Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" technicality " ? Laws are written to prevent exactly what the Democrats are attempting to do. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember that ?
Just to be clear; is it your belief that if a person overhears another person on the phone near/around them discussing relevant information about an action under investigation that this would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law?
So if someone murders someone then goes to a restaurant and talks about how they just murdered someone on the phone and the people sitting in the next booth overhear it this would be inadmissible? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
Can you cite any specific legal statutes that codify this restraint?
That is called " eavesdropping" not first hand. And it is subject to discussion regarding suppression as evidence.
Wrong on both counts. He heard what he heard directly and that makes it first hand. The normal criminal procedures rules regarding admissibility of evidence do not apply to impeachments.
Wrong on both counts. He heard what he heard directly and that makes it first hand. The normal criminal procedures rules regarding admissibility of evidence do not apply to impeachments.
Pretty sure he is wrong about the normal rules regarding admissibility as well, any lawyers reading that could clarify?
Why do we need more opinions? We have the facts, we have the transcript, and we have President Zelensky's words that there was no quid pro quo.
You have no transcript. What you have is a summary (Pro Tip: It says so at the bottom of it) of approximately 20% of the call. You have facts being testified to under oath right now. Zelensky was under duress when he said that.
Why are you so afraid of hearing testimony from those with first-hand knowledge of Trump's innocence? Better, why is Trump so adamant about htem not testifying to clear him? It doesn't make sense, unless you think he's doing it in an attempt to "trigger" Liberals. And that makes even less sense.
Just to be clear; is it your belief that if a person overhears another person on the phone near/around them discussing relevant information about an action under investigation that this would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law?
So if someone murders someone then goes to a restaurant and talks about how they just murdered someone on the phone and the people sitting in the next booth overhear it this would be inadmissible?
Can you cite any specific legal statutes that codify this restraint?
It could be, if the Eavesdropping was considered illegal. It depends upon the circumstances.
NY State Code
§ 4506. Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in
certain cases. 1. The contents of any overheard or recorded
communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived
therefrom, which has been obtained by conduct constituting the crime of
eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05 of the penal law, may not be
received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding before any
court or grand jury, or before any legislative committee, department,
officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a
political subdivision thereof;
Wrong on both counts. He heard what he heard directly and that makes it first hand. The normal criminal procedures rules regarding admissibility of evidence do not apply to impeachments.
That would be the decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Man enters bank, hands teller a note demanding cash "or else." As she empties the cash drawer, he sees her slide a finger under the counter. Man thinks, "Oh crap silent alarm." He panics, runs out without taking cash.
Democrats: "Let's investigate and prosecute the attempted bank robber."
Republicans: "Who called 9-1-1? Who ratted him out? And besides, since no cash was taken there was no crime."
It could be, if the Eavesdropping was considered illegal. It depends upon the circumstances.
NY State Code
§ 4506. Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in
certain cases. 1. The contents of any overheard or recorded
communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived
therefrom, which has been obtained by conduct constituting the crime of
eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05 of the penal law, may not be
received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding before any
court or grand jury, or before any legislative committee, department,
officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a
political subdivision thereof;
So if a staffer sitting with say the EU Ambassador hears a conversation with Trump, that becomes admissible.
That can be relayed as first hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
