Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Smilin' Norm Makes a Ruling
From the Financial Times, Smilin' Norm Coleman responding to allegations about John Bolton's character:Smilin' Norm can't be making an objection based on relevance. The Senate is supposed to inquire as to the character of any individual up for confirmation. So objecting to the nature of the evidence is ridiculous. Maybe Smilin' Norm thinks this is hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. It's a two part test. Here, of course, anything Bolton himself said would not be hearsay. Party admissions -- and Bolton would clearly be a party if this were a trial -- are not hearsay. Further, is Ford testifies "Bolton called this underling an idiot", that's not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The matter asserted is that the underling is an idiot. The statement is offered not to prove whether the underling is an idiot. Rather, it's offered to demonstrate Bolton's volatile character. Even beyond that, should these statements be treated as hearsay -- which they clearly are not -- Bolton's outbursts would fall under the excited utterance exception.
Finally, Bolton gave his version of events yesterday. That's called opening the door. Once Bolton has given his version of what happened, it's only fair to let the other side have its say.
Know what? If Coleman doesn't like it, why doesn't he subpoena Christian Westermann? Let's put Westermann on the stand, as it were, and really get to the bottom of this event. Something tell me, though, that Smilin' Norm cares little about the truth here and cares greatly about getting his patron's odious choice for ambassador confirmed.
