Hearsay and the Cipollone testimony.

[Independent thinker]

You've become a one trick pony.

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. That exemption applies to statements uttered by a party or an opponent in a court case. Litigation is adversarial, and parties who are named plaintiffs (in civil cases) and named defendants (in criminal and civil cases) cannot use the hearsay rules to prevent their own out-of-court statements from being testified to by a witness. Think about it: police officers testify every day in America about things criminal defendants said to them. Criminal defendants cannot use the hearsay rule to stymie such testimony because the statements uttered are those of a party (themselves) and an opponent (also themselves). Because this is a congressional hearing with no officially named parties or opponents, it’s very difficult to parse out what parts of Hutchinson’s testimony the hearsay rules might exclude or what the hearsay rules might include.

House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.

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 complex.

lawandcrime.com

Talk about a one trick pony.

 

[Lesh]

So, that's the only response you can come up, since they aren't going to be shot or hanged, then it's not a case of rounding up your enemies in a kangaroo court?

Just pointing out how full of shit you are

Godwin agrees

 

[Lesh]

That isn't a fact, it's testimony from a witness who voided her own credibility by telling the silly steering story.

Only on the minds of those trying vainly to protect Trump

 

[Independent thinker]

Just pointing out how full of shit you are

Godwin agrees

Let's see what you think come January and the shoe is on the other foot. You will be screaming kangaroo courts, rounding up your enemies, and taking democracy away. Guess you only feel that way when the other side is in power. When your side is in power it's just fine.

 

[forkup]

Ever heard of selective editing?

At which time you will say "he says that when he's not under oath! Honest Adam Schiff told us what said when he was under oath! Honest Adam heard and he said. That's why hearsay is always true!"

At which time you'll say "I don't watch Tuckems on Faux News!"

The purpose of closed door testimony is to hide something from voters/taxpayers. What are they hiding?

Where's the video from the capital security cameras? Hidden because reasons?

Ever heard of selective editing?

I have heard of it. Any reason to believe it will work?

At which time you will say "he says that when he's not under oath! Honest Adam Schiff told us what said when he was under oath! Honest Adam heard and he said. That's why hearsay is always true!"

You do not know me, you can not level accusations at me for something you THINK I would do just so you can get out facing the fact that the Jan 6th committee would not be able to distort Cipolones testimony for the simple reason they would get caught immediatly.

At which time you'll say "I don't watch Tuckems on Faux News!"

The purpose of closed door testimony is to hide something from voters/taxpayers. What are they hiding?

Same deal, and the reason for it being closed doors is because that were the conditions Cipollone set in order to testify.

Where's the video from the capital security cameras? Hidden because reasons?

Quite a lot of security footage in it. Not only that but I think I can think of a reason or 2 to not simply show every last detail of a secure building.

I also want to reflect on this. You are already trying to find arguments to discredit a testimony you haven't even heard. Think about that. You are already trying to find(bad) justifications to dismiss the testimony of the White House Counsel. That is a clear sign you kind of know that the truth will be probably damning.

 

[forkup]

hearsay is hearsay is hearsay. Is that the best you can come up with? Really? Trump is supposedly guilty of treason and everything else in the law book and the best you can come up with is hearsay? That's worthy of bombshell breaking news?

It's like you get half a talking point and think it's some magic shield. Hearsay is admissible in order to show probable cause in the judicial system, which this isn't. From it, you can justify subpoenas, which happened in the case of Cipollone. And if Cipollone testifies about conversations he had with Trump IT WOULD NOT BE HEARSAY.

 

[forkup]

It is just like Nazi Germany where the Gestapo round up your political enemies and get rid of them with a kangaroo court. Then you try to claim that it is the other side attacking democracy.

What has that got to do with you not accepting the words of those that were on Trump's side? That's not even a deflection, it's simply completely ignoring what's being said

 

[2aguy]

Did the Manson girls stop loving Charlie?

There is nothing the committee or the DOJ can do or show or demonstrate or prove that will matter to these people. At worst, they'll create an excuse in their minds to vote for De Santis.

But the orange demigod will always be the orange demigod.

This committee? All democrats with two antitrump republicans and for the first time, the democrats refused to allow the republicans to pick their members

The democrats picked the witnesses

The democrats edited the video

The republicans couldn’t bring in their own witnesses or ask their own questions


Yeah….. you are a typical fool

 

[Independent thinker]

It's like you get half a talking point and think it's some magic shield. Hearsay is admissible in order to show probable cause in the judicial system, which this isn't. From it, you can justify subpoenas, which happened in the case of Cipollone. And if Cipollone testifies about conversations he had with Trump IT WOULD NOT BE HEARSAY.

LOL. It's just funny that that is the best you've got. It's also funny that even if the hearsay is true, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. So what if Trump lunged for the steering wheel and wanted to be with his supporters? Big deal! So, what if he cleared his supporters to enter the area with guns? The fact is, Trump was right, the protesters didn't use guns on anyone!

 

[Mac1958]

This committee? All democrats with two antitrump republicans and for the first time, the democrats refused to allow the republicans to pick their members

The democrats picked the witnesses

The democrats edited the video

The republicans couldn’t bring in their own witnesses or ask their own questions


Yeah….. you are a typical fool

Okay, Trumpster.

 

[Independent thinker]

What has that got to do with you not accepting the words of those that were on Trump's side? That's not even a deflection, it's simply completely ignoring what's being said

Are you referring to the hearsay words that, as I just said in my other post, even if true, don't mean anything?

 

[Clipper]

Remember when Trump knocked the 2 Secret Service Agents unconscious and commandeered the Presidental limo and tried to run over Mike Pence for not declaring Trump President for Life?

And Trump wanted the SS to drive him to the Capital to do what?

 

[forkup]

Are you referring to the hearsay words that, as I just said in my other post, even if true, don't mean anything?

I'm done talking to someone who's deliberately obtuse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And Trump wanted the SS to drive him to the Capital to do what?

To run over Mike Pence for not declaring Trump President for Life!

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have heard of it. Any reason to believe it (selectively editing the video of Cipolones) will work?

Yes.

You.

You do not know me, you can not level accusations at me for something you THINK I would do just so you can get out facing the fact that the Jan 6th committee would not be able to distort Cipolones testimony for the simple reason they would get caught immediatly.

How would that happen, exactly?

Same deal, and the reason for it being closed doors is because that were the conditions Cipollone set in order to testify.

Then he obviously plans to lie.

Or he is ashamed of what he will say for some reason.

Quite a lot of security footage in it. Not only that but I think I can think of a reason or 2 to not simply show every last detail of a secure building.

I'm not talking about selectively released footage, even if it is "quite a lot of security footage." I'll watch it, even though I have to guess that it is some heavily edited propaganda piece. Youtube won't let me watch it in the message, and it doesn't open from the message board into a Youtube tab, so I need a link that will work, or the name of the video so I can find it. If you want me to watch it.

Whatever it is, it will certainly be no substitute for the Capital Police simply releasing all of the footage unedited as required by the Freedom of Information Act, and the Open Records Act. Why haven't they done that long since if the footage will be so damning to Trump?

Why do Dems think the laws they pass don't apply to themselves?

I also want to reflect on this. You are already trying to find arguments to discredit a testimony you haven't even heard. Think about that. You are already trying to find(bad) justifications to dismiss the testimony of the White House Counsel. That is a clear sign you kind of know that the truth will be probably damning.

Meanwhile, you are doing the happy dance over testimony that you not only haven't heard, but will likely never hear. You know that you will likely never hear it, right? You may hear leaks of carefully selected parts, either the audio or a summary, but releasing evidence unedited goes against all this committee has done so far.

Do you get how absurd it is for a liar like Adam Schiff to tell us that he won't show us the video, but he will be happy to give us his hearsay version? Does he really think that is credible to anyone NOT in the thrall of Trump Derangement Syndrome?

To liberals, Trump is like the cute boy that rejected them in Junior High and now they want to mean-girl him for the rest of their lives.

Get over it, sheesh!