Former FBI boss warns prosecutor might see Trump search warrant tossed out entirely

[Seymour Flops]

He’s done it before.

Meadows says Trump didn't intend to order declassification of all Russia probe documents

The White House chief of staff said Trump's tweets about the Russia probe this month "were not self-executing declassification orders."

www.cbsnews.com

So are you saying that Trump did not follow the required procedure for a president to reclassify documents?

There is no required procedure. The president has full power over classification. If he used that power inappropriately, impeach him. Again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He did not. In fact he had his lawyer sign a fraudulent letter that was obviously "in error"

Post that link. That would have made headlines if true so....

Look for me to post it this evening.

I fully expect another "that don't count!" But may be you'll surprise me.

 

[Marener]

So are you saying that Trump did not follow the required procedure for a president to reclassify documents?

There is no required procedure. The president has full power over classification. If he used that power inappropriately, impeach him. Again.

I’m saying that Trump lies on social media and have proof of it.

Let me know when Trump says it was declassified before the court. Otherwise it’s just hearsay.

 

[Lesh]

Look for me to post it this evening.

I fully expect another "that don't count!" But may be you'll surprise me.

A written order would count. Highly unlikely

 

[Lesh]

So are you saying that Trump did not follow the required procedure for a president to reclassify documents?

There is no required procedure. The president has full power over classification. If he used that power inappropriately, impeach him. Again.

He claimed to have declassified docs on twitter.

His Chief of Staff had. To scramble to claim it wasn’t real

 

[Seymour Flops]

I’m saying that Trump lies on social media and have proof of it.

Let me know when Trump says it was declassified before the court. Otherwise it’s just hearsay.

I see you still haven't looked up "hearsay."

 

[Seymour Flops]

A written order would count. Highly unlikely

Tune in this evening.

 

[Marener]

I see you still haven't looked up "hearsay."

Hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the truth of a matter.

Social media is out of court. You are attempting to use Trump’s statement out of court to prove the truth that the files were declassified.

It’s hearsay.

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[GLASNOST]

I'll wager that the warrant will be tossed. Name your stakes and any conditions you have other than the warrant will be tossed or not tossed.

I agree. Let's face it, the warrant is a smoke screen anyway, nothing more than that. It's a diversion away from "the other guy" during the lead-up to the Big Game. After that, there'll be no need to pursue it. And it goes without saying that a quick verdict before the Big Game is also unwanted.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the truth of a matter.

Right

Social media is out of court. You are attempting to use Trump’s statement out of court to prove the truth that the files were declassified.

Wrong. His statement proves that he SAID they were declassified. You have to combine that with the USSC ruling that the president has sole authority over classification to see the proof that they then WERE declassified.

 

[Lesh]

Right

Wrong. His statement proves that he SAID they were declassified. You have to combine that with the USSC ruling that the president has sole authority over classification to see the proof that they then WERE declassified.

So why weren’t the docs Trump”declassified “ on twitter actually declassified?

 

[Marener]

Right

Wrong. His statement proves that he SAID they were declassified. You have to combine that with the USSC ruling that the president has sole authority over classification to see the proof that they then WERE declassified.

His statement was made out of court. It is hearsay. Not admissible in court.

In other words, it is irrelevant what he said on social media. If he wants to testify or otherwise swear it before a judge, that’s different. For now, he is apparently reluctant to do so.

 

[struth]

I’m saying that Trump lies on social media and have proof of it.

Let me know when Trump says it was declassified before the court. Otherwise it’s just hearsay.

haha you clearly don't know what hearsay is.

 

[Marener]

haha you clearly don't know what hearsay is.

Read my post #108 and the supporting link. Tell me where I erred.

 

[struth]

His statement was made out of court. It is hearsay. Not admissible in court.

In other words, it is irrelevant what he said on social media. If he wants to testify or otherwise swear it before a judge, that’s different. For now, he is apparently reluctant to do so.

hahaha...that's not hearsay. What Trump says is admissible in Court, if he's party to the case.

He's not before the Court....he's not been called to testify on anything....so not sure how you can say he's reluctant to do so

 

[struth]

Read my post #108 and the supporting link. Tell me where I erred.

If Trump were party to a case, what he says is admissiable in court.

 

[struth]

His statement was made out of court. It is hearsay. Not admissible in court.

In other words, it is irrelevant what he said on social media. If he wants to testify or otherwise swear it before a judge, that’s different. For now, he is apparently reluctant to do so.

Statements made out of Court aren't hearsay. Statements made by others, in Court, offered for the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. If Trump were a defendant in a case, anything he says is admissable.

 

[Marener]

If Trump were party to a case, what he says is admissiable in court.

Where do the rules say that?

 

[Marener]

Statements made out of Court aren't hearsay. Statements made by others, in Court, offered for the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. If Trump were a defendant in a case, anything he says is admissable.

Not according to the definition.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

See (1). If the statement is not testimony, then it’s hearsay. Saying shit on social media is not testimony.

 

[struth]

Where do the rules say that?

In the rules of Evidence. https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/707-2