I'd be absolutely shocked if Trump hasn't already told him. See mine's bigger than yours Vlad!!
Woodward (and Drudge) unload on Trump
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
He did something similar with the Ruskies right in the Oval his first month in office.
Enhh . . . technically it might be hearsay if offered as evidence in court . . . it depends on what it's being offered to prove . . .
. . . hearsay is testimony from a witness who is recounting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So here Trump's statement ("this coronavirus is very dangerous"), made out of court, might be offered by a third person to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it's offered to prove that this coronavirus is dangerous, then it might be hearsay.
OTOH, if it's offered for proving that Trump was on notice that the coronavirus is dangerous, then it wouldn't be hearsay and would be admissible as evidence of Trump's knowledge that the coronovirus is dangerous.
Going back to the first scenario - that Trump's statement is being offered to prove that the coronavirus is dangerous - the fact that a court might find that statement to be hearsay does not mean that the statement would not be admissible in court, despite that it might be hearsay. Remember, the hearsay rule is for the purpose of excluding unreliable testimony, particularly testimony that cannot be cross-examined. In this instance there are two reasons that the statement might be admissible despite it being hearsay: (1) the statement might be considered an admission against Trump's personal interests, which is either an exclusion or an exception to the hearsay rule depending on the jurisdiction, and (2) Trump likely would be available to cross-examine anyway.
I am a lawyer and I, Sope Creek, approve this message . . . .
I heard someone this morning say this interview is why previous presidents always had staff present. They keep the interview on track, and stop the president if they start to wander off the path. So if he said all this to Woodward, why would we assume he had message discipline in his meetings with foreign leaders?
Yeah, I know. That's why I said what I said. It's not being offered to prove the matter asserted. It's being offered to prove Trump said what he said. Audio of Trump saying something as evidence that he said it isn't heresay. It's just documentary evidence.
But the first case doesn't matter as it is clearly being offered to prove he lied to the American people. It is interesting he knew on February 7 how dangerous the virus was. The knowledge that its fatality rate is .5 and not .1 like the flu, does that mean that China had alerted us about the dangers? He also knew it was airborne and he knew the mortality rate on Feb 7. The first known transmission in the US was 3 weeks later. How does that knowledge fit the story that China hid all this from us? Not to claim China had a great response, but how did we know all this on Feb 7 when we only knew of 1 American case and that was someone who travelled to Wuhan?
Well, that post wasn't for you . . . it was for UncleMark, who INAL, to walk him through the technical aspects of the rule, for clarity in light of CO's bullshit . . . and for CO, to let him know that his bullshit is just shit.
Ah, yes. That was the purpose for my post, too, but I was lazier about it. Thank you for taking the time to go into detail. I should do better.
(I just no longer believe CO's bullshit deserves it.)
Remember the context of my post . . . it was a response to Goat, who was responding to CO. Taken as a whole, my post was a response to CO . . . to let him know that his bullshit is just shit.
Many say this. Nobody has made a plausible argument tending to support it.
The one government action that likely has the most significant impact on the death counts was the nursing home orders issued by some governors. The justification that prohibiting covid positive people from entering nursing homes would violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws was absolutely stunning. It showed how dangerous blind adherence to wokeness can be.
Last edited:
This is pathetic even for you. The argument was that a ban isn’t a ban if it has exceptions. My response is that there are lotsa examples of prohibitions that have exceptions and they are still considered prohibitions. Hearsay is an example of that.
Yeah, I hear you . . . but CO isn't the only one who reads our responses to him. We're not going to persuade CO of anything because he's a lost cause . . . so the responses to CO's bullshit need to be addressed to the broader audience.
Philosophically, I totally agree with you. I'm not sure I have the strength to do it, though. That's why I've given up the hammer and blocked so many posters. I put my own mental health above my desire to correct bullshit for the sake of others. Perhaps it's a cowardly way out...
But...
On the other hand, a few years ago, when I was still taking these assholes head on, you blew up at me and pointed out that I had become a flaming douchebag. You were probably right about that, BTW, and so I don't hold a grudge. But I like not being that poster anymore, even if it means I don't engage bad posts I would have relished engaging in the past.
And sometimes I see you replying to someone I have on ignore, and I think, "Man, Sope is a bigger douchebag than I am, now," and it makes me think I probably made the right choice, at least the right choice for me.
(Seriously, I don't personally think you're a douchebag, just to be clear.)
Because he closed the Israel/UAE and Serbia/Kosovo deals after White House meetings with the participants. He also Closed the USMCA, and immigrant agreements with Mexico and some Central American countries. I could go on.
He closed all those deals with no help from staff and state, just him and his big red letter S on his shirt and his cape? And you KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the same guy that told Woodward over a phone that we had top secret weapons systems that even Putin did not know about never at any time disclosed anything secret while he was closing those deals with no one at all listening in to help him out because he does everything himself evidently?
I'm not a douchebag . . . but there are times that I am an asshole, no question about that. If that makes you feel good, I'll do it more often.Philosophically, I totally agree with you. I'm not sure I have the strength to do it, though. That's why I've given up the hammer and blocked so many posters. I put my own mental health above my desire to correct bullshit for the sake of others. Perhaps it's a cowardly way out...
But...
On the other hand, a few years ago, when I was still taking these assholes head on, you blew up at me and pointed out that I had become a flaming douchebag. You were probably right about that, BTW, and so I don't hold a grudge. But I like not being that poster anymore, even if it means I don't engage bad posts I would have relished engaging in the past.
And sometimes I see you replying to someone I have on ignore, and I think, "Man, Sope is a bigger douchebag than I am, now," and it makes me think I probably made the right choice, at least the right choice for me.
(Seriously, I don't personally think you're a douchebag, just to be clear.)
You gotta take care of yourself before you can take care of anyone else. I don't think it's cowardly to do so* . . . but then you don't have to respond immediately either. I saw the exchange you had with CO about the hearsay rule last night, and slept on it . . . that exchange came up as part of my initial reading of the board this morning, so I thought I might see if I could shed some light on it . . . . I had the energy and time to have a fairly reasonable perspective, and to do a fairly reasonable analysis - for this board anyway - to establish how bullshitty CO's post was, and I'm glad that I did.
And in a bit I'm going to the range to see whether I can hit this new driver in my bag . . . the board can wait for any corrections I can offer to CO's obfuscations.
* [on edit]: This is as good of an opportunity as I'll ever get to reference Kierkegaard's "As Yourself" essay in his Works of Love. Too many times we think it's all on us, and only us - individually - to fight all of these battles alone. But those "throwaway" words at the end of the Great Commandment come back to put all that into some relief - perspective that provides relief from the burdens that come with the admonition to love your neighbor - so that you accept your limitations and do what you can, as you can. Besides, I got your back. And if I don't, the Debate Team, or wiede, or Ranger, or twenty, or some other poster, will . . . .
Last edited:
That is exactly why I've taken the path I have. I find it very difficult to "sleep on it." If I see something outrageous, my inner asshole wants to respond right now dammit, and it's too hard to fight my inner asshole, so I decided to remove much of the temptation.I'm not a douchebag . . . but there are times that I am an asshole, no question about that. If that makes you feel good, I'll do it more often.
You gotta take care of yourself before you can take care of anyone else. I don't think it's cowardly to do so . . . but then you don't have to respond immediately either. I saw the exchange you had with CO about the hearsay rule last night, and slept on it . . . that exchange came up as part of my initial reading of the board this morning, so I thought I might see if I could shed some light on it . . . . I had the energy and time to have a fairly reasonable perspective, and to do a fairly reasonable analysis - for this board anyway - to establish how bullshitty CO's post was, and I'm glad that I did.
And in a bit I'm going to the range to see whether I can hit this new driver in my bag . . . the board can wait for any corrections of CO's obfuscations.
I've been working very hard the past few years at becoming a calmer, happier person. This forum is a very, very, very, very small part of that, but it's still a part of it, and my current strategy for engaging this forum is reflective of the path I am trying to take in my life writ large.
I don't think you guys need to worry about anyone taking COH's postings seriously, even when he tries to play his JD card.
You sure? I've definitely seen posters say "CO, you're a lawyer, I'm interested what you think about this" multiple times.
Nevertheless, I'd hate to see you wandering around in the weeds he leaves scattered about.
I asked him once his opinion on Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow, from a lawyer's POV.
That's about the extent of my reliance on his expertise.
I'm not a douchebag . . . but there are times that I am an asshole, no question about that. If that makes you feel good, I'll do it more often.
You gotta take care of yourself before you can take care of anyone else. I don't think it's cowardly to do so* . . . but then you don't have to respond immediately either. I saw the exchange you had with CO about the hearsay rule last night, and slept on it . . . that exchange came up as part of my initial reading of the board this morning, so I thought I might see if I could shed some light on it . . . . I had the energy and time to have a fairly reasonable perspective, and to do a fairly reasonable analysis - for this board anyway - to establish how bullshitty CO's post was, and I'm glad that I did.
And in a bit I'm going to the range to see whether I can hit this new driver in my bag . . . the board can wait for any corrections I can offer to CO's obfuscations.
[on edit]: This is as good of an opportunity as I'll ever get to reference Kierkegaard's "As Yourself" essay in his Works of Love. Too many times we think it's all on us, and only us - individually - to fight all of these battles alone. But those "throwaway" words at the end of the Great Commandment come back to put all that into some relief - perspective that provides relief from the burdens that come with the admonition to love your neighbor - so that you accept your limitations and do what you can, as you can. Besides, I got your back. And if I don't, the Debate Team, or wiede, or Ranger, or twenty, or some other poster, will . . . .
I did not engage goat about the hearsay rule. More importantly my post was not about the mechanics of applying the hearsay rule. It was as I said, an example about a ban and exceptions to a ban.
You and goat going down that rabbit hole while saying I’m obfuscating is rich.
Trump’s contempt for his supporters is always something to behold. He says he downplayed the virus to tamp down any panic. This from a guy who always brings the gasoline to a fire. He incited panic for the caravans, radical socialists, Antifa, etc. Trump working in concert with Fox is running a campaign based solely on panic and fear. What a joke.
This is precisely the type of obfuscation that on occasion I work to unravel, just to reinforce how much bullshit you spew.
I used to personally put down individuals for their ideas that I thought were disagreeable or stupid too. I got past that when I became an adult. Talking about ideas is much more fun than talking about people. You should try it some time.
Really? Your multi-paragraph post about the hearsay rule is an example of unspewing my bullshit?
No, you missed the point.
China withheld basic information during December and much of January. That's on them. When they did an absolute lockdown of Wuhan, Jan 23 IIRC, everyone in the world realized the seriousness of the outbreak. China admitted it was publicly transmitted, airborne, with community spread, and even with asymptomatic carriers.
Most everyone but the USA started playing catch-up, IMMEDIATELY.
POTUS wants to lay his inaction in February, March, April, May, etc. all on Chinese deception. It just doesn't fit with the facts, though, and now we know that POTUS had the same information that many other nations had, by early February, that allowed many other nations to get over this with relatively much less loss of life and much less economic impact.
Much less economic impact? Our contraction was less than most competitive countries. Our per/capita death rate is also less than some competitors too.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Not true. Trump cut off planes from China while Pelosi and Cuomo are both saying the virus is not a big deal. Pelosi in a group of people said,"come to China Town". So Trump was publicly out in front of this virus before anyone. Let me ask you a question. When Obama said to you that you could keep your doctor and your health plan did it cause you not to vote for him?
4.5% of global population, 22% of global deaths, 25% of global infections.
Please spin that...
POTUS essentially spins that 22 is less that 25, so he is saving all of these lives by learning how to treat this (i.e., identifying dexamethazone and anticlotting agents as both being useful).
Please spin that...
POTUS essentially spins that 22 is less that 25, so he is saving all of these lives by learning how to treat this (i.e., identifying dexamethazone and anticlotting agents as both being useful).
He did OK in January, I have always given him that. Then while the rest of the world caught on and passed us in preparations, he was a bumbling, lying fool. February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and now September.
It's crazy how so many people carry water for someone as inept as Trump. Considering how most of those same people woke up every day to point out any potential misstep Obama might have made - like wearing a tan suit - is sort of maddening.
It's not that far fetched to suggest that in an alternate universe all the ardent Trump supporters who applaud Trump's COVID response would be holding impeachment hearings for President Hillary Clinton because 17,000 Americans died from COVID and the six week shut down hampered the economy and small businesses.
Hey VPM, now that you're here, I was wondering your thoughts on the recounting by Michael Cohen of Trump's reaction to meeting with Evangelicals.
This story kind of got lost amid all of the other sleaze, but I would think that it might leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Trump met with the Evangelical leaders prior to running for president to convince them that he holds their values sacred. The leaders prayed with him, laid their hands on him, and he spoke with them for more than two hours.
For the latter part of the meeting he was joined by his attorney Michael Cohen. Once the meeting was over & everyone but he and Cohen were gone, POTUS said to Cohen,
"Can you believe that bullshit? Can you believe those people actually believe all of that bullshit?
This story kind of got lost amid all of the other sleaze, but I would think that it might leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Trump met with the Evangelical leaders prior to running for president to convince them that he holds their values sacred. The leaders prayed with him, laid their hands on him, and he spoke with them for more than two hours.
For the latter part of the meeting he was joined by his attorney Michael Cohen. Once the meeting was over & everyone but he and Cohen were gone, POTUS said to Cohen,
"Can you believe that bullshit? Can you believe those people actually believe all of that bullshit?
Why not? That seems to be his raison d'etre around here.
What's rich is you whining that we went down your rabbit hole, when all we did was explain why your rabbit hole was full of shit.
But you already knew that, because you're an idiot, but you're not an idiot.
Similar threads
