Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Okay . . . let's try this again.

Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle

Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16731
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnnie »

No smoking gun, no collusion, right?



mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

Jesus Christ, I saw a Twitter post with "hamberders" in it and thought it was a joke. (I mean it was a joke but I can't believe Trump actually wrote that.)

Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

[gif of a missed layup]
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
GoodKarma
The Big Lebowski
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:14 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by GoodKarma »

Surprised the snarky tweet didn't come from Wendy's Twitter since they seem to be known for that.

Nice to see BK jump on the train
I would like expensive whiskey.
We only have beer & wine...
What am I, 12?
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

Given what's been going on, this can't be too surprising. Guess we're going to get a chance to see what the Trump White House is like with the inmates running the asylum.

Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
Rush2112
The Dude
Posts: 7277
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Cyrus X-1
Contact:

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Rush2112 »

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

Pelosi cancelling the State Of The Union address unless the government re-opens is a genius way to stick it to Trump.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18865
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

brian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:37 am Pelosi cancelling the State Of The Union address unless the government re-opens is a genius way to stick it to Trump.
Yup. The problem with normal shutdown negotiation tactics, is that Trump doesn't give a fuck about the lives he is ruining. he doesn't care if he damages the GOP. He doesn't care about criticism, because he chalks it up to fake news by the very unfair people who hate him. And he only believes polls that are favorable to him. Taking away his opportunity to be on TV and address the Congress, where he doesn't have to be held accountable, and he is the center of attention? That is how you hit him. I don't know if she can do it, but I love the idea.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
Ryan
The Dude
Posts: 10439
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:01 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Ryan »

He'll just do it from the Oval Office on Fox News and call her names. If the State of the Union wasn't a totally media-driven event, I'd say it would matter.
he’s a fixbking cyborg or some shit. The

holy fuckbAllZ, what a ducking nightmare. Holy shot. Just, fuck. The
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

The Sybian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:08 pm
brian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:37 am Pelosi cancelling the State Of The Union address unless the government re-opens is a genius way to stick it to Trump.
Yup. The problem with normal shutdown negotiation tactics, is that Trump doesn't give a fuck about the lives he is ruining. he doesn't care if he damages the GOP. He doesn't care about criticism, because he chalks it up to fake news by the very unfair people who hate him. And he only believes polls that are favorable to him. Taking away his opportunity to be on TV and address the Congress, where he doesn't have to be held accountable, and he is the center of attention? That is how you hit him. I don't know if she can do it, but I love the idea.
She absolutely can. The President is invited by the Speaker of the House to deliver the SOTU.

Of course, Trump can deliver an address from the Oval Office or Mar-A-Lago and call it the State Of The Union, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18865
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

Ryan wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:10 pm He'll just do it from the Oval Office on Fox News and call her names. If the State of the Union wasn't a totally media-driven event, I'd say it would matter.
But that's a huge hit to his ego. He has to read a teleprompter in his office, rather than in front of the entire Congress. Sure, he will spin it that he chose to do it because he cares so much about Americans that he is sacrificing the glory, and he will convince his base and probably even himself.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

It would be like having an inauguration ceremony at a Wendy's and further display Trump's impotence in the fact of Democratic opposition, which presumably is the last thing he wants.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18865
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

brian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:13 pm
The Sybian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:08 pm
brian wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:37 am Pelosi cancelling the State Of The Union address unless the government re-opens is a genius way to stick it to Trump.
Yup. The problem with normal shutdown negotiation tactics, is that Trump doesn't give a fuck about the lives he is ruining. he doesn't care if he damages the GOP. He doesn't care about criticism, because he chalks it up to fake news by the very unfair people who hate him. And he only believes polls that are favorable to him. Taking away his opportunity to be on TV and address the Congress, where he doesn't have to be held accountable, and he is the center of attention? That is how you hit him. I don't know if she can do it, but I love the idea.
She absolutely can. The President is invited by the Speaker of the House to deliver the SOTU.

Of course, Trump can deliver an address from the Oval Office or Mar-A-Lago and call it the State Of The Union, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
That give me a brilliant idea. Instead of impeachment, where Republicans would be forced to admit their mistake after doubling down 5000 times rather than admitting their mistake, let Trump pretend to be President, but remove all power. He'll be like a little kid with a toy steering wheel pretending to drive. Put fake cameras in front of him and let him give pretend interviews. Let him hold rallies and let the MAGA people go listen, but don't give him any briefings, don't let him speak with any leaders (maybe actors pretending on phone calls?), and don't let follow through on anything he orders. Occasionally put a fake Bill in front of him, it's not like he actually reads any of them. He will be happier not having to listen to boring information he doesn't understand or care about.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

Not to be sarcastic but that's basically what the last couple of years have been. I mean, what did you think Reince Priebus and John Kelly were doing? They were basically running the executive branch and trotting Trump out to play to the base. This worked to mixed effect because Trump can't be handled.

What we're seeing with this shutdown strategy is pure Trump as president now. No compromises, temper tantrums, his idea of events that he thinks will appeal to people. The story that hasn't been told is that Trump has had some smart, competent people around him for the last four years including through the campaign. There's this idea that everyone in his camp is an idiot and while there are a lot of idiots, more than any other presidential administration ever possibly, there were always a few people around who knew what they were doing. They seem to be running out of those at this point.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
Rex
The Dude
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Rex »

Can we please make no State of the Union address permanent?
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10741
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Like I said last week, the shutdown is going to become a MASSIVE problem for the GOP next week. Lots and lots of people have 2 incomes or even just one income stream and can weather missing a paycheck.

But the number of people that can just eat two paychecks drops precipitously from there. And like I said last week, the GOP has been in position to control appropriations long enough that lots of them in the Senate are going to have 10's of thousands of constituents FREAKING OUT like they haven't done so far.

The Senate doesn't need Trump to pass appropriations bills. The power of the purse is solely the purview of Congress. Of course he can veto them, and Congress can try to override. But there's a point where even Senate GOP members are going to need to push this shit all onto Trump to save their asses.

Remember, 2018 was an absolutely bonkers electoral map in favor of the GOP in the Senate. People running 2020 are going to have Trump hanging around the necks already... If he puts people in awful financial situations and other horrible repurcussions from a historically long shutdown, these guys are double-fucked.

Not a sustainable path, people. I'm sorry to sound like a pedantic dick, but this is the shit I was talking about in 2016. You can't govern like this. It is crumbling rapidly.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

Regarding the tens of thousands of IRS and Agriculture employees ordered back to work for free...

Is this legal? Have they been told that they will retroactively be paid for this time?
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16731
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnnie »

Sweet Christ. What are the fucking feds waiting for?

mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

"Candidates don't know a damn thing about the platform."

"Polling data is given to everybody."

Un real.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
tennbengal
The Dude
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by tennbengal »

So...is Guiliani conceding that Manafort colluded a thing which means I can fairly say...collusion? Or do we really think that Manafort was doing that without Trumps knowledge...
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

tennbengal wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:48 am So...is Guiliani conceding that Manafort colluded a thing which means I can fairly say...collusion? Or do we really think that Manafort was doing that without Trumps knowledge...
That looks like a classic "throw under the bus" move to me. Sure, someone may have colluded, but not Trump!
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10741
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

They've been doing this the entire time. Their case has always been "so and so was acting alone, but even if he/she was, there was nothing illegal, but regardless, Trump didn't know anything." Think about their sliding stories on the Trump Tower meeting and the Cohen payouts as prime examples. They start out straight up lying about Trump's knowledge and then the shift it over a series of weeks/months to the point where they acknowledge something happened but that it wasn't illegal.

They honestly think they can win the PR battle doing this, and seemingly believe that these public comments can't be used against them in the legal sphere. It's bizarre. They are so VERY wrong. Giuliani goes out and says what Trump tells him to, despite the fact that everyone knows he (they) are full of shit.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10741
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Actually, let me ask a question of the lawyers.

Are quotes in newspapers and/or interviews given to radio/TV news outlets considered hearsay?
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by EnochRoot »

Nonlinear FC wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:48 am They've been doing this the entire time. Their case has always been "so and so was acting alone, but even if he/she was, there was nothing illegal, but regardless, Trump didn't know anything." Think about their sliding stories on the Trump Tower meeting and the Cohen payouts as prime examples. They start out straight up lying about Trump's knowledge and then the shift it over a series of weeks/months to the point where they acknowledge something happened but that it wasn't illegal.

They honestly think they can win the PR battle doing this, and seemingly believe that these public comments can't be used against them in the legal sphere. It's bizarre. They are so VERY wrong. Giuliani goes out and says what Trump tells him to, despite the fact that everyone knows he (they) are full of shit.
It’s all a con. Every single drip of it.
Noli Timere Messorem
User avatar
govmentchedda
The Dude
Posts: 12672
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by govmentchedda »

Nonlinear FC wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:53 am Actually, let me ask a question of the lawyers.

Are quotes in newspapers and/or interviews given to radio/TV news outlets considered hearsay?
Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So yes. That doesn't mean it's inadmissable.
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18865
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

tennbengal wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:48 am So...is Guiliani conceding that Manafort colluded a thing which means I can fairly say...collusion? Or do we really think that Manafort was doing that without Trumps knowledge...
General consensus among the punditry is that Guiliani is signaling that more evidence of a Trump campaign team member colluding is about to fall. Every time Rudy comes out acting all crazy and seems to confess to something, it is very shortly followed by a new indictment or info coming out that would have sprung that news. Basically, Rudy fights the PR battle, moving the goalposts on the attacks, and attempting to negate that the bad info is in fact bad. I really hope Don Jr. or Jared get indicted next.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

=https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-poli ... Putin ally

Anything to see here? Or just window dressing?
Treasury said it intends to lift sanctions the U.S. imposed last year against Deripaska’s companies, including a major aluminum producer, while keeping sanctions intact against Deripaska himself.

Treasury said it plans to lift the company sanctions because Deripaska agreed to reduce his ownership of the companies below 50 percent. His reduced stake would protect the companies“from the controlling influence of a Kremlin insider,” Treasury said.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

Some Dem is going to fuck up badly with regards to Lindsey Graham's "blackmail" and they're going to be in the wrong and its going to be a mess.
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
L-Jam3
The Dude
Posts: 5949
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:43 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by L-Jam3 »

I need something to sink my teeth into today because of something I'll get into later, so this is it. Evidence was my strongest class in Law School, and Hearsay is a big section. This will be a while.

As a little background, one of foundations of our legal system is a party in an action should have the right to cross-examine people issuing evidence against them. Let's say Officer Brian busts Kranepool for assaulting a caiman. At the criminal trial Officer Brian takes the stand and testifies that he saw Kranepool giving it to the caiman. It'd be totally fucked up if Kranepool (through his counsel TennBenn, Cheddah, & L-Jam) wasn't allowed the opportunity to ask Officer Brian questions to sharpen Brian's testimony, impeach the tendency truthfulness of Brian, or even explain that Brian didn't exactly see what he saw. Let's say Brian can't see worth of a damn, and when he made the arrest, he didn't have his glasses on. That'd be an issue, right? Or if later we found out that Kranepool had previously sued Brian for assaulting Kranepool's tortoise, which resulted in a big monetary payout. That be an issue too, right? We can agree that in both those cases, Kranepool (through TBL & Associates) should have an unfettered right to bring that up before the jury.

But what if a party is providing evidence, and the other party can't refute that through cross-examination? Then we have a possible issue.

Take the prior example, but in this case, Officer Brian made the arrest, not because he saw Kranepool giving it to the caiman, but Ryan told Officer Brian that he saw Kranepool doing it. Ryan for whatever reason was not called at the criminal trial. At the criminal trial, Officer Brian is testifying to the alleged assault. Let's also assume for a second that Brian is (a) mentally incapable of telling a lie (think some Liar Liar magic going on), and (b) is Kranepool's best friend. We as the jury can say that there's no possible way that Brian is lying, so what he's saying must be true.

But wait. That's not at issue. We need to know whether Kranepool banged a caiman. Brian didn't see it. He only knows about it because Ryan told him. THAT, my friends, is a hearsay issue. Because even if Brian is telling the truth, we have no way to cross examine the eyewitness (Ryan), and who says Ryan isn't full of shit?

In the case of hearsay, someone's out-of-court statement is being offered to prove its underlying truth. In the above case, the out-of-court statement ("Mr. Officer Brian, I saw Kranepool banging a caiman,") is being used to prove its underlying truth (that Kranepool banged a caiman). Because we have no way to adequately cross-examine the person who made the statement being used to prove its underlying truth -- Ryan isn't up on the witness stand (for whatever reason) -- we have a hearsay problem, and absent something else, it's objected to, and the jury will not hear the response and be excluded.

Now, there are occasions when an out-of-court statements ARE admitted, whether they are being used to prove (a) its underlying truth, or (b) something else. The most common way an out-of-court statement comes in is when the out-of-court statement is in fact made by the opposing party. In this case, even if it is out of court, the person who made the statement -- the other party -- is right there in the courtroom. If he wants to refute it, he's able to.

New example. San Carlos is playing at Texans Tragedy's casino owned fully by his company House of Carr, Inc., in which TT is the CEO and full shareholder. SC takes a massive hit playing craps, much to his chagrin. He takes his $50K loss and slumps back to the Sharks game and deals with it. TT is out shooting the breeze with Giff, and at one point says to Giff, "hey man, I wanted to give SC a little hell, so I personally went down to the table and served as croupier, and switched out the dice for loaded dice that would shift the house advantage. Ain't SC a sucker!". Giff stays quiet, but thinks that's totally fucked up, and tells SC. SC files both civil and criminal fraud charges against TT.

The criminal trial Texas vs. TT for fraud comes up. TT's no dummy. He's not going to get up on the stand and he's going to assert his 5th Amendment right. Giff is called as a primary witness for the prosecution, and he repeats, as his testimony against the criminal defendant party TT and says, "yeah, we were out, and he said something about that when he knew SC was in the casino, he personally came down to his craps table and switched out the dice for loaded dice."

"OBJECTION! Hearsay!", cries out TT's counsel Howard, Esq.

"Overruled, bitch. Go back to anesthesiology," rules Judge Sybian.

"But Giff didn't see it. Giff's simply repeating an out-of-court statement about loaded dice to prove my client TT loaded dice against SC."

"Yeah. So?"

"That's hearsay."

"No. Your client was the one who alleged to make the statement. If he wants to refute it, he has the opportunity. We're not going to force him to, it's totally his 5th Amendment right not to be called. But the opportunity is there," rules Judge Sybian.

In this case, TT is the opposing party from the State of Texas. Because he has the ability to refute his own statement, it's allowed in court, even for its own underlying truth.

In this case, if people are repeating things Trump himself said, then those people at trial, civil or criminal, can be called to repeat those Trump statements to prove their underlying truth.

Let's take this a step further. Statements (verbal or written, including electronic) made by a party's representative, including legal counsel, can in fact be asserted by being made by him. Giuliani, counsel for Trump, goes on CNN and says "yeah, Trump told me fuck Puerto Rico, we're not giving them a dime after the hurricane." If Trump is a party, most likely a defendant, in a case, he' can't use the hearsay rule "as a shield" to block anyone who heard Giuliani say that from repeating in court against him.

In short, get lawyers who know the hearsay rule.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16731
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnnie »

The Atlantic just comes out and says it:

Impeach Donald Trump
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10741
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

L-Jam3 wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:35 pm I need something to sink my teeth into today because of something I'll get into later, so this is it. Evidence was my strongest class in Law School, and Hearsay is a big section. This will be a while.
All very interesting.

Now answer my question! (It was already answered so I'm mostly just being a dick.)
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
EdRomero
Donny
Posts: 2359
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:39 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by EdRomero »

L-Jam3 wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:35 pm I need something to sink my teeth into today because of something I'll get into later, so this is it. Evidence was my strongest class in Law School, and Hearsay is a big section. This will be a while.

As a little background, one of foundations of our legal system is a party in an action should have the right to cross-examine people issuing evidence against them. Let's say Officer Brian busts Kranepool for assaulting a caiman. At the criminal trial Officer Brian takes the stand and testifies that he saw Kranepool giving it to the caiman. It'd be totally fucked up if Kranepool (through his counsel TennBenn, Cheddah, & L-Jam) wasn't allowed the opportunity to ask Officer Brian questions to sharpen Brian's testimony, impeach the tendency truthfulness of Brian, or even explain that Brian didn't exactly see what he saw. Let's say Brian can't see worth of a damn, and when he made the arrest, he didn't have his glasses on. That'd be an issue, right? Or if later we found out that Kranepool had previously sued Brian for assaulting Kranepool's tortoise, which resulted in a big monetary payout. That be an issue too, right? We can agree that in both those cases, Kranepool (through TBL & Associates) should have an unfettered right to bring that up before the jury.

But what if a party is providing evidence, and the other party can't refute that through cross-examination? Then we have a possible issue.

Take the prior example, but in this case, Officer Brian made the arrest, not because he saw Kranepool giving it to the caiman, but Ryan told Officer Brian that he saw Kranepool doing it. Ryan for whatever reason was not called at the criminal trial. At the criminal trial, Officer Brian is testifying to the alleged assault. Let's also assume for a second that Brian is (a) mentally incapable of telling a lie (think some Liar Liar magic going on), and (b) is Kranepool's best friend. We as the jury can say that there's no possible way that Brian is lying, so what he's saying must be true.

But wait. That's not at issue. We need to know whether Kranepool banged a caiman. Brian didn't see it. He only knows about it because Ryan told him. THAT, my friends, is a hearsay issue. Because even if Brian is telling the truth, we have no way to cross examine the eyewitness (Ryan), and who says Ryan isn't full of shit?

In the case of hearsay, someone's out-of-court statement is being offered to prove its underlying truth. In the above case, the out-of-court statement ("Mr. Officer Brian, I saw Kranepool banging a caiman,") is being used to prove its underlying truth (that Kranepool banged a caiman). Because we have no way to adequately cross-examine the person who made the statement being used to prove its underlying truth -- Ryan isn't up on the witness stand (for whatever reason) -- we have a hearsay problem, and absent something else, it's objected to, and the jury will not hear the response and be excluded.

Now, there are occasions when an out-of-court statements ARE admitted, whether they are being used to prove (a) its underlying truth, or (b) something else. The most common way an out-of-court statement comes in is when the out-of-court statement is in fact made by the opposing party. In this case, even if it is out of court, the person who made the statement -- the other party -- is right there in the courtroom. If he wants to refute it, he's able to.

New example. San Carlos is playing at Texans Tragedy's casino owned fully by his company House of Carr, Inc., in which TT is the CEO and full shareholder. SC takes a massive hit playing craps, much to his chagrin. He takes his $50K loss and slumps back to the Sharks game and deals with it. TT is out shooting the breeze with Giff, and at one point says to Giff, "hey man, I wanted to give SC a little hell, so I personally went down to the table and served as croupier, and switched out the dice for loaded dice that would shift the house advantage. Ain't SC a sucker!". Giff stays quiet, but thinks that's totally fucked up, and tells SC. SC files both civil and criminal fraud charges against TT.

The criminal trial Texas vs. TT for fraud comes up. TT's no dummy. He's not going to get up on the stand and he's going to assert his 5th Amendment right. Giff is called as a primary witness for the prosecution, and he repeats, as his testimony against the criminal defendant party TT and says, "yeah, we were out, and he said something about that when he knew SC was in the casino, he personally came down to his craps table and switched out the dice for loaded dice."

"OBJECTION! Hearsay!", cries out TT's counsel Howard, Esq.

"Overruled, bitch. Go back to anesthesiology," rules Judge Sybian.

"But Giff didn't see it. Giff's simply repeating an out-of-court statement about loaded dice to prove my client TT loaded dice against SC."

"Yeah. So?"

"That's hearsay."

"No. Your client was the one who alleged to make the statement. If he wants to refute it, he has the opportunity. We're not going to force him to, it's totally his 5th Amendment right not to be called. But the opportunity is there," rules Judge Sybian.

In this case, TT is the opposing party from the State of Texas. Because he has the ability to refute his own statement, it's allowed in court, even for its own underlying truth.

In this case, if people are repeating things Trump himself said, then those people at trial, civil or criminal, can be called to repeat those Trump statements to prove their underlying truth.

Let's take this a step further. Statements (verbal or written, including electronic) made by a party's representative, including legal counsel, can in fact be asserted by being made by him. Giuliani, counsel for Trump, goes on CNN and says "yeah, Trump told me fuck Puerto Rico, we're not giving them a dime after the hurricane." If Trump is a party, most likely a defendant, in a case, he' can't use the hearsay rule "as a shield" to block anyone who heard Giuliani say that from repeating in court against him.

In short, get lawyers who know the hearsay rule.
Sybian told me you know nothing about hearsay.
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

Ha that post right there is hearsay!
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
Johnny Carwash
The Dude
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:57 am
Location: Land of 10,000 Sununus

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnny Carwash »

I have no idea whether L-Jam's post is correct, but it was fucking awesome.
Fanniebug wrote: P.S. rass! Dont write me again, dude! You're in ignore list!
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

Oh Valerie Plame, if that really is your name ...
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

Trump says he’s canceling Pelosi’s foreign trip a day after she asked him to delay his State of the Union speech
President Trump told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Thursday that he was postponing an unannounced trip of hers to Afghanistan, Egypt and Belgium — which he called a “seven-day excursion” — because of the government shutdown.

“In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure that you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate,”
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

And in doing so compromised the operational security of a trip to an active war zone for the person third in line for the Presidency.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

Was Brian, in his capacity as best friend, covering up for sexual assault of a caiman, as alleged by Ryan, by taking it down to just assault?
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18865
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

Johnny Carwash wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:42 pm I have no idea whether L-Jam's post is correct, but it was fucking awesome.
Looks very sound to me, but I was disappointed LJam didn't go through and explain all 23 exceptions to the hearsay rule. I'll cut and paste the rule, and we can all wait for LJam to incorporate an example of each of the exceptions into his story.

[I found the exceptions to hearsay interesting, and in case anyone else does and feels like learning...]


Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:

(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;

(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and

(C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:

(A) it sets out:

(i) the office’s activities;

(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or

(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

(B) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:

(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that

(i) the record or statement does not exist; or

(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and

(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.

(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:

(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;

(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and

(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.

(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.

(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:

(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;

(B) the record is kept in a public office; and

(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.

(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.

(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:

(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;

(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;

(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and

(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.

The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:

(A) was essential to the judgment; and

(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.

(24) [Other Exceptions .] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Post Reply