Lawpoke doesn’t appear to understand how hearsay works. There are a lot of exceptions. I try cases professionally and saw little hearsay yesterday. The rule is fun once you understand how it works. Even if there was hearsay, it’s not relevant to the hearings hecause this isn’t a court of law and the federal rules of evidence do not apply in any way.
That’s beside the point.did see a lot of cold hard facts and I question why anyone would argue against these hearings now. It’s time for take sake of the country for everyone to #renounceTrump and move on. If you won’t do that, you will face ridicule and take that embarrassment to your grave. Arguing about hearsay is just stupid here.
That’s what this is about. And the hearings are damn impressive. It’s something that will be studied hundreds of years. Trump made this whole thing happen. He has to be punished.
Don’t disagree that it will be studied. Or that this topic needs discussion and proper objective professional apolitical investigation.
You know my background, others don’t. I have jury verdicts up to first degree felonies punishable by life without parole and civil verdicts favorable for my client where the amount sought exceeds $60 million. I know a little about the hearsay rules. And how the executive branch works from other career service.
The discussion is less about the strict application of the evidence code, as it is comments regarding the departure from well settled norms in Congressional investigations and hearings, including the very make up of the panel.
And that’s why your argument ultimately fails. It’s true the rules of evidence don’t apply but it’s also true the Rules of the House do apply and the Speaker has repeatedly disregarded them in support of what appears at times to be a political narrative. Something unprecedented in the House.
For many people concerned about the respect for the rule of law and the institutions of this country, the erosion of the norms we expect in the conduct of the House is concerning, even if it is in furtherance of an objective that serves an important public purpose. There was more than one way to do this, and this one was politically expedient for the Speaker.
And ultimately, that may be the legacy of these hearings. The Irvin hearings during Watergate helped restore the faith of the public in the federal government. They were live, uninterrupted, and for the most part, parties adverse to the stated objective of the hearings were allowed to participate. The hearings netted startling admissions through careful questioning by multiple sides that brought down a President and installed a Vice President as President trusted by both parties and respected nationwide. Contrary to popular myth, something two dorky journalists and the US Supreme Court couldn’t do.
These hearings are partisan in nature by design, are not being carried live in full, heavily edited, and witnesses are not being called who would be called under the Rules of the House in any other proceeding. As such, it’s kabuki theater, people have started to stop watching and even the pundits have reduced their content to 30 second TikTok snips of a man either walking fast or running in hallway. It’s reduced the American people’s trust in Congress as an institution to the extent anyone has noticed at all.
It didn’t need to be this way. People have pretty much made up their minds. Amongst those not persuaded by the presentations, are people who voted for Trump because they have lost faith in the operation of our government even though they find him abhorrent. These hearings are a massive loss in opportunity to recapture their engagement with their government.
Instead, we essentially have an impeachment trial without the opportunity afforded to the defense to defend themselves. As a trial lawyer, you should find such things not only repugnant but an attack on American norms. Norms I fear that will be eroded here so that future House hearings will be conducted in a similar way in furtherance of much darker goals. And we should all be worried about that.
