@insideouted.bsky.social
Attorney, Trial Consultant, Public Relations for Complex Civil & Criminal Litigation, Corporate and Political Strategic Change. #NATO
No. But they will be the ones making decisions as to what comes into evidence.
December 19, 2025 at 7:09 PM
No. But they will be the ones making decisions as to what comes into evidence.
For a congressional hearing - governed by the Federal Evidence Code, not FL. She can testify as to acts she witnessed. They have to be relevant & not more prejudicial than probative. Unless she saw him molesting someone probably not coming in. The statements he made are protected during the marriage
December 19, 2025 at 7:08 PM
For a congressional hearing - governed by the Federal Evidence Code, not FL. She can testify as to acts she witnessed. They have to be relevant & not more prejudicial than probative. Unless she saw him molesting someone probably not coming in. The statements he made are protected during the marriage
She can't testify that she made the statement on direct. I can't really think of a scenario that shows relevant state of mind as to her.
December 19, 2025 at 8:05 AM
She can't testify that she made the statement on direct. I can't really think of a scenario that shows relevant state of mind as to her.
Technically it can be offered to show what a person did next if they believed the statement and what they did next was relevant to the action. Most of the time we are trying to get it in and counting on the fact that the jury won't get that distinction.
December 19, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Technically it can be offered to show what a person did next if they believed the statement and what they did next was relevant to the action. Most of the time we are trying to get it in and counting on the fact that the jury won't get that distinction.
It's saying something to those who are actual lawyers and judges.
December 19, 2025 at 5:45 AM
It's saying something to those who are actual lawyers and judges.
Not the point. Congressional hearings are very different the court of law hearings. There is a bias, interest, and motive in congressional hearings. Courts of law are theoretically there to have unbiased finders of fact. That is not a congressional role.
December 19, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Not the point. Congressional hearings are very different the court of law hearings. There is a bias, interest, and motive in congressional hearings. Courts of law are theoretically there to have unbiased finders of fact. That is not a congressional role.
It has to do with the likelihood of Congress respecting the assertion of privilege in this context. Whether or not any Congress respects the assertion of the privilege in any context depends on who is in power.
December 19, 2025 at 4:38 AM
It has to do with the likelihood of Congress respecting the assertion of privilege in this context. Whether or not any Congress respects the assertion of the privilege in any context depends on who is in power.
This Congress is not going to subpoena her. It is a Republican pro Trump Congress.
December 19, 2025 at 4:35 AM
This Congress is not going to subpoena her. It is a Republican pro Trump Congress.
Unsettled. There has yet to be a case where it was asserted and there was a refusal to answer that then went to a higher court.
December 19, 2025 at 3:49 AM
Unsettled. There has yet to be a case where it was asserted and there was a refusal to answer that then went to a higher court.
Not true. See CA Evidence Code 980
December 19, 2025 at 3:48 AM
Not true. See CA Evidence Code 980
It can be asserted and Congress will often bush back.
December 19, 2025 at 3:45 AM
It can be asserted and Congress will often bush back.
They were. I doubt they were common at a club that you had to post six to seven figures to belong to.
December 19, 2025 at 12:55 AM
They were. I doubt they were common at a club that you had to post six to seven figures to belong to.
I understand. My experience was professionals mainly had them.
December 19, 2025 at 12:14 AM
I understand. My experience was professionals mainly had them.
Subpoena her for what? There is no criminal charge. In a civil matter they won't let you go on fishing expeditions. That leaves congress....
December 19, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Subpoena her for what? There is no criminal charge. In a civil matter they won't let you go on fishing expeditions. That leaves congress....
They were so limited to call times, that in 1994 you could easily expect a $600 a month phone bill by using it as a primary phone. I know. My first one was in 1995.
December 19, 2025 at 12:09 AM
They were so limited to call times, that in 1994 you could easily expect a $600 a month phone bill by using it as a primary phone. I know. My first one was in 1995.
Not true. If you were married, you can stop a spouse or former spouse from testifying about what you said during the course of the marriage. I'm a trial lawyer. I do understand the law of evidence.
December 18, 2025 at 11:38 PM
Not true. If you were married, you can stop a spouse or former spouse from testifying about what you said during the course of the marriage. I'm a trial lawyer. I do understand the law of evidence.
It doesn't fit the case law on excited utterances. It isn't a statement against her interest. And in order to get past relevance and more prejudicial than probative it could only be offered to show what the person she said it to did next. None of those are going to apply.
December 18, 2025 at 9:57 PM
It doesn't fit the case law on excited utterances. It isn't a statement against her interest. And in order to get past relevance and more prejudicial than probative it could only be offered to show what the person she said it to did next. None of those are going to apply.
She may not have "proof" of a crime. The standard of proof is what you observed, personally.
December 18, 2025 at 9:56 PM
She may not have "proof" of a crime. The standard of proof is what you observed, personally.
Not with an NDA. She was for sale then and now.
December 18, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Not with an NDA. She was for sale then and now.
In the article she says she told the mother of a woman to watch out for her daughter and protect her. That statement that she made is hearsay and inadmissible. The article does not allege that Trump told her things or that she witnessed them. She can only testify to what she saw with her eyes.
December 18, 2025 at 7:37 PM
In the article she says she told the mother of a woman to watch out for her daughter and protect her. That statement that she made is hearsay and inadmissible. The article does not allege that Trump told her things or that she witnessed them. She can only testify to what she saw with her eyes.