The Frankish Reich

We would first have to know whether: 1. The prosecution intends to offer that testimony from Hutchinson at the trial. 2. What their stated purpose is for offering that testimony. It is hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted - that is, the statement of the Secret Service officer that Trump lunged toward the wheel as if trying to grab it. I doubt they'll offer it, since it doesn't really prove anything relevant to the case; it was just the most interesting anecdote she had to tell. You could argue it both ways: Trump was attempting to go to the Capitol to egg on the rioters. Or maybe Trump was avoiding going to the Capitol to maintain some distance between himself and the rioters. Or maybe he wanted to go to the Capitol to continue the peaceful demonstrations. Whatever. It doesn't prove anything unless it is closely tied to something else. Here's the Evidence 101 trick though: sometimes you say it's not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Trump did indeed lunge toward the steering wheel to try to commandeer the vehicle); it's to prove state of mind (Trump was extremely agitated!) or something else. In that case the judge has to decide whether the hearsay purpose (to prove that's what actually happened) outweighs the proper purpose (to prove that everyone saw that Trump was losing it). That's why they pay the judges the not-really-that-big bucks.

So B Man is sitting in his recliner listening to talk radio and buying the gold Peter Schiff pimps. Let me guess: in his My Slippers by My Pillow.

A quick primer on hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered (in court) to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is not testimony about what someone else was doing (something observed by your own eyes) at a particular time. So "he was watching on Fox TV as they showed live footage of the riot" is not hearsay. Also not hearsay: testimony going to someone's state of mind rather than to prove the truth of what that person said. The general rule is that hearsay is not admissible. That's what you learn in the first day of Evidence class. Then you spend the rest of the year learning that most things aren't hearsay at all, and that even if they are hearsay, they may very well fall within one of the hearsay exceptions.

And to think that I'll wake up tomorrow to hear "Tyreek Hill, high ankle sprain, 4-6 weeks."

Most insane and BEST 4th quarter ever.

Exactly. Why would the NFL want to see the Dolphins waltz into the #1 seed, with that Week 18 meeting against us meaningless (at least for them?)

May I interest you in Chargers - Raiders on TNF?

He bet the money line. On the dolphins.

You seem to have forgotten Skylar Thompson.

Reid Ferguson would never do that.

Purdy! McCaffrey!!

Damn. Starting to hate replay.

But there is a special day every 4 years when a newly elected King can do whatever he wants.

Him: homes are too expensive! Lots of people can't afford to buy a house. Me: yeah, but the people selling a house are making a mint. Him: hah! Home prices are down 4%, so what mint? You have a point. "Generational wealth" - I'm friends with a member of my state legislature. She represents a mostly Hispanic district - not new immigrants, but the Spanish heritage folks who've lived in the southwest for generations. Some "progressive" (they even call themselves Democratic socialists) members of the legislature are trying to propose limits on scrape-offs, home additions, etc to halt gentrification of these areas. My friend tells me her constituents hate that idea. Many times they bought their houses 35 years ago for $70,000. They're now worth a million. They want to be able to sell and pocket that "generational wealth!"

Got that AP story? The quote cut it off: "... but voters still feel" like they're not doing well, or as well as they think they have a right to be doing. It's that word again: feel. I don't deny "feelings" are important in politics. Example: 1992 "Town Hall" Presidential debate. Bush 41 (a very fine President and a great American) vs. smarmy Bill Clinton. I think Ross Perot was there too, but I'm not sure. Voter asks incoherent question to the candidates: "How has the deficit affected you personally." (I think she meant to say "inflation" not "deficit." Bush 41 tries to be nice and say something about the deficit. Deficits making it impossible to take on other challenges, blah, blah, blah, government-ese babble ... Clinton steps up to the mic: "I feel your pain." Total b.s. about feelings. About how the deficit has impacted him personally? My point (and you can tell what I thought of Bush vs Clinton in that year): it used to be that Republicans were the numbers guys, the technocrats, the analysts, the think-like-a-manager types. They would mock appeals to "feelings." Mitt Romney was the last gasp of that type of Republican. The new ones are all about damn-your-data I don't feel wealthy enough and I have a right to be doing better."

One man's pricey housing market is another man's generational wealth accumulation.

I apologize. It appears I have hurt your feelings.

We know you love you some Trump. Other than those tremendous 4 years, what other President do you admire? I mean, he was all about Making America Great Again, so that presupposes some earlier golden age. Is it the 4.1% inflation rate at the end of Reagan's second term? Is it the 4.1% inflation rate just before the 2008 election when Obama won? Because then surely you'll love today's 3.24% rate!

I know that's how you feel. But you are objectively wrong. Again.

What do you call a Democrat who is planning to vote for Trump? A new-style Republican. Feelings. Whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings ...

The latest chapter in the ongoing story: post-Trump Republicans are now all about feelings, Democrats are now all about data.

Hmm, now that Alex Jones is back on Twitter, where do all our Trumpies stand on the repeal of section 230? They've been very quiet ever since the Musk buyout....

Inappropriate. I feel dirty because I laughed.

There is no "state interest" here in preserving potential life, since there is no potential life. It is almost a perfect test case for the post-Roe world. Texas will basically be forced to argue that there is a state interest in making a woman have a miscarriage/deliver a stillborn baby/deliver a baby that will die almost immediately after delivery.

It appears that everyone has moved on from Dylan Mulvaney. Except, of course, for one very trans curious poster here.