Former FBI boss warns prosecutor might see Trump search warrant tossed out entirely

[struth]

Not according to the definition.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

See (1). If the statement is not testimony, then it’s hearsay. Saying shit on social media is not testimony.

Admission of Party Opponent [Rule 801(d)] | NC PRO

 

[Marener]

In the rules of Evidence. Admission of Party Opponent [Rule 801(d)] | NC PRO

Nope. That exemption applies to admissibility of party opponents. Trump is a party but he is not his own opponent (although it feels that way sometimes)

The government could introduce out of court statements that Trump has made, but Trump can’t introduce his own statements.

Read it again.

(d) Exception for Admissions by a Party-Opponent. - A statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is

 

[Lesh]

hahaha...that's not hearsay. What Trump says is admissible in Court, if he's party to the case.

He's not before the Court....he's not been called to testify on anything....so not sure how you can say he's reluctant to do so

Hearsay CAN be admissible

 

[struth]

Nope. That exemption applies to admissibility of party opponents. Trump is a party but he is not his own opponent (although it feels that way sometimes)

The government could introduce out of court statements that Trump has made, but Trump can’t introduce his own statements.

Read it again.

(d) Exception for Admissions by a Party-Opponent. - A statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is

hahah no he would be the Govt's opponent you dumb shit.

Geez. You are a dumb shit.

 

[struth]

Hearsay CAN be admissible

very true.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

So says Q Lady

Quintessentially Intelligent Lady.

Yeah, that suits.

 

[Marener]

hahah no he would be the Govt's opponent you dumb shit.

Geez. You are a dumb shit.

Trump is the party opponent of the government. Meaning the government could submit out of court statements by Trump.

The government is the party opponent of Trump. Meaning Trump could submit out of court statements made by the government (if that even makes sense).

Trump can’t submit his own statements. Trump’s can only be submitted by his opponent.

Read your link:
However, Rule 801(d) is an exception that allows for the introduction of hearsay if it is an admission of a party-opponent (e.g., the defendant in a criminal prosecution) and the statement is being offered against that party.

If Trump can submit his own out of court statements to prove something, the government can’t cross examine it and so it can’t be submitted as evidence.

 

[struth]

Trump is the party opponent of the government. Meaning the government could submit out of court statements by Trump.

The government is the party opponent of Trump. Meaning Trump could submit out of court statements made by the government (if that even makes sense).

Trump can’t submit his own statements. Trump’s can only be submitted by his opponent.

Read your link:
However, Rule 801(d) is an exception that allows for the introduction of hearsay if it is an admission of a party-opponent (e.g., the defendant in a criminal prosecution) and the statement is being offered against that party.

If Trump can submit his own out of court statements to prove something, the government can’t cross examine it and so it can’t be submitted as evidence.

True the Govt could admit this statements, if Trump were the defendant, I don't disagree,....it's not hearsay if Trump is the other party....that's what I've been telling you.

 

[Marener]

True the Govt could admit this statements, if Trump were the defendant, I don't disagree,....it's not hearsay if Trump is the other party....that's what I've been telling you.

The statement by the party has to be offered by the party opponent.

In this instance, the statement comes from Trump.

By these definitions, the party is Trump.

The party opponent is the government.

Therefore, it can’t be offered by Trump since Trump isn’t the party opponent. It can only be offered by the government.

Watch this video. It’ll explain it to you. Around minute 4.

 

[struth]

The statement by the party has to be offered by the party opponent.

In this instance, the statement comes from Trump.

By these definitions, the party is Trump.

The party opponent is the government.

Therefore, it can’t be offered by Trump since Trump isn’t the party opponent. It can only be offered by the government.

Watch this video. It’ll explain it to you. Around minute 4.

Trump would just take the stand in that case. With that said, the statements he has made about it being declassifed, aren't hearsay...they are admissiable statements if he was the defendant.

But he isn't a defendant, so this talk of hearsay isn't relevant at all. If he ever was, they are admissiable statements, and not hearsay.

 

[Marener]

Trump would just take the stand in that case. With that said, the statements he has made about it being declassifed, aren't hearsay...they are admissiable statements if he was the defendant.

But he isn't a defendant, so this talk of hearsay isn't relevant at all. If he ever was, they are admissiable statements, and not hearsay.

I provided proof that he can’t offer his social media post as proof that he declassified the documents.

It’s hearsay that doesn’t fall under the party opponent exemption because it’s not being offered by a party opponent.

Trying to offer his own out of court statements to prove a matter would be a party offering a party statement for their own party. That’s hearsay that can’t be admitted.

If he wants to make the claim, he’d have to do it in a legitimate court statement. An affidavit would be fine. It would be sworn, under penalty of perjury. He hasn’t done that. Makes you wonder why.

I don’t wonder. Because he doesn’t want the documents declassified. It would be grossly reckless. It would endanger national security to save his own hide.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So why weren’t the docs Trump”declassified “ on twitter actually declassified?

I didn’t say that they weren’t.

 

[Lesh]

I didn’t say that they weren’t.

YOU didn't but his Chief of Staff certainly did

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not according to the definition.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

See (1). If the statement is not testimony, then it’s hearsay. Saying shit on social media is not testimony.

So, if a bank teller testifies that she heard the guy with a gun say, “Gimme all the cash, and no freaking ink bomb, either, beyotch!” That’s hearsay?

 

[Seymour Flops]

YOU didn't but his Chief of Staff certainly did

I guess he would be the one to ask, then.

 

[Marener]

So, if a bank teller testifies that she heard the guy with a gun say, “Gimme all the cash, and no freaking ink bomb, either, beyotch!” That’s hearsay?

Nope. Because the witness is testifying in court as to what she heard while he said it.

 

[Lastamender]

Dude. The fact that Trump stole documents covering the four years of his administration is why they got a search warrant covering 4 years worth of documents.

Has Trump been charged with theft?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nope. Because the witness is testifying in court as to what she heard while he said it.

Then that's what Kash Patel will testify to.

 

[Marener]

Then that's what Kash Patel will testify to.

Hahahahaha! Why? Is Trump unavailable or does he just want everyone else to do his dirty work?

Trump has a habit of getting people locked up on his behalf.

But I do hope Kash Patel testifies. In this matter and the matter of how his text messages can’t be found.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hahahahaha! Why? Is Trump unavailable or does he just want everyone else to do his dirty work?

Trump has a habit of getting people locked up on his behalf.

But I do hope Kash Patel testifies. In this matter and the matter of how his text messages can’t be found.

Trump may testify also.

In the ridiculously hypothetical case that there is ever an indictment and a trial.

The DNC/DOJ/FBI realize something you don’t seem to: In a trial, both sides get to present their case, not just one side feeding leaks to the media. It wouldn’t go like you thing it would, which is why they will endlessly “investigate,” so they can dodge questions, but will not likely ever bring an actual court case.