Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

Direct testimony is not hearsay.

The charge is that Trump didn't believe the election was stolen. Any testimony about what Trump actually believed, unless it is from Trump himself, is hearsay. Professing an idea in speech or pursing legal actions from a wrong or deluded understanding isn't fraud. The prosecutors pursuing the classified documents case have a tape where Trump is waving classified documents, saying they were classified, and that when he was President he could have declassified them but now it is too late. That is not hearsay. That is evidence. That is Trump expressing his understanding in his own words. However in the election fraud case, all they have are people saying what Trump believed. That is hearsay and worthless. If the election fraud prosecutors don't have a tape like the classified documents prosecutors have, then the election fraud case is nothing more than a show trial to interfere in the 2024 election.

 

[One Brow]

That is wrong. At least listen to your own sources. The judge did not reject the plea deal.

Specks and planks.

It is technically correct to say the judge did not accept the deal, because there was no deal to accept, but it is false to say the judge rejected the deal because she did not.

From the CNN story you linked to:

The diversion agreement – which isn’t often submitted to a judge – has a provision that says if there is a dispute over whether Hunter Biden breached the terms of the deal, it would go to the judge for fact-finding. Noreika questioned why it would “plop” her in the middle of a deal she didn’t have a say in, and potentially block the Justice Department from bringing charges, a function of the executive branch.

Biden’s attorney said given the politicization of the case, they wanted a neutral arbiter like Noreika to handle any potential disputes. The judge said she couldn’t decide on the fly if that was a legally workable plan.

“I cannot accept the plea agreement today,” Noreika said.

 

[One Brow]

The charge is that Trump didn't believe the election was stolen. Any testimony about what Trump actually believed, unless it is from Trump himself, is hearsay.

AFAIK, testifying to what another person said is not hearsay as long as you try to indicate the thing said was true. I acknowledge that Trump might have said he lost to Biden while3 believing he had won, he's just that kind of guy.

 

[str8line]

The charge is that Trump didn't believe the election was stolen. Any testimony about what Trump actually believed, unless it is from Trump himself, is hearsay. Professing an idea in speech or pursing legal actions from a wrong or deluded understanding isn't fraud. The prosecutors pursuing the classified documents case have a tape where Trump is waving classified documents, saying they were classified, and that when he was President he could have declassified them but now it is too late. That is not hearsay. That is evidence. That is Trump expressing his understanding in his own words. However in the election fraud case, all they have are people saying what Trump believed. That is hearsay and worthless. If the election fraud prosecutors don't have a tape like the classified documents prosecutors have, then the election fraud case is nothing more than a show trial to interfere in the 2024 election.

"In fact, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, immediately following the announcement that Biden had won the White House, Trump had admitted he thought he had lost to Joe Biden."

Isn't that direct testimony?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

"In fact, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, immediately following the announcement that Biden had won the White House, Trump had admitted he thought he had lost to Joe Biden."

Isn't that direct testimony?

No. That is Hutchinson hearing what Trump said and saying it. It is hearsay and worthless. If Hutchinson had taped the meeting where Trump can be heard saying he thought he had lost to Joe Biden, then that would be evidence.

 

[fishonjazz]

Unless there is a tape of Trump making that claim, that evidence is hearsay and worthless. But if worthless evidence is all they've got to get this started in time to interfere in the 2024 election then the DOJ is going to run with it.

I don't even consider that to be evidence lol.
The phone call is evidence. The fake electors are evidence. The million times he claimed the election was stolen and then the 61 losses in court due to zero proof is borderline evidence. I'm betting there are texts, emails, tweets etc to incriminate him as well. Plus there will be quite a few folks testifying under oath (mike pence for example)

Sorry that your hero is in so much hot water right now. Sucks you have to defend him so often.

 

[str8line]

No. That is Hutchinson hearing what Trump said and saying it. It is hearsay and worthless. If Hutchinson had taped the meeting where Trump can be heard saying he thought he had lost to Joe Biden, then that would be evidence.

Right, but that's not how hearsay works is it? Direct testimony is not hearsay, could be perjury but it's not hearsay. But as Fish said, there's going to be plenty of direct evidence without any need for testimony. Should be plenty of testimony too. Maybe even some hearsay.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Sorry that your hero is in so much hot water right now. Sucks you have to defend him so often.

Trump isn't my hero. I've long been backing DeSantis, but even there I don't have a lot of investment. My life was good when Bush was President, and when Obama was President, and when Trump was President, and when Biden is President. It seems to make no difference in my life how corrupt the President is or how personally awful the character of the man holding the office of President. There is really only one political figure I find to be worrisome and so far he isn't in the race. However if that guy does jump into the race, combined with the apparatus seemingly willing to place fast and loose with the laws in order to prosecute political enemies, then I'll get serious.

 

[One Brow]

No. That is Hutchinson hearing what Trump said and saying it. It is hearsay and worthless. If Hutchinson had taped the meeting where Trump can be heard saying he thought he had lost to Joe Biden, then that would be evidence.

hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

hearsay​

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter.

Hutchinson did not testify that Biden won the election because Trump acknowledged it. She testified to what she observed. It's not hearsay.

 

[fishonjazz]

Trump isn't my hero. I've long been backing DeSantis, but even there I don't have a lot of investment. My life was good when Bush was President, and when Obama was President, and when Trump was President, and when Biden is President. It seems to make no difference in my life how corrupt the President is or how personally awful the character of the man holding the office of President. There is really only one political figure I find to be worrisome and so far he isn't in the race. However if that guy does jump into the race, combined with the apparatus seemingly willing to place fast and loose with the laws in order to prosecute political enemies, then I'll get serious.

It's just weird cause apparently you are backing desantis and don't care about trump. Yet your posts always seem to be in defense of trump or against trumps opposition. I see posts critical or desantis and it's crickets. I see posts critical of trump and there you are.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

Hutchinson did not testify that Biden won the election because Trump acknowledged it. She testified to what she observed. It's not hearsay.

It is the definition of hearsay. Hutchinson gave testimony to investigators about what Trump said while Trump wasn't there. That is exactly what hearsay is.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It's just weird cause apparently you are backing desantis and don't care about trump. Yet your posts always seem to be in defense of trump or against trumps opposition. I see posts critical or desantis and it's crickets. I see posts critical of trump and there you are.

I'm there when it looks like governmental corruption. With DeSantis it is pudding fingers or he's the real fascist. Meh. Do you expect me to argue that DeSantis didn't really use his fingers to eat pudding or that the term 'fascist' is being used wrong? Maybe DeSantis did use his fingers and everybody uses the fascist label wrong because fascist doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia has something like 25 different prominent political scientists who all have different definitions for fascism. Pick any of them and 24 other PhDs will insist you're wrong. The term now is nothing but a pejorative. It is equivalent to calling someone a ******* with ******* policies. There is no point in debating the point because there isn't one.