General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnother admission by TFG? In his conversation with Hannity last night, he pretty much admitted that
he sent the classified documents to MAL:
Its declassified, even by thinking about it because youre sending it to Mar-a-Lago or wherever youre sending it. And there doesnt have to be a process. There can be a process but there doesnt have to be. Youre the president. You make that decision. So when you send it, its declassified. I declassified everything.
So, he can't say that these documents left the WH by mistake and he can't blame someone else as he usually likes to do.
Walleye
(31,019 posts)zuul
(14,624 posts)On Blockhead's show TFG added "or wherever youre sending it."
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)But wasn't under oath
csziggy
(34,136 posts)At which point the prosecutor should pull out the tapes of these kinds of statements. After the prosecutor plays TFG's words and those of his supporters and attorneys, he should go through the legal requirements for de-classifying documents as well as the fact that TFG never had the right to carry any documents out of the White House.
Let TFG and his supporters hang themselves.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Admissions are defined as non-hearsay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission
The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay (an out of court statement) but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.
...
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, such a statement is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself, meaning that the statement itself is not considered hearsay at all. This is a category of exemptions to the inadmissibility of out-of-court statements. When the term "exemption" is used here, it does not mean that the statement is an "exception" to the hearsay rule. Rather, a party admission is classified as "nonhearsay" by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The statement is admissible even if the declarant had no basis for knowing the truth of the statement. For example, if an employee rushes to tell the manager of a trucking company that one of his trucks has been in an accident, and the manager says, "oh, we're behaving so negligently, lately," that statement will be admissible even though the manager had no reason to know that this particular accident was the result of negligence.
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)WTF?
"or wherever"?
That's the scary part.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)Tick tock!
CM=Checkmate
Thinks he can blow off espionage!
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)He can't just "make it so" and that's that....
jalan48
(13,864 posts)Beetwasher.
(2,972 posts)Idiot cant help himself.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)My favorite:
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/22/donald-has-the-right-to-remain-silent-experts-say-trumps-bonkers-fox-interview-could-be-evidence/