Well well
Where to even start this time
In law we learn the concept of evidence and the importance of what purpose it is being introduced for. The same exact statement can be admissible as evidence if offered to prove one thing, but *not* admissible if offered to prove something else.
Example: The state seeks to introduce evidence that Witness X told a friend, “I saw Defendant murder the deceased in the study with a candlestick at 12 o’clock on Christmas Eve.”
This is an out-of-court statement that was not given under oath, and is therefore hearsay. It would NOT be admissible in order to prove what the statement itself asserts: that the Defendant is guilty of murder.
However, the statement *would* be admissible in order to help establish the simple fact that Witness X said those words, irrespective of their truth. This could be useful in, say, a defamation trial, where the statement may serve as proof of Witness X slandering the Defendant if the Defendant is not actually guilty of murder.
Where am I going with this?
The reason I posted this article was not to prove the fact that many Americans are out there in hospitals across America dying of Covid-19. That fact has already been established roughly 240,000 times over. It does not need to be proven anymore. It’s dead as a doornail.
The reason I posted this article is in the hopes that a nurse’s anecdote like this from the trenches will wake some covidiots the f**k up where 100,000 patient, scholarly, scientific explanations have not.
Now
What were you saying about Trump’s belated, desperate, and self-serving claims of widespread voter fraud?
