The Right Side of the News

Oh, we know a lot, here in the reality-based community.Not everything, but a lot.You have no clue what's going on, trapped as you are in your right-wing big bubble o' lies.Paertisan politics are a serious problem. The right wing and dupes such as you are responsible for most of it.

To me it's a pretty accurate description of hearsay.

Murkowski, Collins Ask Pointed Question About Trump’s Motives

quote:

---

The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine before the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019.

​

Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question, spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only from the House’s limited inquiry and that some points were not thoroughly pursued in the record (he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House’s blocking of key administration figures from testifying).

​

Philbin eventually answered: I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden.

​

Philbin quickly pivoted to smearing the Bidens and rehashing Rudy Giuliani’s fact-finding mission.

---

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

Mexicali police have confirmed with News 11 that a portion of the new border wall fell on the Mexico side of the border, landing on several trees, KYMA-TV reported Wednesday. A portion of the wall landed on the trees, preventing it from hitting the ground. It runs about 130 feet in length.

---

They mention that a 4,300 foot tunnel under the border was found.

Several people who listened to that call were shocked.When Bolton gave that interview he was a Trump loyalist. And not under oath. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Of course that is irrelevant to Trump.Of course Obama didn't do that.According to Alan Dershowitz if Obama did it would have been fine. Anything a President does to ensure election is OK.

Or raise taxes until the rich pay their fair share.

DupeEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

I considered that interpretation and decided it was too stupid even for you. I was wrong.Since hearsay requires a claim that what the other person (e.g. Bolton) said to her was true, and at no point did she claim that what Bolton said was true, her testimony about Bolton was not hearsay. BECAUSE HER TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE HEARSAY. Nowhere in her testimony did she claim what Bolton said was true, so, yes, that does contradict the idea that her testimony was hearsay,. BECAUSE HER TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE HEARSAY. That's definitely a double duh.

No, it is and was not implicitly claimed to be true. She was reporting on what she heard directly without any claim or implication that what she heard was true or false.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hearsay-rule/ [quote]The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered \[b\] to prove their truth andthe maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court [/b] . Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something.[/quote]Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The point of having her teatify was to report accurately and without interpretation on what she heard and saw. It was not for her to make any determination of the truth or falsehood of what she heard.

You haven't given a thought to the implications of your silly fantasy.Suppose I said "the Moon is an assemblage of paisley squids. Obviously false. So by your made-up rule you couldn't honestly testify that I said that.Witnesses report. Courts assess truth or falsity. Witnesses don't.