Has the January 6 Committee Suborned Perjury?

[excalibur]

Well, at least with the testimony on June 28th it certainly seems to have been just that.

At best the witness gave hearsay testimony. But from remarks in the media, it appears that the committee was aware of true facts, but then allowed the witness to give what in the end may be perjured testimony.

This means that the committee suborned perjury.

Come January 2023 the Republicans need to censure and remove the members of the committee who are still in the House. And they need to investigate any connections between the June 28th witness, her new lawyer(s), and members of the committee.

Come 2025 the Republican AG needs to indict them for suborning perjury.

The June 28th testimony is probably not the only time this joke of a committee suborned perjury.

 

[WEATHER53]

They Are perjury but will proceed unabated

 

[TeeDub]

Well, at least with the testimony on June 28th it certainly seems to have been just that.

At best the witness gave hearsay testimony. But from remarks in the media, it appears that the committee was aware of true facts, but then allowed the witness to give what in the end may be perjured testimony.

This means that the committee suborned perjury.

Come January 2023 the Republicans need to censure and remove the members of the committee who are still in the House. And they need to investigate any connections between the June 28th witness, her new lawyer(s), and members of the committee.

Come 2025 the Republican AG needs to indict them for suborning perjury.

The June 28th testimony is probably not the only time this joke of a committee suborned perjury.

I believe her as much as Christine Blashsee Ford.

 

[Toro]

Well, at least with the testimony on June 28th it certainly seems to have been just that.

At best the witness gave hearsay testimony. But from remarks in the media, it appears that the committee was aware of true facts, but then allowed the witness to give what in the end may be perjured testimony.

This means that the committee suborned perjury.

Come January 2023 the Republicans need to censure and remove the members of the committee who are still in the House. And they need to investigate any connections between the June 28th witness, her new lawyer(s), and members of the committee.

Come 2025 the Republican AG needs to indict them for suborning perjury.

The June 28th testimony is probably not the only time this joke of a committee suborned perjury.

Yeah, all those Republicans and Trump supporters and Trump aids and Trump family members who've testified are going to be indicted. Just like Hillary was.

God you guys are the dumbest people in the country.

 

[okfine]

Losers lament

 

[playtime]

At best the witness gave hearsay testimony. But from remarks in the media, it appears that the committee was aware of true facts, but then allowed the witness to give what in the end may be perjured testimony.

Analyzing the Testimony

The first issue with the GOP’s tweet is its wholesale approach to the testimony: “it’s literally all hearsay.” That’s not entirely accurate. While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are far more complicated than the all-or-nothing assertion made by the GOP’s tweet.

The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law. Therefore, the rules of evidence do not apply. Evidence rules apply to criminal and civil lawsuits tried before a judge and sometimes a jury. They do not apply to congressional hearings, which are fact-finding missions at their core. So, the hearsay assertion as applied to the Committee hearings is ultimately irrelevant. Trials are different. Trials assign legal blame in cases and controversies brought before a judge and assess punishments or damages. No legal jeopardy results directly from from a congressional hearing.

That distinction is important. There’s no defendant in a congressional hearing who might be ordered to serve time in jail or pay money as a penalty for tortious conduct or a breach of contract. Therefore, one of the biggest exemptions to the hearsay rule doesn’t even apply here.
House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.

This means that the committee suborned perjury.

ummmm.....

no.

 

[WEATHER53]

Analyzing the Testimony

The first issue with the GOP’s tweet is its wholesale approach to the testimony: “it’s literally all hearsay.” That’s not entirely accurate. While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are far more complicated than the all-or-nothing assertion made by the GOP’s tweet.

The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law. Therefore, the rules of evidence do not apply. Evidence rules apply to criminal and civil lawsuits tried before a judge and sometimes a jury. They do not apply to congressional hearings, which are fact-finding missions at their core. So, the hearsay assertion as applied to the Committee hearings is ultimately irrelevant. Trials are different. Trials assign legal blame in cases and controversies brought before a judge and assess punishments or damages. No legal jeopardy results directly from from a congressional hearing.

That distinction is important. There’s no defendant in a congressional hearing who might be ordered to serve time in jail or pay money as a penalty for tortious conduct or a breach of contract. Therefore, one of the biggest exemptions to the hearsay rule doesn’t even apply here.
House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.





ummmm.....

no.

So if committee is fact finding then what fact can they ascertain from someone who was not a witness?

 

[Delldude]

Analyzing the Testimony

The first issue with the GOP’s tweet is its wholesale approach to the testimony: “it’s literally all hearsay.” That’s not entirely accurate. While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are far more complicated than the all-or-nothing assertion made by the GOP’s tweet.

The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law. Therefore, the rules of evidence do not apply. Evidence rules apply to criminal and civil lawsuits tried before a judge and sometimes a jury. They do not apply to congressional hearings, which are fact-finding missions at their core. So, the hearsay assertion as applied to the Committee hearings is ultimately irrelevant. Trials are different. Trials assign legal blame in cases and controversies brought before a judge and assess punishments or damages. No legal jeopardy results directly from from a congressional hearing.

That distinction is important. There’s no defendant in a congressional hearing who might be ordered to serve time in jail or pay money as a penalty for tortious conduct or a breach of contract. Therefore, one of the biggest exemptions to the hearsay rule doesn’t even apply here.
House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.





ummmm.....

no.

Secret Service detonated her bombshell testimony. Fact.

 

[excalibur]

Analyzing the Testimony


The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law. ...

LOL

It doesn't matter if it was a court of law or not. They suborned perjury. Duh!

 

[excalibur]

Secret Service detonated her bombshell testimony. Fact.

And from reading several news sources they knew about that and still allowed her to testify anyway. That is suborning perjury. And they likely have done it with other witnesses as well.

 

[Delldude]

Analyzing the Testimony

The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law.
ummmm.....

no.

So you just proved this is nothing more than a political show 'trial' with no legal purpose.

Thanks for playing.

 

[playtime]

So if committee is fact finding then what fact can they ascertain from someone who was not a witness?

she was told first hand. of course anyone that she mentioned is welcome to come in & testify. especially her immediate boss & the lawyer cipillone.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yeah, all those Republicans and Trump supporters and Trump aids and Trump family members who've testified are going to be indicted. Just like Hillary was.

God you guys are the dumbest people in the country.

 

[mamooth]

When you read yet another desperation thread like this one, you know that rivulets of flopsweat are dripping off of the Trump cult sore-losers.

They're terrified.

Good.

 

[playtime]

Secret Service detonated her bombshell testimony. Fact.

they contradicted her for sure. now do it under oath.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And from reading several news sources they knew about that and still allowed her to testify anyway. That is suborning perjury. And they likely have done it with other witnesses as well.

If this gets confirmed it is another reason, why the DOJ will not prosecute Trump.

 

[Delldude]

she was told first hand. of course anyone that she mentioned is welcome to come in & testify. especially her immediate boss & the lawyer cipillone.

But your committee isn't interested. The Secret Service is though.

 

[Delldude]

they contradicted her for sure. now do it under oath.

They offered to....publicly.

 

[playtime]

LOL

It doesn't matter if it was a court of law or not. They suborned perjury. Duh!

nyet. they need to testify under oath. until then it's a she said, they said. she was under oath when she did... now it's their turn.

 

[toobfreak]

God you guys are the dumbest people in the country.

Geniuses next to