Have there been other House or Senate hearings in which witnesses were specifically called to testify under oath while telling hearsay and rumors?

[Seymour Flops]

Is that a special privilege only for anti-Trump hearings?

If it has happened before, I'd be interested to know when.

 

[JGalt]

These hearings are worse than the McCarthy Hearings in the 50's. At least the McCarthy hearings brought to light the communist menace. These hearings are just bullshit and harassment, being carried out by a bunch of children afraid of losing power.

 

[Rambunctious]

Only in Pelosiland on the TDS ride.....

 

[Concerned American]

carried out by a bunch of children afraid of losing power.

I think that is a foregone conclusion. I would not be surprised to see the democrat party disintegrate after the last two years performance.

 

[Oddball]

Is that a special privilege only for anti-Trump hearings?

If it has happened before, I'd be interested to know when.

Well, there was impeachment 1.0, which was based upon hearsay twice removed.

 

[JGalt]

I think that is a foregone conclusion. I would not be surprised to see the democrat party disintegrate after the last two years performance.

If they do collapse, they could always reform and change their name to the Secular Progressive Communist Party.

 

[forkup]

Is that a special privilege only for anti-Trump hearings?

If it has happened before, I'd be interested to know when.

Sure it has. In fact it happens quite often. The Blumenthal questioning over Benghazi had several such questions. The reason is simple. This is NOT a trial but a investigative commission.

I also want to note that most of her testimony wasn't hearsay but direct information she heard. SHE WAS IN THE ROOM MOST OF THE TIME. But even if not true. Any lies could be easily refuted if the people she overheard are willing to testify under oath.

They are most assuredly not.

 

[struth]

this is the modern day McCarty Hearings

Neither are interested in reality

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

RWNJ's claim "It's all a setup, by democrats".

So, why don't they want that investigated?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sure it has. In fact it happens quite often. The Blumenthal questioning over Benghazi had several such questions. The reason is simple. This is NOT a trial but a investigative commission.

My memory is that the point of questioning Blumenthal, and of questioning Hillary about Blumenthal, was to show how much influence a non-government employee who knew little about foreign policy, had over her. Nothing factual was accepted on the basis of hearsay. The existence of the communications was the evidence, and that was documentary evidence, not hearsay.

Nice try, I guess.

I also want to note that most of her testimony wasn't hearsay but direct information she heard.

I think you misunderstand the word "hearsay."

SHE WAS IN THE ROOM MOST OF THE TIME.

She was in a room in which she claims she heard or overheard people talking about what had happened. She was not IN THE ROOM when anything besides talking supposedly happened.

But even if not true. Any lies could be easily refuted if the people she overheard are willing to testify under oath.

They are most assuredly not.

That is another lie that you seem to have swallowed:

CBS News: Limo driver, SS agent willing to testify before Jan. 6 committee to refute aide's claims

Former staff members for Donald Trump said they're prepared to testify before Jan. 6 committee to refute claims made by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

www.khou.com

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump's former special agent in charge and former limousine driver said they are both prepared to testify under oath before the Jan. 6 committee that neither of them was attacked nor did Trump try to grab the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle after he was told he could not go to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, CBS News reports.

So, they are willing to testify under oath to refute that fairy tale. But, my guess is that they will not be allowed in front of that kangaroo court.

 

[Care4all]

Is that a special privilege only for anti-Trump hearings?

If it has happened before, I'd be interested to know when.

Watergate. Everything john Dean was saying, was just hearsay....or his word....which was all taken with skepticism.... Without a second person to collaborate.... He went on and on, with shocking testimony, that no one could prove.....

But then......

Then we found out, there were tapes....Nixon taped his oval office conversations! Ho!y crap!

When the committee finally got the tapes,

It confirmed every bit that Dean said.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Watergate. Everything john Dean was saying, was just hearsay....or his word....which was all taken with skepticism.... Without a second person to collaborate.... He went on and on, with shocking testimony, that no one could prove.....

But then......

Then we found out, there were tapes....Nixon taped his oval office conversations! Ho!y crap!

When the committee finally got the tapes,

It confirmed every bit that Dean said.

You're misunderstanding what hearsay is. I guess that's a product of too much liberal news, whose most shocking revelations are almost always hearsay.

John Dean testified about a conspiracy that he himself was a central participant in. He was a fact-finders dream, a criminal willing to incriminate himself as he incriminated others. When the independent evidence came out, it backed his story up.

What Cassidy did was to tell about sitting at her staff desk, supposedly listening to the people who participated in events describing the events that she did not witness. It's like an old fashioned radio drama, in which the characters breathlessly describe what just happened.

When the evidence comes out - as soon as the committee calls Engels and Meadows to testify - her story will be shown to be a complete fabrication. Which is why that committee will never call Engels and Meadows. We'll have to wait until after the 2024 election when the GOP will start their own endless investigations of this Democratic investigation.

Care4all, I asked this in another thread: You progs are just kidding about this, right? I sure hope so.

 

[Care4all]

You're misunderstanding what hearsay is. I guess that's a product of too much liberal news, whose most shocking revelations are almost always hearsay.

John Dean testified about a conspiracy that he himself was a central participant in. He was a fact-finders dream, a criminal willing to incriminate himself as he incriminated others. When the independent evidence came out, it backed his story up.

What Cassidy did was to tell about sitting at her staff desk, supposedly listening to the people who participated in events describing the events that she did not witness. When the evidence comes out - as soon as the committee calls Engels and Meadows to testify - her story will be shown to be a complete fabrication.

Which is why that committee will never call Engels and Meadows. We'll have to wait until after the 2024 election when the GOP will start their own endless investigations of this Democratic investigation.

Care4all, I asked this in another thread: You progs are just kidding about this, right? I sure hope so.

Are you nuts? Every trump person involved like meadows, mccarthy, jordan, flynn, navarro, eastman, ciperoni, Giuliani etc etc etc....

Have all plead the 5th on the grounds it could incriminate them, or claimed executive privilege and said Trump wouldn't let them testify.

Trump could clear all of this up, if he let his goons testify....

And she was present, first hand for 90% of her testimony....it was mostly about Meadows, her boss.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You're misunderstanding what hearsay is. I guess that's a product of too much liberal news, whose most shocking revelations are almost always hearsay.

No, you are.

John Dean testified about a conspiracy that he himself was a central participant in. He was a fact-finders dream, a criminal willing to incriminate himself as he incriminated others. When the independent evidence came out, it backed his story up.

What Cassidy did was to tell about sitting at her staff desk, supposedly listening to the people who participated in events describing the events that she did not witness.

No, Cassidy didn't.
But was asked a simple question about what people said who did witness an incident.
"What did that person say"?
And Hutchinson told the committee, what they said.

It's like an old fashioned radio drama, in which the characters breathlessly describe what just happened.

When the evidence comes out - as soon as the committee calls Engels and Meadows to testify - her story will be shown to be a complete fabrication. Which is why that committee will never call Engels and Meadows. We'll have to wait until after the 2024 election when the GOP will start their own endless investigations of this Democratic investigation.

I know the GQP loves investigations, just as long as THEY aren't the ones being investigated.

Care4all, I asked this in another thread: You progs are just kidding about this, right? I sure hope so.

 

[forkup]

My memory is that the point of questioning Blumenthal, and of questioning Hillary about Blumenthal, was to show how much influence a non-government employee who knew little about foreign policy, had over her. Nothing factual was accepted on the basis of hearsay. The existence of the communications was the evidence, and that was documentary evidence, not hearsay.

Nice try, I guess.

I think you misunderstand the word "hearsay."

She was in a room in which she claims she heard or overheard people talking about what had happened. She was not IN THE ROOM when anything besides talking supposedly happened.

That is another lie that you seem to have swallowed:

CBS News: Limo driver, SS agent willing to testify before Jan. 6 committee to refute aide's claims

Former staff members for Donald Trump said they're prepared to testify before Jan. 6 committee to refute claims made by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

www.khou.com

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump's former special agent in charge and former limousine driver said they are both prepared to testify under oath before the Jan. 6 committee that neither of them was attacked nor did Trump try to grab the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle after he was told he could not go to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, CBS News reports.

So, they are willing to testify under oath to refute that fairy tale. But, my guess is that they will not be allowed in front of that kangaroo court.

If you hear the person saying something to another person you are a direct witness. Therefor it is not hearsay. Maybe YOU should look it up.

I welcome the secret service to testify. Let's just say they are able to refute the grabbing the steering wheel story. First of that part was hearsay. She heard from another person that this happened. But the larger question would still be if Trump was urging to go to the Capitol. Something they will be asked too. The rest hasn't been disputed. Despite her naming names and specific instances of events, that if not true could be disputed by those same names if not to the Jan 6th committee then to Tucker Carlson or something. The fact that this is not happening should say something.

 

[Concerned American]

I also want to note that most of her testimony wasn't hearsay but direct information she heard.

That is the classic definition of hearsay. She was not there so she cannot testify as to what happened.

 

[forkup]

That is the classic definition of hearsay. She was not there so she cannot testify as to what happened.

She was there and overheard people talking to one another. That is not hearsay.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She was there and overheard people talking to one another. That is not hearsay.

hearsay definition - Search

www.bing.com

She did not witness it so can not corroborate the claim thus hearsay. Dumb ass.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats whined for fifty years and ended up blaming republicans for the senate hearings that targeted commies. If you don't learn from history you are condemned to relive it.

 

[Concerned American]

She was there and overheard people talking to one another. That is not hearsay.

There is a reason that you don't practice law. STFU