Saying “Stop listening to him,” does not equate to “I don’t think he is worth listening to.”
I am not interested in arguing semantics.
Of course not. Word meanings, like everything seen through wokeness, are fluid and messy.
Yeah. Super stupid things like that are said.
It’s why I have no interest.
CNN?
i’ve been assured, coroboration doesn’t matter.
2 Likes
Nonsense, emails are between two parties, the veracity can easily be checked by looking at the other parties part in the exchange.
3 Likes
no, no, no, we’ve all been assured, coroboration is useless, meaningless and witnesses don’t matter any more than evidence coming from the other end of the email does.
1 Like
Federal rules of evidence experts are all here. Ok good.
First the corroboration of course is the best way to verify that the emails actually exist. It assumes that given the age of the emails that the other side of the email archived it or didn’t delete it or still has access to the email. That is of course all possible and possibly even likely.
The emails are hearsay as they are out of court statements. While corrobation of either side of the email could be helpful to idea that the email was sent, it does little to admit the content of the email.
The emails would then need to clear one of the hearsay exclusions. Some may others won’t.
The laptop origins are still a problem for those govt to try to admit them into evidence. This isn’t like oh hey you got this email you sent to Hunter Biden 6 years ago? Ok cool. Here judge i am gonna read this now 
lol… how completely inane. if you have one party to a conversation testifying, its not hearsay. lol, at the thought that all out of court statements are hearsay. if that were true, no evidence would ever be allowed in any court since they all originate “out of court”. what a completely stupid post
2 Likes
I didn’t say it was all inadmissible hearsay. But like i said all the federal rules of evidence experts are here
Any out of court statement used for the matter asserted is hearsay. You don’t have to believe me. You can just look it up yourself. For example all medical records are hearsay. When a doctor gets on the stand to certify that they are indeed his records they remain hearsay. They stop being hearsay when he testifies that it falls under one of the hearsay exceptions - business records. The statements by the patient in those records Remain hearsay until it is shown that the statements were made in furtherance of say diagnosis.
So look into it May be.
It’s ok though many lawyers have trouble with it it. So i can explain again.
Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as: A statement that the declarant (the person who made the statement) does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing. Offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement
So any out of court statement presented to prove the matter asserted
You are welcome.
Which makes him all the more worth listening to.
Meanwhile another hunter domino falls.
Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have revealed financial records showing how an arm of the Chinese government transferred $100,000 to President Biden‘s son Hunter Biden.
Speaking on the floor of the Senate on Monday night, Mr. Grassley, Iowa Republican, cited an Aug. 4, 2017, Wells Fargo wire transaction from CEFC, a Chinese energy conglomerate, that sent $100,000 to an account controlled by Hunter Biden.
“Now there is no middleman in this transaction. This is $100,000 from what is effectively an arm of the communist Chinese government direct to Hunter Biden,” the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said. “To the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues: Is this official bank document Russian disinformation?”
Johnathon Turley whom I really like on Jesse Waters show last night described influence peddling as the Biden family business. One really has to wonder how deeply compromised this bunch is.
3 Likes
I have no doubt that Hunter Biden got paid that money.
When Sen Johnson released his report, this relationship was the one that I said could be very problematic for Hunter Biden.
But everyone was more concerned with the hookers and blow.
Yes in the warped ideological half wit brain of Vlad the inbred Slav, the butchering of women and children is necessary to preserve independence.
What a tool.
and you are reading that completely wrong. but you go right ahead and keep believing in your little fantasy.
So correct me. What am i reading wrong in the the federal rule of evidence that defines hearsay?
Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as:
A statement that the declarant (the person who made the statement) does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing.
So a statement that is not made in court. Or an out of court statement.
Offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement
Offered to prove the matter asserted
Please correct me and the federal rules of evidence. Please?
Anyway you are confusing hearsay exceptions and hearsay. It’s an easy error to make since lawyers with decades of experience make it.
I so wish you could stand next to me at a sidebar and explain your position to any federal judge.
“No your honor i have one of the people who were part of the conversation here, so it’s not hearsay”. “But counselor the conversation wasn’t being had in court. Was it may be an admission against self interest or may be an excited utterance? Work with me counselor”
you are so confused.
if you and i have a conversation, and i testify to what was said in that conversation, it is not hearsay. if i testify that you said you did 'X" then as far as evidence you did “X” that would be hearsay, but that you said you did it is not, since i would be a first hand witness to that fact.
You cannot testify to what i said to you unless it falls under a hearsay exception. Like an excited utterance Or a statement against self interest. What part of the rule i just quoted (That’s all of it by the way) says that unless the person has first hand knowledge. Now you are confusing what a witness is and what witness testimony is admissible.
I am very much not confused. I am quoting federal rules of evidence and you are quoting what? Gut feelings? You really really really need to look into it.
you are not understanding the rule or its application.
excited utterances and statements against self interest are mostly involving what police can testify to. thats because of miranda,
if me and bob are having a conversation, and bob says he killed sally. i am a witness to the fact that he said it. testifying that he said it would not be hearsay. using that statement as proof he did it, is hearsay. since i’m not a witness to that fact.
