Susan Rice and the Rules of Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not allowed at trial because it lacks credibility. I can't testify in court 'Susan Rice said Clinton is not ready' because its hearsay and, for all I know, Susan Rice was lying through her teeth.

There is a major exception to the Hearsay rule called 'Statement Against Interest.' Basically, if someone says something that goes against their interest, they have no motive to lie, and so the statement is credible. So in court, I could testify 'Susan Rice said Barack Obama is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief.' That would be credible evidence against Obama.

Rice has a motive to lie about Senator Clinton. She has no motive to criticize Obama. Her statement that Obama is unqualified to be President goes against her interest in becoming 'de facto President' in Obama's figurehead administration. She lied about Hillary and blurted out the truth about Obama.

Federal Rules of Evidence:

"(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest ... that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.

Literally, by the Federal Rules of evidence, Susan Rice's statement that Obama is not ready has more legal credibility than her attack on Hillary.

Susan Rice thinks she will be the one to take that 3AM call while Obama is hiding under the covers. She can't wait to be de facto President, which is why her enthusiasm over Obama's lack of readiness bubbled over and she blurted out the truth. But who is Susan Rice?

She is so not Condoleezza Rice. Larry Johnson at No Quarter tells us who Susan Rice is not ready to be 'de facto President'-- not by a long shot.


At 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


This is shameless spin. How about posting the entire interview (for those who want the truth and not spin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00lZ3ytNmVM&eurl=http://
thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/page/6/), instead of, like a hack lawyer, posting what is obviously a fragment of conversation to make a shallow point. What Susan Rice was saying was the only people who have truly had "3 AM moments" are actual sitting presidents, and Hillary Clinton has no pertinent foreign policy experience that better equips her to answer the phone in the event of a foreign crisis than does Obama. The most important foreign policy issue of the day is of course Iraq, and Obama was the only candidate out of the three remaining to oppose Iraq's invasion. Clinton did not read the NIE, and she inaccurately concluded that there was evidence of a tie between Hussein's gov't and Al Qaeda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb3qy8TW7c8&eurl=http://
thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/page/3/). Her ignorance and miscalculation resulted in her being complicit with an ill-advised war, and is a valid reason to question her ability to be Commander-in-Chief. That is the only standard by which we can objectively assess the three remaining candidates' foreign policy credentials and their ability to address issues as the next president. Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience have been debunked (http://thepage.time.com/obama-foreign-policy-memo/), and Susan Rice was only making the point that Clinton has no standing to claim superior foreign policy experience, especially not with a red phone ad.


Post a Comment

<< Home