Maggie Haberman's true colors are showing

[deminks]

Link to tweet

?s=19

This is not legal hearsay. Cohen is testifying he heard Trump say that. And the point is that Trump said it, not whether or not Trump would have a hard time finding a 4th wife. It’s direct testimony.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

End snip.
9th
Maggie is saying Cohen's testimony is heresay about TFG saying to him. he wouldn't be on the market long if Melania found out because of all the women who wanted him. This is not heresay, and Maggie is the worst TFG apologist ever in the media. Worse than Katy Tur(d). Worse than Mrs. Greenspan.

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Haberman needs a dictionary to understand the meaning of what comes out of her pie hole.

[hlthe2b]

2. She is not an attorney... and despite her long ties to TSF--she should not be adamantly trying to play one

on tv.

I grew up with two judges (a great uncle and an uncle) two prosecuting attorneys and two defense attorneys in my extended family... And the one thing I learned listening intently to those extended family dinner discussions with my grandparents is that "don't assume." I learned a tremendous amount from those sessions and most definitely that the perspective (and thus assessment of a case) from a defense attorney is dramatically different from a prosecuting attorney--let alone from a judge. So, while my area is medicine, I can speak intelligently about many legal issues, Still, I damned well know my limitations. Ms. Haberman would do well to learn the same--no matter how many legal "analysts" she shares a round table with on CNN.

[Ocelot II]

3. It wasn't introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Cohen is describing a conversation in which Trump said he "wouldn't be on the market long" (meaning he thinks he could easily replace Melania if she ditched him). The conversation wasn't introduced to prove Trump "wouldn't be on the market long" but to indicate his state of mind (that he didn't care what Melania would think), and therefore would fall within one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule. F.R. Evid. 803 (3) allows "a statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) ..."

In any event, Trump's lawyers would have had to object at the time the statement was made, and they didn't. They knew it was admissible.

I'm not so sure Haberman is showing bias as much as she is showing ignorance. The rules of evidence are tricky; evidence is often an entire law school course, and she doesn't know what she's talking about.

[Captain Zero]

8. I'm sure Putin has his 4th wife ready.

She's from Eastern Europe and she's been living in New York or Florida for 5-15 years already.

Trump has probably already met her.

[ificandream]

23. Good grief.

Let’s get ridiculous, folks.

[rsdsharp]

12. It wouldn't matter even if it was offered to prove the truth.

Trump is the defendant. His out of court statements are not hearsay by rule:

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)2A

[Ocelot II]

15. Good point!

[Ms. Toad]

16. I was about to jump in to say that -

but I decided to peruse the replies first. Well done.

[NanaCat]

19. I had to explain to my Mum that hearsay

Pretty much boils down to if you were there when a conversation happened. If you weren't and one of the parties later told you, an outside party, what was said--that's hearsay. You weren't there to hear the information, and you weren't the intended recipient of that conversation's information. Plus, you only have one person's word for what the conversation was about. That may not be what was actually said.

If someone directly told you to do something, or revealed something about their own opinions or beliefs to you, then that's not hearsay, because you were there + the intended recipient of what was said.

Or that's how I understood hearsay.

[getagrip_already]

4. Btw, the time to object is when the statement is made, not during cross....

You can challenge during cross, but not raise an objection to something said earlier.

Too late.

Go home.

[ificandream]

5. I'm trying to see from the tweet where Haberman has written or said anything like this.

The whole post appears to be hearsay. Haberman is a great reporter. She's had more inside stuff about Trump than anyone else. Also, new information comes out all the time. If what Cohen is saying conflicts with past information, that's not necessarily Haberman's fault.

[yardwork]

20. Haberman made this statement in her tweet.

Haberman is not a smart person. She sucked up to Trump because it was a way to promote her career. I think it's backfiring.

[ificandream]

33. She's one of the best known reporters in the country.

There's a reason for that. She does good work. She's had more inside information on Trump than almost anyone else. I'd say it's not backfiring.

As far as the tweet goes, she categorizes Cohen's opinion as hearsay. It's Cohen's opinion. Could it be that she knows more about what Trump really meant? Remember, too, that Cohen is generally accepted as not the most trustworthy person. I'm not saying he committed perjury here but that the reality (not always the target in legal testimony) could be a little different.

[yardwork]

34. Haberman is absolutely gross, as is her buddy Trump.

[ificandream]

35. I'll take Haberman over any jerk at Fox, OANN etc.

Reporters like her are battling the biggest danger to our freedom in decades. They are not echo chambers. Be grateful they are there. If Trump gets elected it’s likely she and other reporters will be in jail.

[yardwork]

36. I disagree. Haberman is part of the problem.

[ificandream]

37. Real journalists are not our echo chambers like they are on Fox.

And we shouldn't expect them to be.

[NanaCat]

21. Did you read her post?

Link to tweet

Legum's post is a response to what she said--and he included her post for reference.

SCROLL DOWN, and you will see this idiocy that Haberman herself wrote:

Cohen also recalls asking Trump how Melania Trump might take everything that was happening. He describes Trump's response as follows: "He goes, 'How long do you think I'll be on the market for? Not long.' He wasn't thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign."

This is a hearsay conversation, and if defense lawyers challenge it during cross-examination, Cohen's credibility will be an issue.

So it's not hearsay to say that she's making a stupid assertion about hearsay, when the stupidity is in her own writing.

Read the entire thing, not just what you want to see.

[kcr]

24. I mean, it's right there in the tweet

Maybe you didn't scroll down enough?

[tenderfoot]

31. Did she pay you to post this?

eom

[NewHendoLib]

6. Her true colors have been shades of red all along

[jcgoldie]

7. Haberman is a Trump normalizer

She always has been especially when he was in office. Thats her job. She has no problem give the appearance of criticism such as when she pointed out repeatedly he was sleeping in court. But when he does and says batshit ignorant dictator shit she just writes about how its not all that different than any other president.

[duckworth969]

9. Stopped listening to her a long time ago

[Mr.WeRP]

10. NYT reduced to the status of Nat'l Enquirer

[Aviation Pro]

11. And this is why I just deleted my subscription to this complicit rag

......

[Escurumbele]

13. Worst than Mrs. Greenspan??? Is that possible?

I think Katy Tur, for the most part is very good, but she does ask stupid questions, and like Ari Melber as of late, they are trying to be "impartial".

Ari Melber is constantly apologizing and making sure we all understand that "he reports the news as it happens but that trump is innocent until proven otherwise", not sure how many times I have heard him say that, which I find very irritating.

[Comfortably_Numb]

14. Andrea Mitchell is painful to watch. She fumbles around, hesitates and stumbles

constantly. She loses her place in her own sentences….

[Bev54]

17. Never forget, her job is as a PR writer, for Trump, to ensure access by the NYtimes

I cannot call her a reporter because that is not what she does. She wants us all to focus on the absurd and she plays down the truth of each and every situation. She disgusts me.

[Hassler]

18. MAGA Haberman is an apex access journalist.

[soldierant]

22. Looks like everyone hear understands the distinction

I'm sure all of us have legal blind spots somewhere i I know I do - just one example, I hear tell DElaware law is highly favorable if you're a corporation, but I don't know that's true, because I haven';t looked up the law I might have picked up some details if I'd ever lived there, but I haven't. And I dont even know all the fine pint in my own state. But then, I don't talk about legal things in public if I don't have a trusted legal source. I really would think any journalist worthy of the name, and many not, would be that smart.

[UpInArms]

25. Haberman has always been team TFG

No secret … no shit …. I despise her

[ificandream]

32. Not true. Read her book "Confidence Man".

It was Haberman who revealed in the book then-unknown details about his stash of documents at Mar-A-Lago.

[Blue Owl]

26. Crawl back into tRump's folds, Maggie

https://www.theonion.com/maggie-haberman-climbs-out-from-trump-s-folds-1849601498

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Maggie Haberman is the David Pecker of the NYTimes

Last edited Tue May 14, 2024, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[mercuryblues]

28. Maggie,s Mom handled PR for Trump

Her family's fortune is tied to the far right. She is more than willing to sell her soul for a tarnished penny.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. This is why Maggie essentially does PR for the Trump family through the @NYtimes now.

Link to tweet

[mercuryblues]

30. It goes deeper than that

Her Mom is well connected to many republican power players. Maggie took over and passed off being a PR rep as a journalist.