politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"Expert witness" has forever been deemed a useless title to me after watching the Derek Chauvin trial. They had a medical professional, I forget his qualifications exactly, but I believe coroner adjacent, professor, and some medical board member of some sort. Anyway, he testified, under oath, that is was possible, even probable, that Floyd did not die from asphyxiation due to the officers knee and weight on his neck and back, but from carbon monoxide poisoning because he was prone near a running cars exhaust, outdoors.
You could absolutely tell this guy was lying through his teeth the entire time. He quoted misleading lab statistics, like o2 levels in blood, like it was conclusive evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet reluctantly confirmed under cross examination that those were expected levels for someone who had been given CPR.
It felt filthy just listening to someone with zero integrity completely misrepresent basic medical fact so grossly, under oath, as a professor and some hospital medical group board member. Someone who you should be able to trust implicitly, who seemingly has been responsible for dictating hospital medical policy in some form.
After that, I understood that you can pay some asshole in any position to testify whatever the fuck you want to in court. To out right lie.
That kind of egregious lying should lead to an investigation of professional misconduct.
If there’s any counter-incentive to lying on the stand for money, if you’re able to allege that it’s your “opinion” as an expert.
John Yoo, Bush’s torture memo lawyer who gave the administrative legal advice backing every illegal thing they did, holds a chaired position at Berkeley, ffs.
Criminal misconduct like perjury?
Problem is that the burden of proof to prove that they don't actually believe their testimony is basically impossible. You'd practically need a direct quote saying they intended to lie for their testimony. Even quotes of them saying the exact opposite before and after the trial, can easily be defended by simply saying "I changed my mind. My testimony was what I believed at the time"