![]() |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As I said...the whole thing was hearsay. Content is everything.....you believed this story hook-line-and-sinker. Pardon me if I discount your critical thinking skills...... As I said before...I don't even like Bush (as president) but this story seemed very petty and my BS detector was sounding 5-alarms. But....we will see how Bush behaves out-of-office, then we will know the truth... [/ QUOTE ] Bush agreed to be interviewed by this guy for a book. He wrote Bush's statements in his book. He confirmed them on TV interview which I watched. Did I hear Bush say these remarks? Did I depose Bush? Did I have him or the author testify under oath? No, and since your bs dectector is going off, I guess it must be hearsay. Legally, I don't even think we are violative of the hearsay rule. There is a standard for introducing out of court statements offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in a courtroom, called the "hearsay rule". Although there are many exceptions, courts prefers statements under oath. We are not introducing Bush's remarks for its veracity, whether he does or does not give speeches is irrelevant. We are offing the statement to show Bush's character. A wartime President saying that the first thing he will do is fill his coffers...we are saying Bush is a dick. [/ QUOTE ] The subject line says it all. What does being a "wartime President" have to do with anything? Is it any surprise that an ex-Pres is going to go on the lecture circuit? This kind of hatred for Bush blinds liberals to the really important issues we face. |
|
|