There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...

law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
but, like all legal fictions, in the eyes of the law it is, just like the idea that an overworked judge can suss out & apply on his own every evidentiary issue in complex written testimony in every case.

The U.S. legal system is adversarial expressly because judges are human ...
too, but legal fictions like this are still prevalent to represent the idea that when it comes down to it, it's really only about keeping the simple jurors from being confused. So a Senator might have a reasonable objection to being presented with hearsay evidence, but unless ...
that same Senator is willing to advocate that that the rules of evidence must apply as strictly to matters before judges as to matters before juries, then that's not the Senator's real objection.

Additionally, it should be noted that it is logistically impossible for a ...
Senator to disregard any testimony on the grounds that it is "hearsay" in this case & still vote to acquit Trump on substantial grounds. Literally the entire defense substantive case rests on hearsay. Every time a defense lawyer tells you how Trump felt, that's hearsay. Every ...
time a defense lawyer tells you what Trump did in the White House, that's hearsay. The House Managers are literally the only people to have introduced admissible evidence in this case. So if you're complaining about hearsay, you can't acquit Trump by saying you were convinced ...
by his lawyers' defense.

A few caveats here. First, I am ignoring the people who will acquit him saying that he can't be impeached because he's not President. That's not an acquittal based on the substance. That's a purely legal question where evidence plays zero role.
Personally I think it's monumentally stupid, but that's not the focus of this thread.

Second, there are plenty of other reasons things like hearsay don't apply in impeachments, which I & other people discussed at length last January. Tl;dr this is a political proceeding, not ...
legal one, just like every other impeachment. So the above analysis isn't the only response to "but but HEARSAY." It's just one that hasn't seen a lot of coverage because it's so in the weeds, but it's still a clear example of hypocrisy by the people complaining about hearsay.

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:


Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.

Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:

According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.

The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
We are live!


Good evening everyone! Welcome to the Year 2021 and the first KP Social Media Discussion of the year. Today we are gonna discuss the concept of digital identity and the legal issues it raises.

It is not news that the fourth industrial revolution has led to many novel innovations on how everyone lives their lives.

Most operations in life can now be done digitally since the rise of the digital age and social networking, and since the Corona Virus mandated lockdowns most social interactions from work to school to parties, weddings and funerals are done digitally.

In Nigeria, there is a ramped up pressure to create a digital profile for every Nigerian through the National Identity Card Scheme which is now operated by the Federal Ministry of Communications and Digital Economy.

You May Also Like

प्राचीन काल में गाधि नामक एक राजा थे।उनकी सत्यवती नाम की एक पुत्री थी।राजा गाधि ने अपनी पुत्री का विवाह महर्षि भृगु के पुत्र से करवा दिया।महर्षि भृगु इस विवाह से बहुत प्रसन्न हुए और उन्होने अपनी पुत्रवधु को आशीर्वाद देकर उसे कोई भी वर मांगने को कहा।


सत्यवती ने महर्षि भृगु से अपने तथा अपनी माता के लिए पुत्र का वरदान मांगा।ये जानकर महर्षि भृगु ने यज्ञ किया और तत्पश्चात सत्यवती और उसकी माता को अलग-अलग प्रकार के दो चरू (यज्ञ के लिए पकाया हुआ अन्न) दिए और कहा कि ऋतु स्नान के बाद तुम्हारी माता पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर पीपल का आलिंगन...

...करें और तुम भी पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर गूलर वृक्ष का आलिंगन करना। आलिंगन करने के बाद चरू का सेवन करना, इससे तुम दोनो को पुत्र प्राप्ति होगी।परंतु मां बेटी के चरू आपस में बदल जाते हैं और ये महर्षि भृगु अपनी दिव्य दृष्टि से देख लेते हैं।

भृगु ऋषि सत्यवती से कहते हैं,"पुत्री तुम्हारा और तुम्हारी माता ने एक दुसरे के चरू खा लिए हैं।इस कारण तुम्हारा पुत्र ब्राह्मण होते हुए भी क्षत्रिय सा आचरण करेगा और तुम्हारी माता का पुत्र क्षत्रिय होकर भी ब्राह्मण सा आचरण करेगा।"
इस पर सत्यवती ने भृगु ऋषि से बड़ी विनती की।


सत्यवती ने कहा,"मुझे आशीर्वाद दें कि मेरा पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करे।"तब महर्षि ने उसे ये आशीर्वाद दे दिया कि उसका पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करेगा किन्तु उसका पौत्र क्षत्रियों सा व्यवहार करेगा। सत्यवती का एक पुत्र हुआ जिसका नाम जम्दाग्नि था जो सप्त ऋषियों में से एक हैं।