of either forgetting or lying about those communications and contacts? well, good to be with you, and your panelists. i don t know what happened to him, but it reminds me of my old law school days when we learned of an exception to the hearsay rule known as excited utterance, meaning when you say something in the moment, in the moment of drama, in the moment of an accident, whatever it happens to be, that that can rise above hearsay. what we heard from mr. mccarthy in the hours following the insurrection in that interview just days following were excited utterances revealing the truth. and so what i think has happened is he retreated. of course, he met with former president trump, retreated, because he has decided not to uphold his oath. that he is more interested in power, more interested in protecting lies and possible conspiracies, and not interested
impulsive. the lawyers have this, excited utterance. his tweets, bing, bing, are his exciting utterances. it is so impressive. i would like to say on television, my lsats were really high. what was the phrase? excited utterances. it would be unprecedented for prosecutor to make a case solely on obstruction case based solely on twitter. but that is not what i think mueller would be thinking about here if he were to argue. it is a tapestry. it is tweets plus. it is other things. the tweets aren t criminal. what about, let s take the case to nail this down. the stuff he says about jeff
things that your expert said already about the hearsay exceptions, but there is also another exception called excited utterance. another reason would be to put it in that if he was so startled, by saying he thought he was caught that that is another exception. even if they were an agent of the police, and i don t think they were was this voluntarily made? yes. he contacted them. knowing what the subject matter of the interview was. he came to them after many, many, many discussions. he voluntarily let himself be mic d up. and it s not the first time knowing that mic is still on when the interview stops. so it will be real hard for him to say he was tricked or coerced or that he had an expectation of privacy, or that this was taken in any way knowingly or voluntarily. there is not going to be any case law on whether the
they came to court unprepared. they were they had not thought in advance of what questions they would ask. they challenged nothing that the defense did. the evidence they didn t present, and in that situation the lawyer, the guy with the prepared lawyer will win. it wasn t just having those that lawyer that got him out of this. you have to make rulings on admissibility all of the time. evidentiary laws are different in california from texas, but the constitutional issues are the same. what is your sense of the admissibility of that stunning piece of tape that we heard last night? i agree with some of the things that your expert said already about the hearsay exceptions, but there is also another exception called excited utterance. another reason would be to put it in that if he was so startled, thinking about this question.