What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
One Brow said:
I accept the definition of the law school, not yours.
Click to expand...
The law school's definition and mine are identical.

From the law school definition:

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. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility.

This is what happened:

Hutchinson gave an out-of-court statement to investigators to prove the assertion that Trump knew he lost the election. The statement was provided to investigators when the person (Trump) was not present.

The statement from Hutchinson about what Trump knew or didn't know is hearsay.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Hutchinson gave an out-of-court statement to investigators to prove the assertion that Trump knew he lost the election. The statement was provided to investigators when the person (Trump) was not present.
Click to expand...
Your evidence that this was the purpose of the testimony?

Al-O-Meter said:
The statement from Hutchinson about what Trump knew or didn't know is hearsay.
Click to expand...
Even if that were the purpose, it would fall under the excited utterance exception.

The first exception to the hearsay rule is the "excited utterance" exception. This exception applies when someone makes a statement during a startling event, in the heat of the moment, potentially providing an unguarded and accurate piece of information. This exception is most applicable in criminal cases, as the rationale behind it is that during or immediately following a criminal act, a person is not likely to have the presence of mind to lie or give false statements. In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, it must have been made in conjunction with an event that would be so overwhelming as to discount the possibility of fabrication.
Click to expand...

Trump losing the election was overwhelming for him.
 
One Brow said:
Your evidence that this was the purpose of the testimony? Even if that were the purpose, it would fall under the excited utterance exception. Trump losing the election was overwhelming for him.
Click to expand...
My evidence is that it was about what Trump knew from someone other than Trump. It also isn't covered by the excited utterance exception as that only covers things said out loud within a second or two of a thing happening. The whole point of the exception is that there is insufficient time to form a lie and so it must be the truth. Hutchinson making a statement about a thing Trump said in the aftermath or lead up to giving a speech or filing legal challenges in court isn't an excited utterance no matter how supposedly overwhelming the event was. The prosecutors have to prove Trump was 100% convinced in his own mind there were no shenanigans in the counting of the votes, no legally questionable issues in how states unilaterally changed voting procedures to deal with COVID in a way that would have advantaged his opponent, etc. when there were people around him floating these ideas.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
My evidence is that it was about what Trump knew from someone other than Trump.
Click to expand...
Restatement is not evidence. Hutchinson could have been asked if Trump ever acknowledged his loss to forestall the defense from so claiming. Do you have evidence the testimony was for the purpose you stated?

Al-O-Meter said:
It also isn't covered by the excited utterance exception as that only covers things said out loud within a second or two of a thing happening. The whole point of the exception is that there is insufficient time to form a lie and so it must be the truth.
Click to expand...

As in, immediately after the election.
fishonjazz said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
On February 12th Albertsons increased the price of Oscar Meyer hot dogs, the next day 7-11 introduced a new flavor of Slurpee.

On March 7th, Johnny asked Suzie to go out on a date for malted milk shakes, the next day Tom got hired as a cashier at Wendy's.
 
Gameface said:
I just want to go on record that I hope SIdney Powell spends the rest of her dumb *** life in Prison. Gross person.
Click to expand...
Can't believe I'm saying this but I dislike her more than I dislike trump.
I also might dislike Rudy Giuliani and the my pillow guy more than I dislike trump. He sure surrounds himself with all the best people lol
 

Good ol' trump. Crashes a wedding to give a speech about how he is so picked on.

says: "This is the persecution of the person that is leading by very, very substantial numbers in the Republican primary and leading [Joe] Biden by a lot." Which is a lie. And he should remember that all the polls were showing Hilary was expected to beat trump when he was chanting lock her up all over the place.

also: Trump was said to be "sour" following his arraignment hearing, with one source saying he had been "irked" by the magistrate judge referring to him simply as Mr Trump, rather than Mr President. How dare a judge call him Mr Trump. He should be called Mr President despite not being the president, in trumps fantasy world. Everything is a slight against him. He is always the victim.

More of him being a victim: "Considering the fact that I had to fly to a filthy, dirty, falling apart & very unsafe Washington, DC, today & that I was then arrested by my political opponent, who is losing badly to me in the polls, crooked Joe Biden, it was a very good day!" (also, biden didn't arrest him lol. Would he have preferred to drive? Im sure he felt very unsafe with his securitey all around him. Bet he got super dirty too riding around in his limo and flying on his private jet. Poor fella.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top