OK, thought it was obvious, guess not, my bad, I was 100% kidding. That is a terrible idea.
Impeachment only happens when a majority of congressmen (republicans (scum)) want it to happen.
Domestic war is something dangerous enough I think even the GOP would oust him. The question is how close to war would he have to go before Impeachment.
When you say domestic war. do you mean Americans fighting other Americans?
That would be civil war. By domestic war I mean any war where fighting includes combat within our borders, which I think is reasonable to predict would happen in case of Mexican war.
In preparation for this I should probably read that James K Polk biography I got so many years ago.
I see. I thought civil would be a more appropriate term for what I was thinking of. I was right. I just couldn’t imagine a way that we ended up fighting a war on America itself without both sides being American.
If Trump keeps upping the ante against Mexico, we’ll see it soon enough.
Is it hearsay when the President says it in Public and is recorded?
Noooooooooope. The President has self-authenticated the statement in that case.
Hearsay is basically, “you can’t prove that the person in question actually said/wrote that.”
Depends on context.
If the President is saying something as part of his office and it is directly related to the subject matter, it is not hearsay and admissible. However, saying something in an unofficial capacity and having that brought into court later may not be admissible.
Example: while signing an executive order the President says, “I’m signing this because I want to ruin these people’s lives.” That statement could be used in court.
Example: while talking off the record with friends the President is heard saying, “just wait until next week. I have an executive order to sign that is going to ruin the lives of those people.” Would not be admissible.
You might think they are the same but one is directly linked to an action and the other is not. The order he later signs may be directed at different people. Or it may not even be guided by his earlier feelings at all.
I’m pretty sure it’s obvious from context that we were only considering the first example.
Stop equivocating, Steve!
If the President makes a public statement it is obviously not “off the record”.
The one who brought up this entire discussion of “hearsay” is you, Steve, in reference to Sally Yates, and as far as I can see the reason you did it is to obfuscate the issue and discredit her without actually having to back up your assertion.
Moreover, being inadmissible is clearly not the same thing as being hearsay.
- internal communications within the executive branch are quite clearly not hearsay, but might be inadmissible due to executive privilege.
- something might be considered hearsay and yet still be admissible in court.
That is probably the most confused statement I’ve read all day
I think it means if you can’t punch your way out of something you need to be punching harder.
If that is what it means then I’m all for it. It should be called the One Punch Man Principle or Saitama’s Law.
Trump’s previous actions were more or less expected. This one, if it passes, would be a shocker: https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
That executive order is basically a direct violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. It’s fucking disgusting.
This is what she wrote: "OLC’s review does not take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. "
Speech from a surrogate is not official speech of the administration. Such speech would clearly fall under hearsay rules.
Edit: it’s not worth it. Trying to get some of you (not all) to see past your political blinders is pushing me into defending Trump, a position I find to be defenselessness.
RE: The disastrous and bizarrely angry and aggressive call to Australia’s Prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, from trump, there’s a theory brought up by Karin Robinson on Twitter that is incredibly plausible considering the circumstance.
So, when he made the call, he didn’t have anyone from the State department present. He only had Bannon and his son-in-law Kushner there. The theory is that he heard Turnbull was from “The Liberal party of Australia”, and being an ignorant fucking idiot, he thought this meant Turnbull was a Left-wing politician, instead of being the head of the Right-wing party. It’s also thought that he may have heard Turnbull had been part of immigration controversies in this country, and just ran with the idea that he was left wing due to the party name, without ever bothering to learn which side Turnbull had fallen on in that debate.
Think about it, with how Trump behaves towards basically anyone in the left wing - He brags, insults, and bullies, then whines on twitter. Think about how he behaved on the call - a bragging, insulting bully, and followed it up by whining about it on twitter.
Go on, tell me it doesn’t make exact and total sense, I dare you.
Know your audience and pick your battles ¯_(ツ)_/¯
We should be able to discuss a topic of what does or does not contribute to hearsay without assuming one of us is secretly hilter…