Hearsay and the Cipollone testimony.

[Aldo Raine]

Uninformed sources told me that Trump beat up 3 secret Service Agents, would you believe 4 Secret Service Agents to commandeer the Presidential Limo in an effort to run over Mike Pence!!

Your TDS is showing, seek help!!!!!!
MAGA

 

[Billy_Bob]

For over a week now we have been privileged to hear all the people on the right talk about hearsay. So let me be the first to congratulate all of you that another piece of hearsay we got from Cassidy. Namely where she said that Cippolone and Meadows had a conversation with Trump on Jan 6th, in which Trump said something to the effect that he figured Pence deserved what was happening to him at the Capitol.

If this is confirmed, would any of you then feel Trump should not get to be in office again? Or is it acceptable for a president to endanger the Vice-President purposefully and then refuse to do anything to help him?

Anything the committee does now is tainted. They Suborned Perjury from a witness of a known lie. Called a special session to put forth that lie right before the July 4 Break. Before they were finished with the clown show the witnesses story had been totally discredited.

Now they put forth another disgruntled ex-employee. Claiming that he will cooberate Hutchinsons now discredited story.

You people never learn. Due to the COMMITTEE'S criminal misconduct and suborning perjury from witnesses UNDER OATH, nothing they put forth will be seen with ANY credibility.
This committee has imploded and is not credible. Nothing they bring forth can be used in court because they SUBORNED PERJURY. The COMMITEE LIED, committed a criminal act to frame Trump. The only thing that should be happening to this sham is disbandment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do you think I believe the bullshit about hearsay? I just used it as a way to segway into what would be a direct witness to what Hutchinson describes.

Two disgruntled EX-EMPLOYEES, one of which has already suborned perjury in open testimony, with false accusation, with the approval of the committee who knew it to be false testimony prior. And now were supposed to believe another disgruntled ex-employee's testimony with a committee that has demonstrated WILFUL CRIMINAL CONDUCT in suborning perjury?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I draw the following conclusion from this OP, it was kind of the point actually.

I've seen people on the right in this OP
-Attack me
-Attack the Jan 6th committee
-Attack the witnesses coming forward in the Jan 6th hearings
-Attack the process.


What I haven't seen, not even once. Is any of them willing to state that wishing your own Vice-President harm and refusing to help him when he's being threatened is disqualifying to become president in the future.

That is what supporting Trump has reduced his supporters too. An inability to even grant that much.

The committee committed suicide when they SUBORNED PERJURY from a witness they knew to be lying. This is a CRIMINAL ACT, that if it occurred in a court, would land the prosecutors in jail and their law licenses removed for life.

Nothing this committee does now is acceptable in any court of law. They manufactured a lie as truth, under oath.

 

[Lesh]

The committee committed suicide when they SUBORNED PERJURY from a witness they knew to be lying. This is a CRIMINAL ACT, that if it occurred in a court, would land the prosecutors in jail and their law licenses removed for life.

Nothing this committee does now is acceptable in any court of law. They manufactured a lie as truth, under oath.

Nope. No even close

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nope. No even close

Just wow... Your OK with committing criminal acts as long as it furthers your political agenda... The only way we defeat people like you is by force. Hope you all are ready for a fight, because it's coming soon, good men and women are waking up to those who would take their freedoms.

 

[Lesh]

The only way we defeat people like you is by force.

So you're planning on/hoping for violence.

Yea...you're a Trumper

 

[Winco]

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, a critical figure in the final days of the Trump White House, will testify before the House select committee behind closed doors on Friday, that's TODAY, according to sources familiar with the committee's work.

The right wingers here don't know how to react to Cipollone YET.

1). Tells the truth and implicates trump......... lying traitor
2). Tells the truth and defends trump........... loyal servant.
3). Takes the 5th.......... You know he is hiding something, but loyal

I'm guessing #1......... He's NOT falling on the sword for trump.

 

[berg80]

The people responsible for pushing this phony investigation should have to reimburse the American taxpayer for its cost. You would have thought that after the Russia hoax,

What hoax?

It has been asserted hundreds of times by occupants of Trumpworld........the collusion hoax. It comes up in all manner of contexts. Most recently as a way to dismiss the 1/6 committee's work. Let's see what the facts say.

Manafort conspired with Kilimnik to give the Kremlin internal polling data. US says Russia was given Trump campaign polling data in 2016
Polling data that could have been useful for Putin in targeting Americans with the social media campaign he used to help Don get elected.

Russian fake accounts showed posts to 126 million Facebook users​

Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google will all be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on Tuesday.
www.usatoday.com

Donnie J entered in to a conspiracy with Russians to obtain dirt on Hillary he was told was in the possession of the Russian government. Mueller Confirms: Don Jr. Was Too Stupid to Collude

Those two incidents alone prove a conspiracy.

There's this.. FBI documents reveal communication between Stone, Assange

Which coincides with this...https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/trump-had-call-with-roger-stone-about-wikileaks-rick-gates-says.html

Not to mention this...............Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
and this.......A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?
and this in regard to the evidence Trump obstructed Mueller's investigation. Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map
and this......

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

President Donald Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation if he did not hold the nation's highest office, nearly 700 former federal prosecutors argued in an open letter published on Medium on Monday.

The ex-prosecutors — who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Dwight D. Eisenhower — said Attorney General William Barr's decision not to charge Trump with obstruction "runs counter to logic and our experience."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

All of which creates, for Trumpleton's, the same level of cognitive dissonance Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony has created. Shattering the duplicitous narrative right wing media has pushed from the beginning about the events surrounding 1/6.

It's why Trumpleton's will employ every tool for denial, deflection, and of course gratuitous insults (their stock and trade) in response to this thread.

 

[berg80]

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, a critical figure in the final days of the Trump White House, will testify before the House select committee behind closed doors on Friday, that's TODAY, according to sources familiar with the committee's work.

The right wingers here don't know how to react to Cipollone YET.

1). Tells the truth and implicates trump......... lying traitor
2). Tells the truth and defends trump........... loyal servant.
3). Takes the 5th.......... You know he is hiding something, but loyal

I'm guessing #1......... He's NOT falling on the sword for trump.

Decision Point 2: Answering the Committee’s Questions​

If Cipollone makes the rational decision to appear for a deposition, the next question is whether he can claim any valid privileges against the questions he will be asked. Depending on what his testimony would be, it is perhaps theoretically possible that Cipollone might consider invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, though that would itself be a damning act and inconsistent with his earlier agreement to meet informally with the committee. Putting aside an assertion of Fifth Amendment, which seems practically inconceivable, there is no good faith basis for him to refuse to answer the committee’s questions on any assertion of a legal privilege.

The most straightforward evidence for this conclusion is that many other Trump administration lawyers have already appeared before the committee and testified to their discussions with Trump. Former Attorney General William Barr, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former Assistant Attorney General Stephen Engel, among many other attorneys well versed in the law of privilege, have all appeared publicly to testify about their interactions with (and provision of legal advice to) Trump. Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann has also appeared and testified about his communications with Trump. Also important, these senior officials testified about what Cipollone himself said in these meetings.

The Law Requires Pat Cipollone to Answer the Jan. 6 Committee’s Questions

Former White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston writes about the legal and professional implications for Trump's White House Counsel if Cipollone refuses to appear and fully answer the committee's questions.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[berg80]

Decision Point 2: Answering the Committee’s Questions​

If Cipollone makes the rational decision to appear for a deposition, the next question is whether he can claim any valid privileges against the questions he will be asked. Depending on what his testimony would be, it is perhaps theoretically possible that Cipollone might consider invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, though that would itself be a damning act and inconsistent with his earlier agreement to meet informally with the committee. Putting aside an assertion of Fifth Amendment, which seems practically inconceivable, there is no good faith basis for him to refuse to answer the committee’s questions on any assertion of a legal privilege.

The most straightforward evidence for this conclusion is that many other Trump administration lawyers have already appeared before the committee and testified to their discussions with Trump. Former Attorney General William Barr, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former Assistant Attorney General Stephen Engel, among many other attorneys well versed in the law of privilege, have all appeared publicly to testify about their interactions with (and provision of legal advice to) Trump. Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann has also appeared and testified about his communications with Trump. Also important, these senior officials testified about what Cipollone himself said in these meetings.

The Law Requires Pat Cipollone to Answer the Jan. 6 Committee’s Questions

Former White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston writes about the legal and professional implications for Trump's White House Counsel if Cipollone refuses to appear and fully answer the committee's questions.

www.justsecurity.org

Second, whereas the White House Counsel represents the President in his official capacity, much (or all) of Trump’s conduct relating to the January 6 Committee was undertaken in his personal or campaign capacity. This conclusion is supported by a decision recently issued by Judge Amit Mehta (including relying on the Justice Department’s brief in that case); as well as by the reasoning set forth in a recent Brookings report concerning Trump’s conduct targeting the election in Georgia. Stated simply, the President has no legitimate role in the Joint Session of Congress held pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment. Trump’s efforts to corrupt and obstruct the Joint Session—including his incitement of an armed, violent mob to attack the Capitol—reflected his private pursuit of power, not any presidential function.

 

[forkup]

So, you're saying that we should listen to more hearsay?

If Cippolone is asked about conversations he had with the President it wouldn't be hearsay now would it.

 

[forkup]

Anything the committee does now is tainted. They Suborned Perjury from a witness of a known lie. Called a special session to put forth that lie right before the July 4 Break. Before they were finished with the clown show the witnesses story had been totally discredited.

Now they put forth another disgruntled ex-employee. Claiming that he will cooberate Hutchinsons now discredited story.

You people never learn. Due to the COMMITTEE'S criminal misconduct and suborning perjury from witnesses UNDER OATH, nothing they put forth will be seen with ANY credibility.
This committee has imploded and is not credible. Nothing they bring forth can be used in court because they SUBORNED PERJURY. The COMMITEE LIED, committed a criminal act to frame Trump. The only thing that should be happening to this sham is disbandment.

Cipollone received a SUBPOENA. And I don't know what he will testify to. But I'll ask again. CAN YOU STATE THAT A PRESIDENT WISHING HIS VP HARM AND BEING UNWILLING TO INTERVENE IS DISQUALIFYING FOR HIM TO RUN AGAIN?

 

[berg80]

Hearsay doesn't even apply in congressional hearings. Do you think Benghazigate hearings didn't involve "hearsay" or hillary's emails. Hearsay is just a rule of evidence used in courts, which hearings are not. It's more akin to someone telling a cop who found a body, "I heard Mary say she was gonna shoot somebody." You can't prove Mary did the shooting with just that. But you can use the statement to show why Mary got taken in for questioning and then said "I shot the lying cheating bastard cause he impregnated my sister and her cousin both!" LOL

The wails of indignation coming from Trumpleton's about hearsay come as a result of the steadfast refusal of Trump acolytes, some with criminal exposure of their own, refusing to testify.

 

[berg80]

Anything the committee does now is tainted.

How you wish it were so.

 

[forkup]

The wails of indignation coming from Trumpleton's about hearsay come as a result of the steadfast refusal of Trump acolytes, some with criminal exposure of their own, refusing to testify.

They aren't even applying it correctly if it was a judicial matter. Hearsay applies in court. It doesn't apply to an investigation. The FBI for instance can use hearsay testimony in order to show probable cause.

 

[Lesh]

Most Common Hearsay Exceptions​

There are twenty-three exceptions in the federal rules that allow for out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence even if the person made them is available to appear in court. However, only a handful of these are regularly used. The three most popularly used exceptions are:

1. Present Sense Impression. A hearsay statement may be allowed if it describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the event or immediately after it.
2. Excited Utterance. Closely related to the present sense impression is the hearsay exception for an excited utterance. The requirements for this exception to apply is that there must have been a startling event and the declarant made the statement while under the excitement or stress of the event.
3. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement that is not offered for the truth of the statement, but rather to show the state of mind, emotion or physical condition can be an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. For instance, testimony that there was a heated argument can be offered to show anger and not for what was said.

 

[Seymour Flops]

For over a week now we have been privileged to hear all the people on the right talk about hearsay. So let me be the first to congratulate all of you that another piece of hearsay we got from Cassidy. Namely where she said that Cippolone and Meadows had a conversation with Trump on Jan 6th, in which Trump said something to the effect that he figured Pence deserved what was happening to him at the Capitol.

If this is confirmed, would any of you then feel Trump should not get to be in office again? Or is it acceptable for a president to endanger the Vice-President purposefully and then refuse to do anything to help him?

Honestly, very little that Trump says would either qualify or disqualify him for the presidency. Trump talks out of his ass a lot. He uses a lot of hyperbole, more like a political polemicist than a politician. So he runs into the liberal-democrat rhetorical technique of pretending that there is no such thing as hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek, or irony or sarcasm.

It's like when Trump said that he would build a wall, a step that is blindingly obvious in the face of the crises at the border perpetuated by leaders of both parties for decades. It turned out that he didn't really mean it, not unless he got full approval from congress.

I wish I could assume that your statement about Trump endangering the vice president purposefully and then refusing to do anything to help him is hyperbole, also. But I am sure that the media has convinced you that that is what happened. They lied to you.

Trump did nothing to endanger the VP, and he offered to help avoid violence at the Capital by sending in National Guard, days ahead of the certification day.

Said offer was rejected by the loony Dems.

 

[forkup]

Honestly, very little that Trump says would either qualify or disqualify him for the presidency. Trump talks out of his ass a lot. He uses a lot of hyperbole, more like a political polemicist than a politician. So he runs into the liberal-democrat rhetorical technique of pretending that there is no such thing as hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek, or irony or sarcasm.

It's like when Trump said that he would build a wall, a step that is blindingly obvious in the face of the crises at the border perpetuated by leaders of both parties for decades. It turned out that he didn't really mean it, not unless he got full approval from congress.

I wish I could assume that your statement about Trump endangering the vice president purposefully and then refusing to do anything to help him is hyperbole, also. But I am sure that the media has convinced you that that is what happened. They lied to you.

Trump did nothing to endanger the VP, and he offered to help avoid violence at the Capital by sending in National Guard, days ahead of the certification day.

Said offer was rejected by the loony Dems.

I have my information from under oath testimony. That can now be corroborated or denied by Cipollone. You have your information from the internet I suspect that can be debunked by citing primary sources.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hearsay doesn't even apply in congressional hearings. Do you think Benghazigate hearings didn't involve "hearsay" or hillary's emails. Hearsay is just a rule of evidence used in courts, which hearings are not. It's more akin to someone telling a cop who found a body, "I heard Mary say she was gonna shoot somebody." You can't prove Mary did the shooting with just that. But you can use the statement to show why Mary got taken in for questioning and then said "I shot the lying cheating bastard cause he impregnated my sister and her cousin both!" LOL

I don't know of any hearsay in the benghazigate hearings. Please give examples.

I don't doubt that Mary can be taken in for questioning based on such hearsay. But that doesn't mean hearsay is legitimate. It means that our police are not held accountable when they arrest someone on such a flimsy premise.