|
Piping in from the last thread to point out that Comey's testimony is not remotely hearsay and I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. Hearsay goes to the truth of the matter asserted not whether it was asserted. i.e. "Donna told me Jim got home at 5" is hearsay if you're trying to use it to prove Jim got home at 5, it is not hearsay if you're trying to prove Donna made the statement that Jim got home at 5. "Trump told me to bury the investigation" is never hearsay and all these exceptions are irrelevant.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
psydude posted:I don't think anyone was trying to say Comey's experiences were hearsay? I think everyone was in agreement that it wasn't hearsay. Except maybe the nothing matters nihilism group. People were arguing over providing citations for various hearsay exceptions that were being claimed as why his testimony was allowed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/872282258064818177 goddamnit how do I embed tweets ....feel so old edit: okay so it doesn't show as embeded in the post preview but works when you actually hit post
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They can sue the department, but suing the officer in his individual capacity is basically a non-starter due to qualified immunity and if they try, their suit is gonna get thrown out. If I recall from the last time this came up, they would have to prove that the officer knew he was acting illegally, rather than just being incompetent. This is wrong, the standard is reasonable belief of legality not knowingly illegal. The fact that the department concluded that no reasonable officer could have considered that situation a mortal threat cracks that door wide open.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 20:19
|
|