|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: In other words there is no such thing as hearsay. Your efforts to resolve this issue just reek of sincerity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Oh, we know a lot, here in the reality-based community.
Not everything, but a lot. You have no clue what's going on, trapped as you are in your right-wing big bubble o' lies. Paertisan politics are a serious problem. The right wing and dupes such as you are responsible for most of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I hate to think of the low responses I'll get to this anyway. Why on earth would you think that? You citing something factual deserves applause, if not outright gasps. Of course you provide no link to a transcript or even to a video, but hey, we'll take what we can get.
His thesis was that the Framers intended an impeachment to be based on criminal level charges of higbh crimes and misdemeanors and that these two articles of impeachment, Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress don't come anywhere near the high level they had in mind. His reasoning was beautifully organized, he used the Constitution and Constitutional authorities to perfection. Dershowitz's arguments were already rebutted long before he made them, first more than a couple hundred years ago by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65:
quote: And then by himself just 20 years ago:
quote: And then by William Barr in just the last year or so, who also prophetically said that the president doesn't have the right to orchestrate his own impeachment (he uses the term "abuses of discretion" but is referring to what is usually referred to as "abuse of power"):
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: If I understand what that is saying, I think it describes the situations in the House I've been calling hearsay anyway. And yet you can provide no examples of hearsay evidence presented during the impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee, at least none that don't reflect a misunderstanding of what hearsay evidence is.
Where evidence is offered as the truth but the originator of the statement isn't present. This is nonsense as written.
The more I think about it the more I think this is true, and that testimony, of which there was much, should have been prohibited according to that rule you posted. This is even worse nonsense. You need a definition of hearsay evidence that doesn't cause all testimony not about oneself to be ruled hearsay. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Even if what you are saying is true, what then? If you tax the rich there will be even less jobs and a lot more people on welfare type programs? Is that your solution? And yet the comparison of red and blue states proves just the opposite. For example Kansas under Sam Brownback - Wikipedia was a disaster. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: Fiona Hill was testifying about what someone else said, claiming it to be the truth, though that person was not present. There is nothing here that doesn't fit your definition. The truth in question wasn't that Bolton told her something, the truth in question was WHAT Bolton told her and that is hearsay. You are very confused. Fiona Hill testified that what *she* said was true (because she was under oath), not that what she said Bolton said was true. Specifically, she said that Bolton referred to what Sondland and Mulvaney were up to as a "drug deal" (the "drug deal" reference is, of course, euphemistic and not literal). She didn't claim what Bolton said was true, which would have been hearsay. Wouldn't you like to know if Fiona Hill spoke the truth about what she heard Bolton say? Wouldn't you like Bolton to appear before the Senate and be asked whether in the presence of Fiona Hill he said he wanted nothing to do with the "drug deal" that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Where evidence is offered as the truth but the originator of the statement isn't present.
This is nonsense as written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations actually disincentives growth and investment.
Read before you attack. When companies and the wealthy pay a high tax rate they find ways to get their income lower in order to pay less taxes but still get benefits. The easiest way for a corporation to do that is to invest in physical and human capital. Thee means buying and building stuff and hiring employees and paying them well. If taxes are low they do not care. They will just hoard more cash and pay the higher ups more. But if they know they CEO and other bigwigs will get taxed an exorbitant amount, instead they will make actually investments. Lower taxes do not cause a trickle down they cause a flow up. This is easily shown to be true by just looking at the US economy since WWII compared to the tax rates for corporations and the very wealthy. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Again, if you have no clue about the subject why are you attempting to discuss it?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
No. There will be more jobs, because instead of hoarding the cash they will invest it in capital projects and human capital in order to lower their tax burden. Basic economics and history.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
You are the only ignorant person in the discussion. Learn the subject matter then come back and have an adult conversation
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Murkowski, Collins Ask Pointed Question About Trump’s Motives
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: And Hill claimed that what Bolton told her is true. As JonF told in Message 4672, she did not, not once.
That's the end of this for me. Do you mean you're done trying to understand what hearsay is, or you're done making the false claim that the testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was all a sham and hearsay? You *do* need a definition of hearsay that allows people to testify about what other people said. Using your definition, every time an attorney said, "Please tell us what so-and-so said," an objection would be raised that that would be hearsay. Nobody would ever be able to testify about what anyone said. Does that really make sense to you? Do you really think all the lawyer TV shows like Perry Mason and Matlock with all their courtroom scenes involving lots of examination and cross-examination about what people said got it all wrong because hearsay rules disallowed such testimony? I testified at a jury trial once. I described what I heard everyone say, including the defendant. No hearsay objections were raised. Not once. That's because testifying to what you heard someone say is not hearsay. Hearsay is when you testify to things you didn't hear or didn't see but only heard about indirectly. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Correct attribution in first quote from JonF to Faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024