in my basic US history classes and read the Constitution, Article II.



Frankie Roosevelt yes.....Teddy? No.

Lincoln and the uber radical libertarians who led a revolution against a monarch and did their best to make sure Article II neutered POTUS as much as possible Washington and Jefferson???

LOL that's just fucking laughable, you've pretty obviously never read anything from either on the subject.

I’m talking about leadership, inspiration, character, moral compass, respect for institutions, and a lot of other qualities that you and the rabid Trump base neither understand nor appreciate. I’m pretty confident I read more in one day than you do in a month.

 

[jomar]

The call with Ukrainian President Zelensky did take place, so that part is true. From there, the lies begin.

“There was a quid pro quo” they said. The President threatened to withhold aid money from Ukraine unless Zelensky investigated Joe and Hunter Biden, we were told. The transcript showed that did not happen.

...​

Welcome to the discussion, Russian bot...

We’ve only seen a summary, not the full transcript. It’s on a classified server for national security issues. Apparently, along with some other politically sensitive transcripts/information Trump and his White House attorneys don’t want publicly exposed.​

 

[BotanyBoy]

I’m talking about leadership, inspiration, character, moral compass, respect for institutions, and a lot of other qualities that you and the rabid Trump base neither understand nor appreciate. I’m pretty confident I read more in one day than you do in a month.

Well then you're off topic.

We were talking about the duties and obligations of the POTUS, not a bunch of irrelevant subjective bullshit you NEVER hold people of your own party accountable to.

Then you should try reading a US history book sometime then, something that covers 1750~1810ish. If you do maybe you'll understand why the gun grabbing, heavy taxing and 'nationalize the economy because fuck rich people' leftist you support are in fact anti-American.

Unlikely.....but maybe.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

MERRICK GARLAND ring a bell?

Jesus, what a bloviating blowhard. You really are the Cliff Claven of the GB

There is no such thing as "rules of evidence" for any investigation. You gather evidence where and how you find it. You take secondhand information with a grain of salt and follow it up to where it leads.

There is no such thing as an "impeachment investigation" or an "impeachment inquiry," for that matter. It is not an impeachment process of any description until the full house votes to have one. Once they draft articles of impeachment, the process of bringing those articles forward and any debate and testimony they decide to hold is entirely for the house to devise. They can do anything from a kangaroo court to a serious attempt to flesh out the issues that will be brought forward at the trial in the Senate if it gets that far. Stunts like Schiff's nonsense would likely prejudice the Senate whose members consider themselves more deliberative and statesmanlike.

In the Senate there is no chance that playing fast and loose with the traditions of our criminal jurisprudence system such as Mueller's nonsense about ". .but not exonerated, either" or the Kavenaugh circus where he was required to prove he didn't do something no one remembers anything verifiable such as time and place would be met with anything but scorn in the Senate.

This particular Senate will not remove, regardless. Dems are just continuing the campaign started on election night to delegitimize Trump's presidency.

Not a chance in hell the Dems get away with sham process with anonymous "sources," even in the house.