Replies to post #31524 on LEE KRAMER'S ROOM: With Views

[arizona1]

sorry az but you are wrong. I know
what hearsay is and you don't.

Sorry dear, no you don't. George explained to you why it's not "hearsay". You just refuse to listen to people who are smarter than you even if they hate trump. Now be a good boy and go google Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) and come back here and tell us what you found and what it means to you.

@realDonaldTrump
’s incriminating statements are binding admissions against him and are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2);

It has been a while since you’ve practiced law, so let me help:

* @realDonaldTrump’s incriminating statements are binding admissions against him and are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2);

* Even if that were not so, the statements would be admissible ... https://t.co/8eWOOjZUYy

— George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸 (@gtconway3d) September 28, 2019

[arizona1]

George Conway

... under Rule 804(b)(3)‘ s exception to the hearsay rule for statements against penal or other interest;

* To the extent Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy with...
@RudyGiuliani
, Giuliani’s statements are also admissible against Trump and

.. are not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E);

* The memorandum of Trump’s call with Zelensky is admissible under as many as four separate exceptions to the hearsay rule—namely, Rules 803(1) (present sense impression), 803(5) (recorded recollection), 803(6) (record of a

... regularly conducted activity), and 803(8) (record of a public office).

* In any event, you can be indicted in this country on the basis of hearsay. It happens all the time. And an impeachment is the consitutional equivalent of an indictment. So it follows that the ...

... House can consider hearsay in deciding whether to begin an impeachment inquiry, just as prosecutors can consider hearsay in deciding whether to convene a grand jury.

So your argument, Senator, is pure garbage, even assuming that the rules of evidence apply in the impeachment process.

But that assumption is trash, too. The hearsay rule needn’t apply even in a Senate trial:

It has been a while since you’ve practiced law, so let me help:

* @realDonaldTrump’s incriminating statements are binding admissions against him and are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2);

* Even if that were not so, the statements would be admissible ... https://t.co/8eWOOjZUYy

— George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸 (@gtconway3d) September 28, 2019