Trump’s Lawyers Heard It Through the Grapevine

The rules of evidence tell us that “hearsay” is a statement that the declarant (the person making the statement)

  •  made out of court (i.e., on some occasion other than testifying in the current trial). and that
  • is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the things that the declarant asserted in his or her statement. 

And just what is a “statement”? It is “a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.”

The hearsay rule has a number of qualifications and exceptions. The rules of evidence, however, do not provide that there is a general exception for Republican plaintiffs, while the rule remains in full force and effect for Democratic plaintiffs.

Those of us who follow the reality-based news are generally aware that Trump’s efforts to gaslight the courts are not going well for the Orange Man. This despite the fact that one quarter of the federal judiciary are Trump-appointed, and another one quarter were appointed by other Republicans.

in a piece entitled Trump lost at the ballot box. His legal challenges aren’t going any better, three Washington Post reporters provide rich granular detail to illustrate gaslighting’s utter failure in the courts.

Some of our institutions have succumbed to lies and dictatorial impulses. The courts have held fast. 

As the Great Malign Social Psychology Experiment in Mass Gaslighting reaches a new stage, as far as the courts are concerned, the center has held, and mere anarchy has not been loosed upon the world. It is true that, in the courts, the worst are full of passionate intensity, but we have not yet reached the point where the best lack all conviction.