Day 1:
This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?
The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?
Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.
And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.
Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.
Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.
Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).
Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?
Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.
Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:
Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies.
The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.
Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:
Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court
There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:
* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.
So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.
Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?
