Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:11 am
No smoking gun, no collusion, right?
It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
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.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:08 pmYup. 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.
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.
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.brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:13 pmShe absolutely can. The President is invited by the Speaker of the House to deliver the SOTU.The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:08 pmYup. 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.
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 looks like a classic "throw under the bus" move to me. Sure, someone may have colluded, but not Trump!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...
It’s all a con. Every single drip of it.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.
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.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?
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.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...
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.
All very interesting.
Sybian told me you know nothing about hearsay.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.
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,”
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.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.