The Right Side of the News

Still batting 000 in statements about law. You really need to find out rather than imagining.https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hearsay-rule/

quote:

---

The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court . Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something.

---

{emphasis added}See also Objection: Hearsay! What Is the Hearsay Rule, and What are the Exceptions to It? | LegalZoomSo Fiona Hill can testify about what she heard. That's not hearsay.

yeah he's so concerned about corruption that he wants to make it legal to bribe foreign officials.Self-declared corruption fighter Trump wants to make it easier to bribe foreign officials | Salon.com

Why wait? Pony it up now, when it would be critical and relevant.(We know why you won't produce it now.)(It doesn't exist)Of course, even if there was something hinky about the investigation into Burisma, that's not evidence of anything about Joe or Hunter Biden. You'd need evidence they were directly involved in some way. And we know Joe's criticism of Shokin was official US and several other nation's policy and connected with failure to investigate rather than any ongoing investigation.So we have nothing tying either Biden to the investigation into Burisma.

You demonstrate as everybody else here does too, what this whole sham is about , just making it all up. You make up Trump's motives, you have no compunction about convicting him based on your dislike of him, imputing motives to him without any concern to be able to prove any of it, it has nothing whatever to do with actual facts, just feelings about trump. Feelings, nothing else. Has our justice system really sunk this low? Yeah I'm afraid it has, thanks to the Democrats. They are making nothing but hot air, feelings, hearsay about who knows what that isn't a crime anyway, opinions, into legal categories to impeach a man on. I don't even think the Framers had a vision of how low such things could get even when they were trying to prevent such a railroading of a President or any human being for that matter.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes we'd need them to testify.

First, I just want to say that any resemblance between Catbert^©®™ and my admin avatar are purely coincidental.Second, shouldn't Scott Adams stick to comic strips, where he excels, and stay out of politics, where if this tweet is any guide, he's abysmal? He seems to be saying that because Trump believed Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election that pressuring Zelensky to investigate the Bidens was justified. How do you imagine Adams is making the connection between "Ukrainian interference" and "investigate the Bidens"?Third, don't we have to enlist the opinions of all the other top-tier retired comic strip writers like Gary Trudeau and so forth?Fourth, I didn't know Scott Adams was a Trumpist. I'm going to have to reinterpret all those old Dilbert strips in this new light. There is no evidence that Ukraine interfered in our election in any perceptible way. Yes, it's always right to coerce foreign countries to investigate likely political opponents. Yeah, right. That's why the Politco article (Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - POLITICO) says:

quote:

---

But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
...
There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

---

The Ukraine did more than nothing, but not by much. Their only accomplishment worth mentioning was revealing the Russian connections of Paul Manafort, forcing his resignation as Trump's campaign manager. Say what? In the Ukraine they have laws against interfering in US elections? Who knew!--Percy

Yet another incoherent rant ducking addressing the issues.Withholding Ukraine aid was a crime. Obstructing Congress is a crime; I even posted the law three times.But everyone but the flip-flopped Alan Dershowitz says impeachment does not require a crime.I see you are lying about what's hearsay.

If there's a reason but you don't know what it is, how do you know it exists?Is this the same as the "wait and see" about evolution, and the "wait and see" about geology, and the "wait and see" about the Bible? Still waiting.--Percy

The appropriate agency had already given the Ukraine the okay on corruption. Trump chose to ignore it.Trump understands his obligation as to himself in the avoidance of all blame. He doesn't care about corruption unless it somehow helps him. Oh, please, do go on. How did Ken Starr do that?--Percy

what did i make up? Trump's economic advisor has admitted that they're looking to make changes to the act.https://www.cnbc.com/...orms-to-global-anti-bribery-law.html

Armed now with your (hopefully) corrected understanding of what hearsay evidence is, you now understand that the testimony of the seventeen (not eleven - I miscounted) witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee was not a sham and was not made up. You're all confused again. JonF didn't ascribe any motives to Trump. He said motivation didn't matter. We all love the sinner, we're just concerned about what the sin is doing to the country. Again, JonF imputed no motives, not that there would be anything wrong with that. Ater all, it's something you do all the time. Usually the motive you ascribe to others is hate. Again, there are facts in bunches from the House Intelligence Committee hearings, see The Trump/Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report. We can go through it any time you like. Or perhaps you'd prefer to go through the transcripts of the testimony of all seventeen witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee. For example, we could discuss this portion of Fiona Hill's testimony:

quote:

---

So I did go down. And I came in as there was obviously a discussion underway. And there was a very large group of people in the room. They were the aides to the Ukrainian officials, Mr. Yermak and Mr. Danylyuk. There were a couple, at least two State Department aides who had come over with Ambassador Sondland. There was Ambassador Volker's aide, and there were a couple of other people. I wasn't sure who they were, whether they'd been part of Secretary Perry's team. But as I was coming in, Secretary Perry was leaving to go off to another engagement. So I think that one person there was probably one of his team, but I'm not sure for certain, because I didn't recognize the person. And there was also our director for Ukrainian affairs.

​

And Ambassador SondIand, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward wjth investigations. And my director of Ukraine was looking completely alarmed. And I came in again as this discussion was underway. Mr. Danylyuk looked very alarmed as we1l. He didn't look like he knew what was going on. That wasn't the case with Yermak.

​

And I immediately said to Ambassador Sondland: Look, we can't discuss the meeting here with our Ukrainian colleagues. Ambassador Bolton sent me down to ask you know, kind of to make sure that you understand that we'11 be talking about the meeting. We'11 obviously be looking into this, but that we can't make any commitments at this particular juncture because a lot of things will have to be worked through in terms of the timing and the substance.

​

And Ambassador Sondland cut me off, and he said: We have an agreement that they'11 have a meeting.

​

And I said: Look, we cannot discuss this in front of our colleagues. You know, we have to talk about, you know, the details of this.

​

And he said: Okay, okay, I get it.

​

And he asked the Ukrainians to basically leave the room. So they basically moved out into the corridor. And I said: Look, I don't know what's going on here, but Ambassador Bolton wants to make it very clear that we have to talk about, you know, how are we going to set up this meeting. It has to go through proper procedures.

​

And he started to basically talk about discussions that he had had with the Chief of Staff. He mentioned Mr. Giuliani, but then I cut him off because I didn't want to get further into this discussion at all.

​

And I said: Look, we're the National Security Council. We're basically here to talk about how we set this up, and we're going to set this up in the right way. And you know, Ambassador Bolton has asked me to make it completely clear that we're going to talk about this, and, you know, we will deal with this in the proper procedures. And Ambassador Sondland was clearly annoyed with this, but then, you know, he moved off. He said he had other meetings.

​

And I went back to talk to Ambassador Bolton. And Ambassador Bolton asked me to go over and report this to our NSC counsel, to John Eisenberg. And he told me, and this is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you've heard and what I've said. So I went over to talk to John Eisenberg about this.

---

There you go, it's all there. Sondland had already worked with Mulvaney on a meeting with the Ukrainians conditioned upon investigations, and the NSC knew nothing about it. Perry obviously knew about it, too, since he was leaving the meeting just as Hill was entering. And Giuliani was involved because Sondland tried to introduce him into the conversation before Hill cut him off.What Fiona Hill heard that day wasn't the whole story, but the other parts of the story are all there in the testimony transcripts of the other witnesses, and we can read them and discuss them and be rational about it. Or you can just carry on just as you have been, a hysteric dismissing all the testimony as sham and hearsay and everyone who's not you as haters and leftists. So while conservatives have controlled most of Congress over the past decade, and the presidency over the past three years, and as more and more conservatives are appointed to the judiciary, you see our justice system as sinking, but your conclusion is: Please explain your logic. I quoted testimony just a couple inches above. Please point to the hot air, emotionality, hearsay and opinions. What the framers didn't anticipate was a runaway presidency simultaneous with a complicit legislature.--Percy

Hearsay is telling what somebody else told you who isn't the defendant. The very little actual direct knowledge of anything Trump did or said exonerates him; all the rest in the House testimonies was hearsay like the one you document, or just opinion, speculation, presumption or whatnot.As I've been listening to the conservative talk hosts today I've come to agree with Ben Shapiro who says there was a quid pro quo and it's just that Trump is a difficult client who puts out his own views against counsel which gets him into trouble. He said there was a quid pro quo, a normal quid pro quo all Presidents have the right and power to do for the sake of the country, a withholding of aid for information about corrupt\\ions that affect America. So that Trump is wrong to insist there was no quid pro quo, he isn't taking the whole picture into account when he says that, he should recognize that there was and that it involved a matter of judgment which is his prerogative as President.No the President is not a runaway President although he puts his foot in his mouth from time to time, it's the Democrats that are out of control and destroying the country.

Very good exposition of the Joe Biden lunacy. Plenty of convincing detail. Fact check: 4 things Trump's attorney left out of her arguments about Biden and Burisma

quote:

---

President Trump's lawyer Pam Bondi played a video clip of former vice president Joe Biden recounting, at a 2018 event, how he had pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.

​

Bondi claimed that Shokin was, at the time of the pressure in late 2015 and early 2016, investigating Burisma, the company where Biden’s son Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors.

​

Here are four key facts Bondi omitted:

​

1. Shokin’s former deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, said the investigation into Burisma and company owner Mykola Zlochevsky was inactive at the time of Joe Biden’s pressure in late 2015 and early 2016. A leading Ukrainian anti-corruption activist said the same.

​

"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."

​

2. Shokin was widely seen by Ukrainian activists, US diplomats, European governments and the International Monetary Fund as ineffective or corrupt. In a speech in 2015, Geoffrey Pyatt, then the US ambassador to Ukraine, castigated Shokin’s office for impeding the investigation of Burisma’s owner Zlochevsky. Pyatt called for people in Shokin’s office to be fired, at minimum.

​

Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption, corrupt actors within the prosecutor general’s office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform, Pyatt said.

​

3. Biden was acting in accordance with official US policy. Because of Shokin’s reputation, the US and its allies believed that removing him would increase, not decrease, the chances of people like Zlochevsky being pursued.

​

"What former Vice President Biden requested of former president of Ukraine, (Petro) Poroshenko, was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, testified in the impeachment inquiry. Kent went on to say Shokin had undermined a US-funded program to try to investigate corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors.

​

4. Some Republican senators had also demanded changes to the prosecutor general’s office Shokin led.

​

In a bipartisan 2016 letter, Republican senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson joined Democratic colleagues in calling on then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to "press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary."

---

Won't affect the Troo Believers, of course.