So basically, you are refusing to believe anything you don’t like?
2 Likes
No not hearsay. Frequently perjury, but not hearsay.
1 Like
You don’t know my opinion on Barr’s summary, as I haven’t given it publicly and this thread is not the place for that discussion, which renders this comment completely moot. Did you have a point?
I will wait for the Horrowitz IG report.
Good plan. Hope you read it instead of relying on Barr’s summary version!
The point is the hypocrisy. Sworn testimony is hearsay and claims made by people familiar with the matter isn’t.
So once again, you find a real person you don’t like to be less credible than someone familiar with the matter.
His sworn testimony was confirmed by Mueller. And many still refer to it as hearsay. Can you not see the irony?
Why are you bringing up hypocrisy as a deflection in response to legitimate questions I posed? If you don’t plan on having a discussion, then you should take your own advice and move along.
I give Donald Trump, Republican Media and Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General major props on getting out in front of this issue and discrediting anyone who even hinted at crossing our Boy King.
Republican partisans should get some credit too.
If you are referring to Barr, his sworn statements about Mueller’s feedback to him about his summary, given to Congress were lies. I don’t call him a perjurer because I dislike him, I dislike him because he committed perjury. If you are not referring to Barr, I don’t know what you are talking about.
The only world in which Barr Mueller confirmed Barr was the world in which the FISA court was duped three times by the same phony dossier.and Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary Clinton right wing fantasy land – with a great deal of Russian hot sauce.
2 Likes
I never heard anyone call Barr’s testimony hearsay.
And I don’t know for sure what part of his testimony you are referring to. But if he was detailing a conversation he recalled, that wouldn’t be hearsay either. Doesn’t mean it’s true, doesn’t mean it’s false. But it can’t be hearsay because it does not depend on an ‘out of court’ entity.
Here is an example of hearsay.
Bob is testifying in the OJ murder case. Attorney is suggesting OJ was at the Porno Movies the night of the murder and therefore, couldn’t have done it. Atty asks bob “Isn’t it true that Fred told you OJ was at the porn flick that night?”
The answer would be hearsay because Fred is not a in court.
You could ask Fred the question, and then it wouldn’t be heresy.
Another example “Didn’t you read int he paper that OJ was watching porn?” Well, if the paper isn’t admitted as evidence, that is hearsay.
Two unnamed sources discussing a matter they are familiar with is not hearsay. Might not be true, but it’s not hearsay. Even leaving out the legal definition. The reporters know the identity of the source, they are just not revealing them.
If the article stated “Two sources familiar with the case bother heard from an attorney present that things went xyz…” that would be hearsay.
You might have to wait for a while.
I think the IG report will face the same fate as Trump’s plan to declassify the FISA docs. Barr can’t release the report if it makes him look even less credible than he already is.
One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.
You mean that needs to be explained to you?
It’s not. It’s two people who gave information but can’t be revealed. Hope that makes you feel better.
If they’re “familiar with the matter” it’s not hearsay.
It means fake news…again.
Depends on what that “credibility” is in reference to.
Credible to either discredit or confirm what ?
“Credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily true,
but is evidence worthy of belief,
that is, worthy to be considered by the jury.”
You mean you don’t. Anyone else reading the story would.
