What happens is you get experts whose testimony goes beyond their expertise they end up testifying as to whether or not a witness or party is or isn’t being honest. Determining a witness’s credibility is a part of fact finding which is the role of the jury. That’s why you would object, but it sounds like Pennsylvania…

Hearsay. She can’t testify as to what her husband told her daughter or speculate as to why he might have told her not to go to the police.

Hearsay. She can’t testify as to what her husband told her daughter or speculate as to why he might have told her not to go to the police.

opening *statements* not arguments

As a prosecutor I could tell you some horror stories when it comes to rape cases tried to juries, but for the most part our success rate with rape prosecutions is pretty high in my county. Additionally, no one likes to prosecute rapes (or murders or vehicular homicides or anything where anyone is dead or seriously…

Figuratively they certainly could! Literally, they certainly could not.

The laws originally allowed for much easier arrests for incitement, and were often used to go after leftists and minorities, because until 1969, the Supreme Court’s caselaw said that it was against the first Amendment to advocate for unlawful behavior (meaning you could constitutionally be arrested for advocating for…

No, it’s a good law. Otherwise you could hold people accountable for inadvertent consequences from anything hyperbolic.

I think the tension will be 1) Trump’s obvious bigotry and bias in writing the order on one hand and 2) the broad, sweeping authority that presidents have usually had over immigration on the other had. If Trump hadn’t made anti Muslim comments and suggested that his ban was based on religious bigotry, this would…

No, she recognizes that coming out BEFORE an actual investigation means you lose all actual credibility.

If I were in her shoes, I’d want the memo and Comey’s testimony. I believe they’ll both be damning, but it’s reasonable for a public official to want the source material and not just the reporting about it.

This all seems like a pretty fair response? We don’t have any evidence that he would even be good at doing some sort of political humor/commentary. Its hard for me to fault someone when all they’re saying is “look I just want to do my style of comedy” on their own show.

Speaking as both a social scientist and a lawyer, my formal opinion is this is just wack.

I’m not quite sure what the point of this article is. Is it suggesting that the police (in reality, the prosecutor’s office) should have pursued charges either way? Because, um, if you’re charging rape, you need to be able to establish non-consent. Having a victim say “I’m not sure if it was consensual or not”…

I just read the decision and it is delicious. The Judge smacked down the Justice Department (and Trump) hard. And it shows that the DOJ can’t just get away with making arguments in court that are readily contradicted by the statements of the President. For instance, the DOJ had argued that the order was essentially…

A few thoughts here:

That amounts to stamping your foot and saying “you made me do it.” It’s childish.

This is a sad day for the Senate, and for the country. It will inevitably lead to an even more partisan Senate, a partisan judiciary, and may even lead to the GOP invoking the nuclear option on regular legislation (tax reform, healthcare, abortion rights, budgets). I really hated to see it.

It’s a decades old trend - people are leaving the Northeast & moving to the Sun Belt.

and whatever’s in Texas.”