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]

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

I see that you're getting roasted for that statement, so I won't join in the roasting. Instead, in the spirit of helping, I'll explain what hearsay is, and why it is almost never used as evidence.

When a person goes to court and says that they saw X happen, i.e. "I saw that defendant point a gun at the bank teller and demand money," that is direct evidence that he can testify too under oath. If another person goes to court and says, "my wife is a bank teller and she told me that that defendant pointed a gun at her and demanded the money," that is almost never used as evidence, for two main reasons:

1) Every time a story is told and retold, it loses fidelity. Did you ever play the "telephone game," as a kid? One person whispers something to another, who repeats it to another, and so on. By four or five repetitions, it has completely changed. Often it has changed to something having no apparent relationship with the original statement, or is an exaggerated or sensationalized version of the original.

2) With hearsay, the actual witness to the event is not the one under oath. In the bank robber example, if the defendant proves six ways to Sunday that he could not have been the person that robbed the bank, the husband of the teller has no exposure to being prosecuted for perjury. He never said that the accused pointed a gun, he only said that his wife told him that the accused pointed a gun.

Cassidy will never be prosecuted for that absurd story, even if the Secret Service supervisor manages to prove that he never said what she claims that he said. As we learned from the Clintons, just lying under oath is not perjury, it has to be a lie about a material fact. Cassidy's attorney's would simply argue that her statement was not material, because it was hearsay.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

So you basically admit to all I said about hearsay in the above post.

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.

Yes, I'm sure you would be quick to give credence to someone disputing something to Tucker Carlson.

So what if Trump urged going to the Capitol? When did that become a crime?

If you want to be a logical person, you will have to get out of the mode of thinking that whatever Trump did is by definition criminal.

 

[BlindBoo]

They have invited any and all witnesses to come forward and testify with what they know.

Come on down. Take the oath and take the stand.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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,

Hard to blame them with a kangaroo court like the Dems have set up. Let the Dems give immunity if they want them to talk so bad. I think they just like having Trumpers take the fifth.

or claimed executive privilege and said Trump wouldn't let them testify.

I believe that for executive privilege to be used, the president should have to assert it directly. This idea that people can't testify if the president might someday claim executive privilege is what has kept congress from having oversight on the executive for several presidents from both parties. If you only get outraged when one party does it, that's pretty hypocritical.

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.

The headlines and the OP on this forum are all about the "choking out" of the SS supervisor. Which he says never happened.

 

[scruffy]

this is the modern day McCarty Hearings

This is much worse than McCarthy.

This is Stalinism, plain and simple.

McCarthy didn't throw anyone in jail, but Nancy has a gulag.

 

[marvin martian]

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

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

The phony impeachment hearings were like that. Plus, the DemoKKKrats outright fabricated "evidence", which they were caught doing multiple times.

 

[forkup]

So you basically admit to all I said about hearsay in the above post.

Yes, I'm sure you would be quick to give credence to someone disputing something to Tucker Carlson.

So what if Trump urged going to the Capitol? When did that become a crime?

If you want to be a logical person, you will have to get out of the mode of thinking that whatever Trump did is by definition criminal.

So you basically admit to all I said about hearsay in the above post.

You really need to work on reading comprehension. Parts of her testimony were hearsay, part was testimony where she was a direct witness. Both can be true at the same time.

Yes, I'm sure you would be quick to give credence to someone disputing something to Tucker Carlson.

So what if Trump urged going to the Capitol? When did that become a crime?

If you want to be a logical person, you will have to get out of the mode of thinking that whatever Trump did is by definition criminal.

Actually, I would give at least some credence to it. For 2 reasons. While lying on Carlson's show doesn't carry any direct penalty to it. The people named would be highly embaressed if they did, and it would come out later that they lied. They don't know what information the Jan 6th commision has, so it carries a risk. Second and even more important some face the possibility of criminal charges. While lying to Tucker Carlson is safe. Lying and then being confronted by undisputable facts that you did lie, speaks to both intent and overall reliability in court. For those reasons, I would be forced to at least put some stock in what they say because it carries a real risk.

The same applies to Cassidy by the way. Who did her testimony under oath and is liable for perjury if she is caught in a lie. And no before you say it. Even if those agents refute her testimony about the steering wheel. She stated that this was information she got from someone else. You can't be accused of perjury for stating someone else's story, unless that person comes forward and says he or she said no such thing.

I am also of course not his target audience. You are. And if you think for a second that people would be hesistant to go on his show and state catagorically that Cassidy lied about what they said if that was the truth, I have a bridge to sell you.

And no, I don't think that everything Trump does is by definition illegal. I do know that Trump was aware that the Capitol was being breached, he was aware there were armed supporters of him there. I do know that Cippolini was stating that Trump going to the Capitol would result in criminal charges. I know that Trump made no actual effort to stop his supporters from breaching the Capitol.

At this point, I don't know if Trump will be indicted. I'm pretty sure that if this all happened not in a political context the leader of a protest like this would be indicted. Hell, I'm not even sure it's a good idea to indict Trump even if you have an ironclad case against him. What I am sure of is that Trump doesn't deserve another chance to do this all over again. And to me, anyone claiming otherwise really should make an effort to take off his partisan glasses, and imagine that the other side would actively, using illegal means, even including violence, and with a high degree of coordination try to overturn an election he or she lost.

 

[forkup]

I see that you're getting roasted for that statement, so I won't join in the roasting. Instead, in the spirit of helping, I'll explain what hearsay is, and why it is almost never used as evidence.

When a person goes to court and says that they saw X happen, i.e. "I saw that defendant point a gun at the bank teller and demand money," that is direct evidence that he can testify too under oath. If another person goes to court and says, "my wife is a bank teller and she told me that that defendant pointed a gun at her and demanded the money," that is almost never used as evidence, for two main reasons:

1) Every time a story is told and retold, it loses fidelity. Did you ever play the "telephone game," as a kid? One person whispers something to another, who repeats it to another, and so on. By four or five repetitions, it has completely changed. Often it has changed to something having no apparent relationship with the original statement, or is an exaggerated or sensationalized version of the original.

2) With hearsay, the actual witness to the event is not the one under oath. In the bank robber example, if the defendant proves six ways to Sunday that he could not have been the person that robbed the bank, the husband of the teller has no exposure to being prosecuted for perjury. He never said that the accused pointed a gun, he only said that his wife told him that the accused pointed a gun.

Cassidy will never be prosecuted for that absurd story, even if the Secret Service supervisor manages to prove that he never said what she claims that he said. As we learned from the Clintons, just lying under oath is not perjury, it has to be a lie about a material fact. Cassidy's attorney's would simply argue that her statement was not material, because it was hearsay.

Me getting roasted doesn't do a thing for me. Mainly because the people doing so don't understand, or don't want to understand what I say. Point in case.... you. This condescending little post for instance in no way differs from this explanation I gave you.

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.

Or this one

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

It is a way less longwinded way to give the same "explanation" you gave me in the "spirit of helping"

 

[Concerned American]

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.

If the commission has the proof that it assures all of us that it does, it is up to them to produce it. Are you unfamiliar with the doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty?"

 

[Concerned American]

part was testimony where she was a direct witness.

Was she in the car? No. She cannot be a direct witness to anything---not that there is a whole lot of relevance to the question at hand anyway.

 

[Concerned American]

You can't be accused of perjury for stating someone else's story,

^^^ BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY. You dumbass democrats just keep your heads buried in your ass.

 

[Concerned American]

he was aware there were armed supporters of him there.

There were no guns seized at the capital--do you work for Adam Schiff? There was an UNARMED protestor that was summarily murdered by one of Piglosi's thugs for trespass.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You really need to work on reading comprehension. Parts of her testimony were hearsay, part was testimony where she was a direct witness. Both can be true at the same time.

Sure, it could be true. Anything "could be."

Let's look at her direct testimony, then, since we seem to agree on the uselessness of hearsay.

What were the top three things that she directly witnessed that were incriminating to Trump?

 

[Clipper]

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

Who's stopping Trump lackeys like Jordan & Meadows from showing up, raising their hand to tell the truth & testifying, numbnuts?

When you find out let me know & spare me your conspiracy theories & other nonsence if you can.

 

[kyzr]

Alexander Vindman's testimony at the impeachment was all "hearsay".

Hannity Dismisses Vindman's First-Hand Impeachment Testimony as 'Hearsay'

The National Security Council official offered a first-hand account of events.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

Alexander Vindman's testimony at the impeachment was all "hearsay".

Hannity Dismisses Vindman's First-Hand Impeachment Testimony as 'Hearsay'

The National Security Council official offered a first-hand account of events.

www.newsweek.com

Of course.

This use of hearsay "witnesses" is a special deal for Trump.

 

[Concerned American]

Who's stopping Trump lackeys like Jordan & Meadows from showing up, raising their hand to tell the truth & testifying, numbnuts?

When you find out let me know & spare me your conspiracy theories & other nonsence if you can.

I think somebody farted. Run along troll.

 

[Clipper]

I think somebody farted. Run along troll.

Oh, can't answer, airhead?

 

[surada]

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

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

She's repeating what the secret service guys told her.

 

[Clipper]

There were no guns seized at the capital--do you work for Adam Schiff? There was an UNARMED protestor that was summarily murdered by one of Piglosi's thugs for trespass.

She was murdered because you say so?

Try again, idiot. Like if she stayed home instead of listening to that menace Trump, she'd be alive today.