Hearsay and the Cipollone testimony.

[Lesh]

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.

"he didn't really mean it"

And yet that is the basis for so much of his blind support

 

[Independent thinker]

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

Why didn't they go straight to the horse's mouth right from the beginning? Think about it. There is a reason why the breaking news bombshell testimony was she said he said. But, alas, your fantasy life goes on and on. I do realize this takes your mind off the state of the country when it comes to paying your rent or mortgage, gas, groceries, and everything else. Your obsession about Trump takes your mind off the horrors that every day Americans are feeling right now. Somehow getting Trump is worth high inflation, rising interest rates, and the fact that we have probably already started a recession. But, orange man bad.

 

[Lesh]

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.

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.

I guess you missed that post

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

Did you even read my post? Everything in it assumes, for the sake of argument, that Trump actually said what Cassidy said that someone said that Trump said.

Re-read if you want to learn and grow. continue to post with no information if you do not

 

[forkup]

Why didn't they go straight to the horse's mouth right from the beginning? Think about it. There is a reason why the breaking news bombshell testimony was she said he said. But, alas, your fantasy life goes on and on. I do realize this takes your mind off the state of the country when it comes to paying your rent or mortgage, gas, groceries, and everything else. Your obsession about Trump takes your mind off the horrors that every day Americans are feeling right now. Somehow getting Trump is worth high inflation, rising interest rates, and the fact that we have probably already started a recession. But, orange man bad.

Maybe because the horse's mouth refused to testify. This is another thing that was well documented.

 

[Lesh]

Did you even read my post? Everything in it assumes, for the sake of argument, that Trump actually said what Cassidy said that someone said that Trump said.

Re-read if you want to learn and grow. continue to post with no information if you do not

You're basing your nonsense on a claim that "Trump said all of that but didn't really mean it"?

His state of mind says you're wrong

 

[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?

I responded above without realizing that you were the OP, forkup.

If Cippolone is going to testify behind closed doors, how are we doing to have confirmation of anything, if we don't get to hear the testimony? Are we to simply "trust Schiff" to tell us what Cippolone said at his next press conference?

That would just be more hearsay, right?

 

[berg80]

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.

Hearsay is the latest meme Trumpletard's are using to squirm out from under the weight of Cassidy's piercing testimony.

 

[forkup]

I responded above without realizing that you were the OP, forkup.

If Cippolone is going to testify behind closed doors, how are we doing to have confirmation of anything, if we don't get to hear the testimony? Are we to simply "trust Schiff" to tell us what Cippolone said at his next press conference?

That would just be more hearsay, right?

It's being taped. Furthermore, if he is being misrepresented Cippolone would have plenty of chances to refute the characterization of his testimony. Tucker Carlson would be glad to have him on his show for something like that.

 

[bripat9643]

Hearsay is the latest meme Trumpletard's are using to squirm out from under the weight of Cassidy's piercing testimony.

No, hearsay is the correct label for the Dim's latest tactic. Her testimony was pure bullshit.

 

[Independent thinker]

Maybe because the horse's mouth refused to testify. This is another thing that was well documented.

LOL. So, someone doesn't want to perjure themselves with the false testimony democrats are trying to pressure them to give so then democrats accept hearsay evidence so that the kangaroo committee can "prove" their allegations. How convenient.

 

[berg80]

Why didn't they go straight to the horse's mouth right from the beginning?

What?! They've been trying to get Cipolonne to testify for months.

 

[buckeye45_73]

None, of it is even attempting to address the premise of my post.

Care to try again?

Becasue you post doesn't say anything. What was happening to Pence?

 

[berg80]

LOL. So, someone doesn't want to perjure themselves with the false testimony democrats are trying to pressure them to give so then democrats accept hearsay evidence so that the kangaroo committee can "prove" their allegations. How convenient.

What the hell are you talking about? The committee wants his testimony so they have a complete understanding of what transpired. Enough with your freakish twisting of logic and reason.

 

[forkup]

Becasue you post doesn't say anything. What was happening to Pence?

I assumed this was public knowledge.

 

[Independent thinker]

What?! They've been trying to get Cipolonne to testify for months.

So, when they can't, out comes the hearsay as bombshell breaking news?

 

[Independent thinker]

What the hell are you talking about? The committee wants his testimony so they have a complete understanding of what transpired. Enough with your freakish twisting of logic and reason.

The committee wants every Republican's testimony for their kangaroo investigation. It's like Nazi Germany and the Gestapo, round up your enemies and use a kangaroo court to find them guilty so that you have no enemies left and you can remain in power forever. A page right out of the Putin playbook. If you have to use hearsay evidence to convict, no problem. In the real world hearsay evidence is not bombshell breaking news.

 

[forkup]

LOL. So, someone doesn't want to perjure themselves with the false testimony democrats are trying to pressure them to give so then democrats accept hearsay evidence so that the kangaroo committee can "prove" their allegations. How convenient.

You can't have it both ways. Either you have a problem with hearsay. In which case, you would welcome Cipollone's testimony . Or you accept Hutchinson's testimony as credible.

This "yea we don't want Cipollone's testimony because the committee will make him lie" is a transparent excuse to get out of learning the truth. There is no way anyone can make somebody lie by asking him questions.

 

[forkup]

The committee wants every Republican's testimony for their kangaroo investigation. It's like Nazi Germany and the Gestapo, round up your enemies and use a kangaroo court to find them guilty so that you have no enemies left and you can remain in power forever. A page right out of the Putin playbook. If you have to use hearsay evidence to convict, no problem. In the real world hearsay evidence is not bombshell breaking news.

They want Republican's testifying because you guys wouldn't accept the words of Democrats. In fact, as you show, you aren't even willing to trust the words of Republicans no matter how close they are to Trump.

 

[bendog]

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.

A congressional hearing is an investigation, albeit one for public opinion more than actually discovering facts. But like any investigation, the fact finders seek hearsay testimony all the time. And like you say, it can be used to support a search warrant or phone tap