The Democrat party is out of control. No charges, no crime, no conviction.
One Leftist decides to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.
You realize that she is bound by law to hold a hearing on all challenges submitted to the office, right?
www.documentcloud.org
‘As an initial matter, Mr. Trump's objections hinge largely on rules of evidence that do not ‘govern this proceeding. The fact that a report includes hearsay, contains irrelevant facts, or lacks foundation does not automatically render it inadmissible under the APA. Rather, the central question is whether, under Section 9057(2), it s the type of evidence on which reasonable persons. are accustomed to rely in serious affairs. I rule that that the January 6 Report meets this standard.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, government investigative reports, including reports of Congress, are presumed admissible, with the party challenging admissibility bearing the burden of showing the report is untrustworthy. See Beech AircraftCorp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 167 (1988); Barry v. Trustees of Intl Ass'n Full-Time Salaried Officers & Emps. ofOuiside Loc. Unions & Dist. Counsel's (Iron Workers) Pension Plan, 467 F. Supp. 2d 91, 96 (D.D.C. 2006).
Trustworthiness is assessed according to a non-exhaustive list of four factors: “(1) the timeliness of the investigation; (2) the special ski or expertise of the investigating official; (3) whether a hearing was held and the level at which it was conducted; and (4) possible motivation problems.” Barry, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 97; see also Beech Aircraft, 488 U.S. at 167n.11. Similarly, in Maine, “factual findings from a legally 8p. 9authorized investigation” are admissible under the Maine Rules of Evidence unless “sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. See Me. R. Evid. 803(8)(a).
I am not bound by either the federal or Maine rules of evidence because this is an APA proceeding. However, the four factors outlined above provide a useful framework for assessing the trustworthiness of the January 6 Report. The first three factors plainly counsel in favor of admissibility.
Mr. Trump's objections focus primarily on the fourth factor, namely the motivation of the authors. But all Congressional reports are to some degree political, and many of the facts contained in the Report are corroborated by other documentary and video evidence in the record. 1 accordingly see no reason to exclude the January 6 Report in its entirety under § MRS. §9057(2). That said, Mr. Trump's concerns are valid insofar as the Report reflects a curated view of the evidence and contains characterizations of that evidence. These limitations influence the weight that I assign to the Report.
ballotpedia.org
