1) Republicans are trying to cast the testimony of Bill Taylor and George Kent as unreliable "hearsay." This is not accurate for several reasons, but here are a couple interesting ones...

2) A statement is only hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. FRE 801(c). If an out-of-court statement is offered purely to show the statement's effect on the hearer, then this usage is not hearsay.

3) In extortion cases, statements by the victim indicating fear of the defendant are admissible to prove the "fear" element of extortion.
@Popehat @harrylitman @SavannahGuthrie

4) A victim's fearful state of mind is a crucial element in proving extortion. A victim's testimony as to what others said to them is admitted not for the truth of statements but for the fear the statement produced in the victim's mind. @NBCNews

5) But this is a really complicated rule. The fear-illustrating statements can also refer to acts of the defendant, so courts will instruct juries that these statements are only evidence of fear, not evidence of the defendant's acts. Confusing, right?

6) This "fear" evidence in extortion cases is similar to (but different than) the hearsay exception in the Fed. Rules of Evidence (803(3)) that allows witnesses to recount hearsay statements that are the then-existing state of mind. Even more confusing.
@rebeccacheng6

7) The takeaway is that it's not always the truth of the statement itself, it's how others reacted to the statement that is probative of an important fact.
@msnbc @NBChristinaGinn @NBCNewsNow