The Right Side of the News

witness | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

A person with first-hand knowledge of an event, that testifies to that knowledge during a trial or other legal proceeding

---

Note testifying to that knowledge. "That" refers to "first-hand". Witnesses testify to that of which they have first-hand knowledge.Faith Hill had first-hand knowledge of what Bolton said to her, so she testified that.She did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the truth or falsity of his statements, so she did not testify to the truth or falsity of his statements, explicitly or implicitly. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

From the table at Civilian unemployment rate.

Well, if you want to get really technical:Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

(a) Statement. Statement means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

​

(b) Declarant. Declarant means the person who made the statement.

​

(c) Hearsay. Hearsay means a statement that:

​

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

​

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

---

testimony | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.

---

Seems to me that covers it pretty well.The most common definition in legal dictionaries is:

quote:

---

Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

---

Which seems to me to be begging misinterpretation by ...

There is such a law. Social Security is a closed system black box as far as the rest of the government is concerned. The payroll tax goes only into the Social Security trust fund, payouts come only out of that trust fund.Republicans have been trying to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security since their inceptions. If you don't have enough money to support your retirement or your medical needs, the Republican solution is for you to die. Starvation is the preferred method.Every time Republicans balloon the deficit and debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending, they blame it on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as an excuse to cut them. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No More Mister Nice Blog: TAKE THE MITCH McCONNELL ... (opinion piece).

quote:

---

One of Mitch McConnell's favorite activities is to rub the faces of Democrats in their own powerlessness. He's on course to do again: His fellow Senate Republicans have agreed not to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial; after that, the acquittal of President Trump is a mere formality.

​

But it seems to have dawned on McConnell that every non-deplorable in America realizes that the trial was rigged. That doesn't mean that he and the other GOP senators will reconsider witnesses or a party-line acquittal vote. What it means is that they're going to gin up a few delaying tactics, in the hope that when acquittal finally comes, five whole days from now, Americans will be thinking about the Super Bowl (Sunday), the Iowa caucuses (Monday), and/or the State of the Union address (Tuesday), and not what went on in McConnell's kangaroo court.

---

Have you ever noticed that every time you make a statement about law you're wrong?Text of H.R. 5835 (101st): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us

quote:

---

SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

​

(a) EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--

​

(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President,

​

(2) the congressional budget, or

​

(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

​

(b) EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET- Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals required by this subsection or in any other surplus or deficit totals required by this title.

---

Assuming your buddies must be right is a extraordinarily poor assumption.He lied. Or he's stunningly ignorant of the subject. Either way not a trustworthy source. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Some guy on the radio trumps the law. Standard right-wing response.There is a bullshit right-wing fantasy that claims SS adds to the deficit. SS is required by law to invest in Treasury bills. When SS needs to it cashes in some of those bills. But the money the Treasury coughs up is just reimbursement of the initial deposit plus interest, which is compensated by the fact the government used that money between deposit and withdrawal. Teresa Ghilarducci (professor of economics focusing on retirement security and jobs) explains at Why So Many People (Mistakenly) Believe Social Security Adds To The Deficit:

quote:

---

Arguing that Social Security redeeming its Treasury bills causes the deficit is just as wrong as arguing that government vendors cause the deficit. Hewlett-Packard sells email services to the Navy. Let's say Congress doesn’t collect enough revenue that year to pay for the email services without borrowing. In this case, it is not Hewlett-Packard causing the deficit; it is Congress and the president who cut taxes too much relative to spending. It is irrelevant to take to the streets yelling "Down with HP!" If you don’t like deficits, don't blame Hewlett-Packard or Social Securityentities owed money by the U.S. governmentfor causing it.

---

One would think he knows what he's talking about. But when he makes false statements about his area of alleged expertise, we call it a lie. Because it's a lie.What expertise does he have in the weird corner of economics that is retirement?

Not at all."testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person..." is testifying that what they heard is true or false."direct personal knowledge or experience." is not hearsay, including what the witness heard.Testifying what someone said to you is proper. Testifying whether or not what that person said is true is hearsay, because it's not based on direct personal knowledge or experience.But we know some guy on the radio said Hill's testimony was hearsay, so hearsay must be defined so her testimony is hearsay. No matter what the Federal Rules of Evidence and the definition in every legal dictionary in existence say.

From the Heritage Foundation web site Justin Bogie | The Heritage Foundation :

quote:

---

Senior Policy Analyst in Fiscal Affairs, Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget
Areas of Expertise
Budget and Spending
Debt[...]

​

{snip long paragraph on his many media appearances}

​

In 2016, Bogie took a leave of absence from Heritage and served as budget policy advisor to the Trump presidential campaign and also served as a member of the Presidential Transition Team for the Office of Management and Budget.

​

Before joining Heritage, he spent four years working as a policy advisor for the majority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget under Chairman and now Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and former Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price. He has prior experience in state budget issues as well.

​

Bogie holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in public administration from Auburn University.

---

His "expertise" is not impressive or apparent. Edited by JonF, : Forgot link

Those expenses do not add to the deficit.By law.Duh.

Yeah, some unqualified PR flack on the radio said so. Forget the fact that there is a law forbidding it and no evidence that the law is not being followed.Bet you didn't read my message one the wingnut fantasy of SS adding to the deficit. Here it is again:There is a bullshit right-wing fantasy that claims SS adds to the deficit. SS is required by law to invest in Treasury bills. When SS needs to it cashes in some of those bills. But the money the Treasury coughs up is just reimbursement of the initial deposit plus interest, which is compensated by the fact the government used that money between deposit and withdrawal. Teresa Ghilarducci (professor of economics focusing on retirement security and jobs) explains at Why So Many People (Mistakenly) Believe Social Security Adds To The Deficit:

quote:

---

Arguing that Social Security redeeming its Treasury bills causes the deficit is just as wrong as arguing that government vendors cause the deficit. Hewlett-Packard sells email services to the Navy. Let's say Congress doesn’t collect enough revenue that year to pay for the email services without borrowing. In this case, it is not Hewlett-Packard causing the deficit; it is Congress and the president who cut taxes too much relative to spending. It is irrelevant to take to the streets yelling "Down with HP!" If you don’t like deficits, don't blame Hewlett-Packard or Social Securityentities owed money by the U.S. governmentfor causing it.

---

The reality! It burns!!

DupeEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

According to a report from CNN, following the Senate vote to block witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, lawyers for the White House admitted that they have been withholding emails related to the Ukraine quid pro quo scandal at the heart of the trial. […]

​

The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President’s thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June.

---

The truth will out.

The truth will out. You won't like it.You're also behind the times. The story now is yeah, he did it, it was wrong, but the President isn't subject to the Constitution or laws.Marco Rubio:

quote:

---

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

---