• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
Moon said:
That’s not really hearsay because no one is at risk of losing their freedom because of something you heard from someone else.

Hearsay would be if the prosecutor tried to convict someone based on what someone else heard from a third party, with no supporting direct evidence. So if Sam told you that Myrna committed the murder in your neighborhood and the government used what you heard as evidence at trial.

Hearsay, or rumor, is valuable during the investigation phase, but it should only be used to point investigators in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I would agree, which makes the Whistleblower totally irrelevant. Why do the Republicans care about Mr. Whistle at this point?
 
Dans La Lune said:
I would agree, which makes the Whistleblower totally irrelevant. Why do the Republicans care about Mr. Whistle at this point?
Click to expand...

Doxxing and propaganda.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Biden was enacting US foreign policy. The Trump cabal secretly wanted dirt on an opponent and solicited information of value (a bribe) from the Ukrainian government.
Click to expand...

Sp0ken like a true democratic troll. Biden was extorting a desired action from a foreign government in order to save his son.

If they had not complied with his demand he would have withheld the money. Classic extortion and bribery as is a favored method of the democrats.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I would agree, which makes the Whistleblower totally irrelevant. Why do the Republicans care about Mr. Whistle at this point?
Click to expand...

Have to remember this is a political process, not a legal one. Anything anyone says is to score points for their side.
 
Moon said:
Have to remember this is a political process, not a legal one. Anything anyone says is to score points for their side.
Click to expand...

It's also a constitutional process. Are Republicans violating their constitutional responsibility to be a check on the president?
 
MrWonka said:
To my knowledge Republicans have cited no witnesses.
Click to expand...

Hearsay. It has even bee3n reported by the liberal media that republicans called to testify have been rejected by Schiff because he cannot control them.

Gain your opinions from other sources than CNN and MSNBC. You would come across the truth.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I would agree, which makes the Whistleblower totally irrelevant. Why do the Republicans care about Mr. Whistle at this point?
Click to expand...

To prove or disregard the veracity of this claim.

Why don't the democrats want this person to appear and provide testimony in support of their claims? Perhaps because this person would be subject to cross examination.
 
Dans La Lune said:
It's also a constitutional process. Are Republicans violating their constitutional responsibility to be a check on the president?
Click to expand...

Please cite where in the constitution it says that any party has to, legally, support or provide checks on any president. I will wait.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
Click to expand...

"Many people are saying....." Oh the irony.
 
Praxas said:
Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes
Click to expand...

The police may use hearsay evidence but none of it would be admissible in court.

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. The rest of your drivel shows your comments are ignorant about impeachment.
Click to expand...

Why can't the democrats produce any first hand eyewitness testimony. Because......:doh
 
Dans La Lune said:
If someone calls the police because they heard there was a murder in their neighborhood, and the police investigate and find half a dozen dead bodies, the 'hearsay' of the original caller is largely irrelevant to the case.
Click to expand...
It sure is not irrelevant to the cops though, who got to the scene in time to protect it, for forensic purposes and allowed cops more access to first hand witnesses who may drift away. That timely tip, may well have saved an investigation and a eventual murder conviction.

The WP tip worked the same way. It provided a foundation on which to build a case, even if it is not part of the case itself.
 
Nuber said:
Please provide links to this. The only first hand evidence that I have seen is the transcript, in which aid is never mentioned.
Click to expand...

"“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”
Andriy Yermak, is a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky.

READ: Gordon Sondland's Testimony Transcript In Impeachment Inquiry : NPR

You can read the full testimony at the link, the last 3 pages are his revised statements that he made after having his memory refreshed from other peoples testimony.
 
antiquity said:
The police may use hearsay evidence but none of it would be admissible in court.



Why can't the democrats produce any first hand eyewitness testimony. Because......:doh
Click to expand...

Vindman and Sondland will be testifying next week. Both have first hand knowledge.
 
Arjay81 said:
And the actual tapes of Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars if a foreign prosecutor is not fired, how do you feel about that? Or is only when a republican is charged with it that you care?
Click to expand...
A reasonable explanation was provided for withholding the aid if Shokin wasn't fired before the threat was even made. No reasonable explanation has been given for Trump withholding aid.

If you have something other than "well the Prosecutor who was fired claims he was just about to investigate Hunter Biden for an unknown crime before he was fired" is not evidence the Prosecutor General wasnt corrupt. He allowed his prosecutors to keep diamonds/jewelry that didnt belong to them, that they took from/as evidence. He was accused of not investigating many different people, including the Burisma owner. Show that these were wrong, evidence of an international smear campaign just to get Shokin fired for investigating Hunter Biden.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Drawdown said:
He asked them to work with the US government. You really should read the transcripts again.
Click to expand...
He asked him to report to his personal lawyer.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Arjay81 said:
Sp0ken like a true democratic troll. Biden was extorting a desired action from a foreign government in order to save his son.

If they had not complied with his demand he would have withheld the money. Classic extortion and bribery as is a favored method of the democrats.
Click to expand...
Provide actual evidence for this claim. You can start by stating exactly what Hunter Biden was being investigated for. And evidence to support it that is more than trivial, circumstantial.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
antiquity said:
The police may use hearsay evidence but none of it would be admissible in court.



Why can't the democrats produce any first hand eyewitness testimony. Because......:doh
Click to expand...
Because Trump has ordered them not to testify. Not that hard to figure out.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
A reasonable explanation was provided for withholding the aid if Shokin wasn't fired before the threat was even made. No reasonable explanation has been given for Trump withholding aid.

If you have something other than "well the Prosecutor who was fired claims he was just about to investigate Hunter Biden for an unknown crime before he was fired" is not evidence the Prosecutor General wasnt corrupt. He allowed his prosecutors to keep diamonds/jewelry that didnt belong to them, that they took from/as evidence. He was accused of not investigating many different people, including the Burisma owner. Show that these were wrong, evidence of an international smear campaign just to get Shokin fired for investigating Hunter Biden.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The "excuse" was reasonable only to the democrats who protect Biden.

If it were anything else, they would promote Biden to go before the press and answer the questions.

BTW, how exactly is this supposed to benefit Trump since it happened prior to his taking office?

Truth:1 Democrats: zero.
 
roguenuke said:
Provide actual evidence for this claim. You can start by stating exactly what Hunter Biden was being investigated for. And evidence to support it that is more than trivial, circumstantial.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read the written reposts on the subject, watched Biden's taped talk on the subject, it would answer your questions for you.

As is, just democratic trolling and diversion.
 
Praxas said:
Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. The rest of your drivel shows your comments are ignorant about impeachment.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's a trial all right. A trial in the court of public opinion. And it isn't about truth; it's about how things can be made to look.
 
roguenuke said:
Because Trump has ordered them not to testify. Not that hard to figure out.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A little proof of your allegation would be nice. You demand it of others yet fail to supply it for your own statements.
 
roguenuke said:
He asked him to report to his personal lawyer.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You should switch flavors of Kool-Aid as it would help you to think more clearly.
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

If you were in court defending yourself against hearsay charges, would you accept this premise?

As a note... The Soviets used this with regularity to fill their Gulag Archipelago.
Click to expand...

Mitch McConnell says they will use the federal rules of evidence. So no hearsay. (Don’t tell Clinton Inc, but hearsay can be used in some circumstances when the speaker is dead.)

Maybe one of the DP mouthpieces will clarify. ;)
 
Arjay81 said:
The "excuse" was reasonable only to the democrats who protect Biden.

If it were anything else, they would promote Biden to go before the press and answer the questions.

BTW, how exactly is this supposed to benefit Trump since it happened prior to his taking office?

Truth:1 Democrats: zero.
Click to expand...
Prove that "excuse" wrong. Show that he wasnt corrupt or at least provide legitimate evidence to counter that provided to show he was corrupt. Zelenskyy wasnt even willing to agree Shokin was a good man, not corrupt, shouldn't have been fired. And both PGs since him have said Hunter Biden was not under investigation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom