b****a
发帖数: 4465 | 1 Judge : “Are your observers in the counting room?”
Trump lawyer: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.”
Judge: " “I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: Are people
representing the plaintiffs in the room?”
Trump lawyer: “Yes.”
Judge: “I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?”
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge: In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several
times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were
guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct?
Trump lawyer: Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And
it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of
the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar.
Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good
faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a
mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not
be counted.
Judge: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking
for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in
connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
Trump lawyer: To my knowledge at present, no.
Judge: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon
the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?
Trump lawyer: To my knowledge at present, no.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge: So I want to make sure I understand you. The affiant is not the
person who had knowledge of this. Is that correct?
Trump lawyer: The affiant had direct firsthand knowledge of the
communication with the elections inspector and the document they provided
them.
Judge: Okay, which is generally known as hearsay, right?
Trump lawyer: I would not think that’s hearsay, Your Honor. That’s
firsthand personal knowledge by the affiant of what she physically observed.
And we included an exhibit which is a physical copy of the note that she
was provided.
Judge: I’m still trying to understand why this isn’t hearsay.
Trump lawyer: Well, it’s, it, I –
Judge: I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say
to her. But the truth of the matter … that you’re going for was that there
was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don’t know what
its relevancy is.
Trump lawyer: Right. I would say, Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point,
this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made
that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge --
Judge: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not
hearsay. Come on, now.
Trump lawyer: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –
Judge: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter
is asserted, right? |
|
