Judge refuses to allow Hillary Clinton's
tweets claiming Trump colluded with Russia
to be admitted as evidence in trial of
her 2016 campaign lawyer for 'lying to feds'
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Ronny Reyes
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
4/28/2022 4:43:29 AM
A U.S. District Court judge said Hillary Clinton's tweets claiming former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia will not be admitted as evidence in the trial against her 2016 campaign lawyer. Judge Christopher Cooper on Wednesday denied Special Counsel John Durham's request to allow the tweets in the Michael Sussmann upcoming trial for lying to the FBI.He ruled that Clinton's tweets would be excluded as hearsay and that it would be 'duplicative of other evidence,' the Washington Examiner reported.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Californian 4/28/2022 5:41:32 AM (No. 1140393)
We know she was lying. Her lips were moving.
17 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 4/28/2022 5:46:14 AM (No. 1140398)
Judge wants to stay alive.
27 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
5 handicap 4/28/2022 6:15:37 AM (No. 1140414)
Cooper, it turns out is a Democrat HACK who like the rest of that ilk doesn't give a damn about the Law nor right and wrong.
28 people like this.
hearsay? it is her electronically recorded statement.
hearsay would be some third party testifying that hillary made that statement 0 no?
i'm not even a lawyer.
41 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ronniethek 4/28/2022 7:14:48 AM (No. 1140443)
Its not hearsay since she is making a direct statement about a subject that is the heart of the matter which is the fabrication and selling of the story of collusion . The story is BS hearsay - but a crime was committed - the false story was knowingly peddled to the FBI and a!so the press. This nudge is running g interference for the criminals.
30 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 4/28/2022 7:17:02 AM (No. 1140445)
Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED.
Hilary's statement was NOT hearsay because it was NOT offered to prove that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. Her statement was offered to prove only that she in fact made that statement.
25 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
slipstik 4/28/2022 7:26:06 AM (No. 1140453)
It was just a day or two I said that decisions would turn against Durham to protect Hillary, and lo and behold, what just happened?? Hillary's black robed Teflon shield just sprang into action.
Justice is only for the little guys, like the J6 political prisoners. Not for the likes of Hillary. She gets away AGAIN!
21 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
lostingotham 4/28/2022 7:57:44 AM (No. 1140483)
Hearsay is admissible when it's not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here Durham has already acknowledged that what HRC asserted is false--indeed, his whole case is based on that premise. There may be other grounds to exclude this evidence (such as the judge's desire to avoid becoming an unexpected suicide victim), but hearsay is not one.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
FunOne 4/28/2022 8:02:53 AM (No. 1140489)
"His Honor" is an Obama-appointed "Judge".
20 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Venturer 4/28/2022 8:02:56 AM (No. 1140490)
That Judge is bought and paid for by Hillary and the Dem party.
19 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Jebediah 4/28/2022 8:38:24 AM (No. 1140530)
Why the Hell NOT??????????????????????????? And there is wonder that "we" do not feel there is fairness in the Justice system.
14 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
bighambone 4/28/2022 9:10:26 AM (No. 1140577)
Low and behold, the case is before a Barack Obama nominated Democrat judge!
17 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
NamVet70 4/28/2022 9:42:14 AM (No. 1140616)
He has served on the court since 2014. I guess he was appointed by Pres. Barack Hussein Obama.
9 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Rinktum 4/28/2022 9:42:58 AM (No. 1140617)
See where this is going? Don’t get your hopes up folks. If the individuals who perpetrated this crime are still in power, there is no way this is going to move forward to hold them accountable. We will see this administration begin to chip away at it until there is nothing left. And especially do not expect that the Judge will be fair and honest. Regardless of Durham’s qualifications or hard work, can you honestly tell me that the powers that be are going to stand for HRC being dragged into Court? When pigs fly.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
smokincol 4/28/2022 10:23:50 AM (No. 1140667)
what flunky law school did this moron judge attend when he considers valid written evidence as "hearsay"
- he must have heard the rumors of what happens to people who don't let the clintons do whatever the hell they want to do.
6 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Stencil 4/28/2022 10:33:52 AM (No. 1140681)
I guess there is a fine line between duplication of evidence and preponderance of evidence. I've never heard of evidence not being admitted because it reiterated or reinforced prior statements of evidence.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 4/28/2022 10:47:36 AM (No. 1140701)
Once again, it looks like the fix is in.
6 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
gramma b 4/28/2022 12:01:53 PM (No. 1140788)
They are definitely not hearsay. They are being offered specifically because they are NOT true. Other lawyers will understand what a fundamental mistake this is.
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Muguy 4/28/2022 5:04:06 PM (No. 1141057)
Did someone from Arkansas pay a visit???
1 person likes this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
XCenturion 4/29/2022 1:50:05 AM (No. 1141310)
Call the lying witch to the stand and confront her with the Tweets. Then it wouldn't be hearsay, right judge?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)