@ObiRonMoldy i like how you guys keep dodging the original topic lol

@ObiRonMoldy yup...keep dodging it

@ObiRonMoldy I havent lied..and only troll after you've moved the goal post multiple times

@ObiRonMoldy Okay...the hearsay rule wouldn't have to be even created if it weren't for the deceiving left

@ObiRonMoldy Confrontation Clause

@ObiRonMoldy does it say anywhere that the protection consists of securing the snitches identity?

@ObiRonMoldy so basically second hand information that there's suspicions of the POTUS possibly attempting to pressure Ukraine into partaking in malicious behavior, or did I miss a more specific allegation?

@ObiRonMoldy so youre honestly more concerned about whether or not Trump is correct in claiming that the law was changed, than you are with what the possible criminal acts he is being accused of?

@ObiRonMoldy watch the latest video I posted..

@ObiRonMoldy You are wrong. Second hand information was not allowed by our intel agencies until Aug, 2019, around the time this second hand information 'whistleblower' came forward to the Democratic staff member of partisan Adam Schiff, asking for assistance on how to file that on on-line complaint. In case you missed my link above - here it is again.

don't worry, i guess i was off topic as well

@ObiRonMoldy truly the most severe case of TDS I have seen here on IDW community. Others like @wileyrickwiles for example also dislike Trump but at least he holds to a political philosophy as an ideal - socialism is what he argues for.

It would seem the only thing in your head is "orange man bad" - you're like a broken record...narcissist! liar! over and over again. That's all you have...quite boring; narrow minded; pedestrian thinking; very much like a young girl who only knows that she does or does not like something - in your case you only know that you hate Trump...pathetic.

@ObiRonMoldy Here's a canadian reference, but very enlightening I think..

Catch & Release: Structuring Judicial Thinking

Bradshaw is interesting because it reveals a source of tension in the structure of Canadian evidence law. Specifically, it demonstrates a continued feeling of uneasiness among higher courts in giving trial judges ‘free rein’ over the management of evidentiary exceptions. On one hand, the decision articulates support for principled evaluations of hearsay evidence. This is notable because the principled approach tends to place more discretionary decision-making power in the hands of trial judges. On the other hand, the majority reasons set out a new test designed to structure and limit the scope of that same discretion. I argue that in doing so, the reasons recapitulate the deep structural anxiety embedded in the common law of evidence around uncontrolled judicial thinking.

Historically, hearsay exceptions in Canadian evidence law have been governed by categorical exceptions. These exceptions described situations in which the court believed it would be highly unlikely for the declarant to make a mistake or lie, such as a dying declaration. The exceptions ostensibly provided the court with sufficient indicia of necessity and reliability—the court’s core concerns with hearsay evidence—simply by virtue of the type of statement they were, so they were automatically admissible. The trouble with the categorical approach is that it tended to produce more problems than it endeavoured to fix. Over time, the categories were shown to be both over- and under-inclusive. Evidence that “smacked of trustworthiness” could be excluded because it did not fit a categorical exception, while shoddy evidence could be let in through a category despite having unresolved problems with necessity and/or reliability. In Khan, the SCC began to articulate the principled approach described earlier: hearsay evidence will be admitted if it is shown to be (a) necessary and reliable, regardless of whether it fit one of the historical categorical exceptions.

The different approaches to managing hearsay exceptions reveal different assumptions at work beneath the common law system of evidence. Both approaches are sound in their own way. The categorical approach is an attempt to mitigate or limit the potential for error in human decision-making by heavily prescribing when and how hearsay may be admitted. Policy-wise, the categorical exceptions were intended to offer guidance, minimize erroneous admissions, guard against bias, and provide predictability and stability to evidence law (although the predictability point is debatable, as the categorical system is notoriously complex). By contrast, the principled approach ushered in by Khan puts much more discretion in the hands of trial judges. The principled approach was, among other things, an attempt to return to the principled foundations of evidence law: all evidence should be admitted if it is sufficiently necessary and reliable to be depended upon in court. Arguably, the emergence of the principled approach also signalled a resurgence of faith in individual decision-making among trial judges. In contrast to the categorical option, the principled approach leans more heavily on the trial judge’s discretion: it trusts him or her to apply generalized principles, parse hearsay dangers for individual pieces of evidence, evaluate constitutional implications, and make decisions about admissibility without detailed instructions from above.

The Bradshaw decision is interesting because it shows that Canadian evidence law shifting uneasily between these two poles. On the one hand, the decision reflects a desire to put more discretion in the hands of trial judges and to expand the boundaries of judicial decision-making. This impulse is beneficial in the context of hearsay because it enables trial judges to make admissibility decisions that are more fine-tuned to the specific facts of the individual case. On the other hand, the majority decision imposes new constraints on the trial judge’s discretion. In doing so, it belies the same anxiety that has historically informed the categorical approach: an impulse to structure trial judges’ thinking from above in the name of reducing judicial error.

@ObiRonMoldy yup, and based off of your way of thinking, and that of the rest of the left...this is the resulted outcome

The exceptions ostensibly provided the court with sufficient indicia of necessity and reliability—the court’s core concerns with hearsay evidence—simply by virtue of the type of statement they were, so they were automatically admissible. The trouble with the categorical approach is that it tended to produce more problems than it endeavoured to fix. Over time, the categories were shown to be both over- and under-inclusive. Evidence that “smacked of trustworthiness” could be excluded because it did not fit a categorical exception, while shoddy evidence could be let in through a category despite having unresolved problems with necessity and/or reliability.

@ObiRonMoldy No, I agree with this outcome of the same law

he categorical approach is an attempt to mitigate or limit the potential for error in human decision-making by heavily prescribing when and how hearsay may be admitted. Policy-wise, the categorical exceptions were intended to offer guidance, minimize erroneous admissions, guard against bias, and provide predictability and stability to evidence law (although the predictability point is debatable, as the categorical system is notoriously complex). By contrast, the principled approach ushered in by Khan puts much more discretion in the hands of trial judges. The principled approach was, among other things, an attempt to return to the principled foundations of evidence law: all evidence should be admitted if it is sufficiently necessary and reliable to be depended upon in court.

@ObiRonMoldy I don't care that you dislike Trump - its that you incessantly go on about his narcissism etc etc etc..broken record. I am not aware of any approving things you may have said about him but I don't care about that either. You are entitled to your own opinions and feelings...its just that you repeat yourself so often it gets pretty tiring...you are being a bore. You hate Trump - we got it (for the 100th time) - see if you can get through a day without harping that same old song. See if you can find something to say or to share that departs from "orange man bad" LOL

@ObiRonMoldy on and on - on and on...broken record. booooorrrrrrring

the factcheck doc is disingeuous... the headline and story are about them not changing the RULES but the allegation is that they changed the FORMS, which is corroborated by their own article...

[theconservativetreehouse.com]

busted

I edited nothing.. what I quoted are entire paragraphs from the factcheck post

there is no lie...just more fake news from factcheck.org.... sloppy research there @ObiRonMoldy
see my above comments
[thefederalist.com]