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

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
But you see you don't actually understand how lawmaking works there's this set of procedures and dates that BLEAAAARGHHHHHvomitvomit


Neoliberalism is an economic genocidal ideology predicated on maintaining capitalism, and capitalism is the impoverishment, oppression and death of poor people because that's the OBJECTIVE of capitalist ideology. It's a malthusian ideology.

Neoliberals are the original Alt-Right

Capitalism has ZERO todo with "markets vs. no markets," or "central planning vs. decentralization." That's *propaganda*. That's a diversion.

Capitalism is the NAME OF THE ABSENCE of any support for poor people. In capitalism, giving ANY power to poor people is a CRIME.

Capitalism has an *exception* to the strict forbiddance of giving any economic power to the 99%, and that is the concept of "Merit."

If you act as a SLAVE (wage slave), then you can get some crumbs to *temporarily* avoid your death. While you are mechanically useful.

These fucking Neoliberals which are 99% of the Democratic Party in the US are all POSING as nice people. They are not. They are all sociopaths.

This economic fascism is so thoroughly normalized in the US that nobody has a concept of what capitalism is.

You May Also Like