[BigBobber]

Slobo wanted to attack Clark's credibility. He sought to do so by using Clark's own book and his CV as presented by the Clark. Certainly seems like the thing a court should allow.

I haven't seen all of Clark's testimony, but it appears all he presented to the court was hearsay - this is what Slobo told me in a meeting. What court allows hearsay evidence like this?

[breakem]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think first person reporting of a meeting or conversation is considered hearsay. I will defer to someone who comes along with an authoritative answer.

[faithincowboys]

If I were Slobo, a dreadful thought, I would say that Clark told me in private that Clinton was bombing Kosovo to distract from his domestic problems and to establish a legacy that consisted of more than BJs in the Oval Office.
Who could refute that? I would use Clark's picture with the war criminal's hat on to buttress my contention-- Clark wasn't repulsed by war crimes and butchery, he was merely following orders to save the skin of a a domestic and international criminal leader, William Jefferson Clinton.

It's so funny. If Saddam were questioning Tommy Franks at the Hague, the judges at the Hague would make Judge Ito look like he ran a tight ship. I assure you, Franks would be subjected to a body cavity search and nothing would be declared beyond the scope. Didn't our Euro-leftists friends in Belgium recently try to indict Franks and Rumsfeld and Bush on war crimes? I assure you, they would let Saddam ask anything. They would have Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal as Saddam's lawyers.

The Left is sickening!

[Hoplite]

Milosevic was allowed to address Clark's credibility by introducing General Shelton's comment on Clark's character, and by questioning him on the Mt. Igman incident.

Also, if the witness is a part of the conversation he is testifying about, the conversation isn't hearsay, at least not to my understanding of the matter.