HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Federal Rule of Evidence ... » Reply #6

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Tue May 16, 2017, 10:40 PM

6. Also, seems to me that

if Trump's having said or asked something is in itself a violation of the law, then testimony or a memo that he did indeed say that is not "offered as evidence for the truth of what {Trump} said" but rather offered as evidence that he in fact said it.

So, e.g., if Trump intentionally and falsely yelled "fire!" in a crowded theater, testimony that he yelled that word would be hearsay for purposes of trying to prove whether there really was a fire, but it would not be hearsay for purposes of proving that he in fact yelled that word.

Or again, if he said he killed his mom, testimony that he said those words would be hearsay for purposes of proving whether he actually killed his mom; but if merely saying he did it were for some reason a crime in itself, testimony that he said those words would not be hearsay for purposes of proving whether he did in fact say them.

Accordingly, if it was a violation of law for Trump to ask Comey to back off his investigation, Comey's testimony would be hearsay for purposes of proving whether anyone actually did anything worth investigating, but it would not be hearsay for purposes of proving that Trump made the request.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.