Tommy Callahan Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 (edited) 56 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, ohh no... don't do it, not It's the media's fault not the crime and I shouldn't do the time. Thats where the problem is. the entire left been investigating, charging, bugging his communications. And in every time, it was complete lies. Now they want integrity. Integrity is easy to lose, hard to regain. Edited December 12, 2023 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Kemp said: It's apparent you have not a clue what hearsay means. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 34 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. Was it hearsay when Mrs. Hutchinson said she heard from a friend, about trump and the wheel with the secret service? Never saw it, never heard it. according to her testimony and book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 17 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Was it hearsay when Mrs. Hutchinson said she heard from a friend, about trump and the wheel with the secret service? Never saw it, never heard it. according to her testimony and book. 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: 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. Jesus, man! I feel like I'm listening to Prairie Home Companion with The Garrisonish Keillor! Did he commandeer the beast or not??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 12, 2023 Author Share Posted December 12, 2023 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: No. But if they rule yes, then the MEDIA stories are already written. The left has distain for the SC already. but at this point the left has no integrity left when talking about crimes and the orange dude. every DNC story of a crime, was just theatre for the masses. Got a deep hole to dig out of before people begin to trust the Politicians, MEDIA or its parrots. Supporting Trump while speaking indignantly about integririty is an interesting view. We know you hate the "media". Do you believe Trump is a man of integrity? Is there a single media company or person in the media that you believe has integrity? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: Supporting Trump while speaking indignantly about integririty is an interesting view. We know you hate the "media". Do you believe Trump is a man of integrity? Is there a single media company or person in the media that you believe has integrity? Not you or anyone you parrot. You all need to have someone read the boy who cried wolf. Cause your past the point of ignoring the wolf calls. Been lies so many times. Integrity is easy to lose hard to gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 12, 2023 Author Share Posted December 12, 2023 8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Not you or anyone you parrot. You all need to have someone read the boy who cried wolf. Cause your past the point of ignoring the wolf calls. Been lies so many times. Integrity is easy to lose hard to gain. It's not lost on me or anyone else that every time you're asked a simple question you avoid answering it. Let's try again on at least one question. Who in the media do you believe has integrity? There has to be someone or something because by the time information gets to anyone it is at least somewhat filtered by someone in media or a media entity. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 20 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Not you or anyone you parrot. You all need to have someone read the boy who cried wolf. Cause your past the point of ignoring the wolf calls. Been lies so many times. Integrity is easy to lose hard to gain. What can I have there are over 90 charges against Trump criminally He’s going to get convicted on at least one of those charges and when he does are you going to continue to support him? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Thats where the problem is. the entire left been investigating, charging, bugging his communications. And in every time, it was complete lies. Now they want integrity. Integrity is easy to lose, hard to regain. So, let me get this straight: NEW YORK COURT CASE, FRAUD, complete lies. FLORIDA COURT CASE, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, complete lies. GEORGIA COURT CASE, ELECTION INTERFERENCE, complete lies. DC COURT CASE, FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY, complete lies. Before: E. JEAN CARROLL sexual abuse, LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. TRUMP FOUNDATION fraud, SETTLEMENT, PAID A FINE AND FORCED TO SHUTTER FOUNDATION FOREVER. EVERYBODY is against Trump... that's so comical!!!!!!! Just. Stop. Edited December 12, 2023 by EasternOHBillsFan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 12, 2023 Author Share Posted December 12, 2023 17 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said: So, let me get this straight: NEW YORK COURT CASE, FRAUD, complete lies. FLORIDA COURT CASE, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, complete lies. GEORGIA COURT CASE, ELECTION INTERFERENCE, complete lies. DC COURT CASE, FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY, complete lies. Before: E. JEAN CARROLL sexual abuse, LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. TRUMP FOUNDATION fraud, SETTLEMENT, PAID A FINE AND FORCED TO SHUTTER FOUNDATION FOREVER. EVERYBODY is against Trump... that's so comical!!!!!!! Just. Stop. He can't stop. He is in a cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 Lol. Riled the farm right up Russiagate, lies Mueller, lies Impeachment, lies Every dumb story in a book, lies Impeachment 2, lies J6 committee, lies Bidemics, lies And the hundreds of other bombshells that were just lies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lol. Riled the farm right up Russiagate, lies Mueller, lies Impeachment, lies Every dumb story in a book, lies Impeachment 2, lies J6 committee, lies Bidemics, lies And the hundreds of other bombshells that were just lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 13, 2023 Author Share Posted December 13, 2023 15 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lol. Riled the farm right up Russiagate, lies Mueller, lies Impeachment, lies Every dumb story in a book, lies Impeachment 2, lies J6 committee, lies Bidemics, lies And the hundreds of other bombshells that were just lies. Still waiting. Who in the media has integrity? Which media outlet has integrity? Why can't you answer? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 The obvious question: if Trump's lawyers believe that the Supreme Court will buy his immunity claim, why would they be opposing Smith's petition to the Supreme Court asking them to decide that claim now? If Trump's lawyers are correct, presumably the entire case has to be dismissed. The obvious answer: Trump's lawyers understand that their immunity claim in nonsense. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 Lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 14 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The obvious question: if Trump's lawyers believe that the Supreme Court will buy his immunity claim, why would they be opposing Smith's petition to the Supreme Court asking them to decide that claim now? If Trump's lawyers are correct, presumably the entire case has to be dismissed. The obvious answer: Trump's lawyers understand that their immunity claim in nonsense. He’s not trying to win these cases, he’s just trying to run out the clock until the election. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted December 13, 2023 Author Share Posted December 13, 2023 29 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lol That's great about the farmer. Still waiting. Who in the media has integrity? Which media outlet has integrity? Why can't you answer? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 (edited) None of the ones peddling any of that, including the farm here. None of you have any integrity left. Edited December 13, 2023 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts