I believe u/Geeee 's interpretation is correct. The former is a type of "eyewitness" testimony that can be and is used in court. Ex: The USPS whistleblower who testified to overhearing his direct supervisors discussing the backdating of PA ballots. He can (and possibly did) sign an affidavit to that effect and federal inspectors came and braced him so that Adam Schiff could tweet out that the postal worker ""recanted"".
The latter from u/Geeee 's example is rumor and innuendo and has no legal basis. IANAL, of course.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Wikipedia
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
I’m not saying you are wrong, I just want to point out that this is still as much evidence as MSM had when they heard the president might have called some soldiers “losers” (which they had no actual evidence)
Correct. Coomer probably said it. But coming from the mouth of another person, it's hearsay.
It is not hearsay, ffs. That's not what hearsay is.
You can say you said "X". I can say I heard you said "X". What is hearsay is "John told me jrgreen73 said X"
Literally is what hearsay is.
"coming from the mouth of another person, it's hearsay."
Literally.
hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Eric Ciaramella has entered the chat
I believe u/Geeee 's interpretation is correct. The former is a type of "eyewitness" testimony that can be and is used in court. Ex: The USPS whistleblower who testified to overhearing his direct supervisors discussing the backdating of PA ballots. He can (and possibly did) sign an affidavit to that effect and federal inspectors came and braced him so that Adam Schiff could tweet out that the postal worker ""recanted"".
The latter from u/Geeee 's example is rumor and innuendo and has no legal basis. IANAL, of course.
Correct - in the last example, you need jrgreen or "John" to testify.
Literally that's not what he wrote.
Literally.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Wikipedia
Negative. Hearsay is "I heard someone else say that they heard x, y, and z."
Ear-witness testimony is not hearsay.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Wikipedia
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Wikipedia
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement, content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Wikipedia
I agree it's not fake news. It's just not going to do much good in court.
When I said "correct" I was not referring to GP being the CNN of the right. I was referring to it not being a quote
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Why do we not like Breitbart now?
I’m not saying you are wrong, I just want to point out that this is still as much evidence as MSM had when they heard the president might have called some soldiers “losers” (which they had no actual evidence)
I agree with that