Meadows Aide Spills The Beans

[eagle1462010]

OK?
And your point is?
Nobody is claiming this is a court. A trial.
It is a 'hearing'. An exposition of what was learned in an extensive investigation.
It's purpose is to inform the legislature so that they can make better laws, or improve old laws.
It has the subsidiary benefit of also informing the American public.
What their investigation reveals, some of which we may see in public testimony, is not for the Committee to adjudicate.
If...IF....there are indictable actions revealed in the investigation.....then it is up to the DOJ to indict, and prosecute.

Such courtroom issues as the admissibility of hearsay evidence will be determined by the rules of evidence and by the presiding judge at that time and place.
Having said that, there is value in what is described as 'hearsay' at this point.
Meaning, it can lead investigators to other sources, other issues, other evidence, other people-of-interest.

To fuss, fret and hissyfit over the legal definition of 'hearsay' now is silly. It is NOT applicable at this point.
It may....or may not.....be relevant in the future.
Stay tuned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your entire statement is a LIE. This has nothing to do with TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.

It is a POLITICAL SHOW and Lynching of the protesters and it ignores the facts that it was a set up. From open doors, to FBI agents there egging it on. To Pelosi not putting in the National Guard.

The Clown Court refused to allow the GOP members their selections and only gave a couple of RINOs who were only there because they are Dems anyway. The Swamp.

Where is Pelosi and being cross examined............lol.............Why did you not get extra security when told this event will be big and you need extra security.

It is A JOKE.

 

[BrokeLoser]

"Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, has sat for multiple depositions with investigators — more than 20 hours — and is expected to play a starring role in the hearings, according to people familiar with the matter. Hutchinson, people familiar with the committee said, has provided extensive information about Meadows’s activities in trying to overturn the election," The Washington Post reported Saturday. "The Washington Post reported late last month that Hutchinson had told the committee that Meadows remarked to others that Trump indicated support for hanging his vice president after rioters who stormed the Capitol on that day started chanting, 'Hang Mike Pence!'"

Never heard of Ms. Hutchinson, but she has given her information to the select committee about the COS Mark Meadows.
I can imagine how much info this woman had to report. Like the burning of documents. The hearings should be juicy, especially from others who also were "in the know"

Meet the little-known Trump aide who could âbe the next John Deanâ in the Jan. 6 hearings

Former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson plays a similar role in the upcoming Jan. 6 hearings as White House counsel John Dean in the Watergate hearings. "Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, has sat for multiple depositions with investigators —...

www.rawstory.com

From what I've seen, they're hoping that she'll come close to the John Dean model. I wonder if she's spoken to the DOJ.

Trump tried to get everyone to sign non disclosure agreements.

You clearly do not know what the word hearsay means.

No, I does note mean, "I heard him say...."

You might want to read up before attempting to use that word again.

What do you supposed caused her to decide to be forthcoming?
Is her conscience guiding her or is she simply somehow disgruntled and looking for retribution?

You could call the evidence presented in her testimony circumstantial, but you can’t seriously call it hearsay.

Well, if she directly heard someone make a statement, or read an email, it's neither hearsay nor circumstantial. I have no reason to not believe anything she says, unless someone chose to deny or contradict, but unless it's something really really going to the heart of showing Trump and his minions are corrupt and using positions of power to STILL try and steal power ... then what's the point? I dunno.

She was there

More like most voters hated Trump enough to vote for Biden. That really says something about Trump.

“The walls are closing in, we have him right where we want him.”
Episode 6,311

 

[Chillicothe]

Your entire statement is a LIE.

Umm?
What part was a "lie"?

 

[rightwinger]

“The walls are closing in, we have him right where we want him.”
Episode 6,311

DeSantis is very happy

 

[eagle1462010]

It's purpose is to inform the legislature so that they can make better laws, or improve old laws.
It has the subsidiary benefit of also informing the American public.

bs I call it a Lie.

If it was the truth they seek then they would have allowed GOP members not hand picked to cross examine.

It's just like the Impeachment BS. A investigation LOOKING FOR A CRIME. This is to target a political opponent and nothing more.

 

[Mac-7]

She reported what she was told,

Thats called rumor mongering

It has no place in a congressional hearing broadcast on TV

 

[kaz]

P

What is irrational about hating a president who lost the election because me and 80 million others voted against him for someone else, but he attempted to overturn the election by throwing my vote out telling me I do not count as an American.

Yes I hate the worthless lying racist asshole pile of fat scum, Donald J Trump. a liar .

if you were a great American and patriot you would hate him too. He tried to throw your vote out too, but the difference is you love him for that.

LOL, I'd say nice rebuttal to my saying you are in irrational hate of Trump, except wow, you proved what I said. You're a nut job and a racist and Trump was right, Democrats stole the election, racist

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Democrats stole the election

Why did Trump never try to prove it?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Why is hearsay often excluded as evidence?

• Why is hearsay often excluded as evidence? In general, hearsay is excluded from all court cases. This is primarily because hearsay is considered to be unreliable information that cannot be verified by direct cross-examination of the person purporting to have direct knowledge. What is an example of hearsay in the Court of law? Hearsay evidence is typically inadmissible in a court of law.
• IT MEANS THE "EVIDENCE" IS NOT FIRST-HAND.

Hearsay Evidence - FindLaw

The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple, but full of exceptions. At its core, the rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent second hand, out-of-court statements from being used against a defendant. Learn more about the rule against hearsay evidence and its exceptions at FindLaw's...

www.findlaw.com

One more time: The Select Committee is investigating, it is not a trial court.

 

[Chillicothe]

The Select Committee is investigating, it is not a trial court.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I know. You know. Most everybody who posts or lurks on this venue knows that.
But still, we get some of those types. I think of them as the 'intentionally obtuse.'
They simply won't get it, because.....they don't want to get it. So be it.

It's sad. Bigly.

I'm thinking, ---and anybody can offer pushback --- but I'm thinking we NEED an indictment on Trump.
Why? .....you ask.

Because then, and only then, can our esteemed QLoons get the "cross examination" they so fervently wish for.*



* Clue to the clue-full. Remember, both sides will get to cross-examine.
And that, as one could imagine, could become problematic. No?

 

[rightwinger]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I know. You know. Most everybody who posts or lurks on this venue knows that.
But still, we get some of those types. I think of them as the 'intentionally obtuse.'
They simply won't get it, because.....they don't want to get it. So be it.

It's sad. Bigly.

I'm thinking, ---and anybody can offer pushback --- but I'm thinking we NEED an indictment on Trump.
Why? .....you ask.

Because then, and only then, can our esteemed QLoons get the "cross examination" they so fervently wish for.*



* Clue to the clue-full. Remember, both sides will get to cross-examine.
And that, as one could imagine, could become problematic. No?

Republicans chose not to participate

Just so they could claim it was a witch hunt

 

[eagle1462010]

Republicans chose not to participate

Just so they could claim it was a witch hunt

Oh they asked for people to cross examine. Your side said know...........We'll offer Liz a deal for after to get her to be our bitch.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh they asked for people to cross examine. Your side said know...........We'll offer Liz a deal for after to get her to be our bitch.

Every Republican who wants to be on the committee is on it

If more Republicans wanted to cross examine, they could have volunteered

 

[Chillicothe]

Why did Trump never try to prove it?

Or, for that matter, why didn't poster Kaz ever try to prove it?

A puzzler. No?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'd say nice rebuttal to my saying you are in irrational hate of Trump,

Is it rational to accept a first term sitting president and loser of his run for a second term who:

A . Conspires with 84 Republicans in seven states that he lost, to sign forged, fake and phony election documents swearing under oath that the loser, (the one with less votes), is the actual winner of that state.

B . Pressures his VP to participate in the fraudulent scheme on January 6 by recognizing the fake Republican election documents and setting aside the real ones in order to declare the loser to be the winner.

C. Pushes steps A and B in order to create chaos in the election and the nation over the outcome of the certified election in which his opponent was the certified winner and he was the certified loser.

D. Expects the chaos to be resolved by shitcanning the votes of 150 million Americans in order to have a vote in the House of Reps where the loser of the election has the numerical advantage and expects to see himself as the “winner” and voted by Republicans-first/Americans-second to serve a second term.

E . Fails to “win” because his VP decided to not commit the fraud that was being Asked of him to make the loser the winner.

F . Because of E suffered the sadistic delusion that five million or so angry and devoted “Ashley Babbitts” were in DC (some with firearms) at the request of the loser to stop the proceedings and hang Mike Pence for disloyalty to God, the Father of JESUS, who has chosen the loser to be the rightful resident in the WH for more years.

G . Was angered because Secret Service wouid not let him lead his five million nutjobs to surround and capture the Capitol in order to ‘peacefully” stop the inauguration of Joe Biden but to inaugurate the loser instead.

H . Wanted the world to see that a man who could assemble five million MAGA “wailing idiots” to seize control of the nation’s CAPITOL has to be the ‘Winner” and not the loser of the 2020 election based on the ability to attract a huge crowd:

I . Had to give up the entire coup when he realized that only 2000 (not five million) showed up to fight the DEEP STATE and Mike Pence was not going to be hanged, but instead would defect to the Deep State and count the ‘real’ electors and ignore the fake ones .

H . Pouts Rants and raised money off being a loser, victim and failure once again.

If you do not hate Trump for that you are as dumb and as irrational as loser Ashley Babbitt was and look at her now.

I’m doing just fine, Assets went up $50k with current round of global post-Trump COVID19 recession induced inflation as most property owners are.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh they asked for people to cross examine. Your side said know...

Actually McCARTHY could have placed cross-examiners on the Committee, but not those who had a potential material connection to DJT’s portentual crimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it rational to accept a first term sitting president and loser of his run for a second term who:

A . Conspires with 84 Republicans in seven states that he lost, to sign forged, fake and phony election documents swearing under oath that the loser, (the one with less votes), is the actual winner of that state.

B . Pressures his VP to participate in the fraudulent scheme on January 6 by recognizing the fake Republican election documents and setting aside the real ones in order to declare the loser to be the winner.

C. Pushes steps A and B in order to create chaos in the election and the nation over the outcome of the certified election in which his opponent was the certified winner and he was the certified loser.

D. Expects the chaos to be resolved by shitcanning the votes of 150 million Americans in order to have a vote in the House of Reps where the loser of the election has the numerical advantage and expects to see himself as the “winner” and voted by Republicans-first/Americans-second to serve a second term.

E . Fails to “win” because his VP decided to not commit the fraud that was being Asked of him to make the loser the winner.

F . Because of E suffered the sadistic delusion that five million or so angry and devoted “Ashley Babbitts” were in DC (some with firearms) at the request of the loser to stop the proceedings and hang Mike Pence for disloyalty to God, the Father of JESUS, who has chosen the loser to be the rightful resident in the WH for more years.

G . Was angered because Secret Service wouid not let him lead his five million nutjobs to surround and capture the Capitol in order to ‘peacefully” stop the inauguration of Joe Biden but to inaugurate the loser instead.

H . Wanted the world to see that a man who could assemble five million MAGA “wailing idiots” to seize control of the nation’s CAPITOL has to be the ‘Winner” and not the loser of the 2020 election based on the ability to attract a huge crowd:

I . Had to give up the entire coup when he realized that only 2000 (not five million) showed up to fight the DEEP STATE and Mike Pence was not going to be hanged, but instead would defect to the Deep State and count the ‘real’ electors and ignore the fake ones .

H . Pouts Rants and raised money off being a loser, victim and failure once again.

If you do not hate Trump for that you are as dumb and as irrational as loser Ashley Babbitt was and look at her now.

I’m doing just fine, Assets went up $50k with current round of global post-Trump COVID19 recession induced inflation as most property owners are.

Trump tried to steal the election and was thwarted by Republicans who were loyal to the Constitution

 

[kaz]

Why did Trump never try to prove it?

Um ... he did ... the courts weren't interested in exploring it. So they demanded he prove it before they let it be investigated. What country are you from, anyway? Welcome to America! Appreciate it, FooledByEVERYONE

 

[kaz]

Is it rational to accept a first term sitting president and loser of his run for a second term who:

A . Conspires with 84 Republicans in seven states that he lost, to sign forged, fake and phony election documents swearing under oath that the loser, (the one with less votes), is the actual winner of that state.

B . Pressures his VP to participate in the fraudulent scheme on January 6 by recognizing the fake Republican election documents and setting aside the real ones in order to declare the loser to be the winner.

C. Pushes steps A and B in order to create chaos in the election and the nation over the outcome of the certified election in which his opponent was the certified winner and he was the certified loser.

D. Expects the chaos to be resolved by shitcanning the votes of 150 million Americans in order to have a vote in the House of Reps where the loser of the election has the numerical advantage and expects to see himself as the “winner” and voted by Republicans-first/Americans-second to serve a second term.

E . Fails to “win” because his VP decided to not commit the fraud that was being Asked of him to make the loser the winner.

F . Because of E suffered the sadistic delusion that five million or so angry and devoted “Ashley Babbitts” were in DC (some with firearms) at the request of the loser to stop the proceedings and hang Mike Pence for disloyalty to God, the Father of JESUS, who has chosen the loser to be the rightful resident in the WH for more years.

G . Was angered because Secret Service wouid not let him lead his five million nutjobs to surround and capture the Capitol in order to ‘peacefully” stop the inauguration of Joe Biden but to inaugurate the loser instead.

H . Wanted the world to see that a man who could assemble five million MAGA “wailing idiots” to seize control of the nation’s CAPITOL has to be the ‘Winner” and not the loser of the 2020 election based on the ability to attract a huge crowd:

I . Had to give up the entire coup when he realized that only 2000 (not five million) showed up to fight the DEEP STATE and Mike Pence was not going to be hanged, but instead would defect to the Deep State and count the ‘real’ electors and ignore the fake ones .

H . Pouts Rants and raised money off being a loser, victim and failure once again.

If you do not hate Trump for that you are as dumb and as irrational as loser Ashley Babbitt was and look at her now.

I’m doing just fine, Assets went up $50k with current round of global post-Trump COVID19 recession induced inflation as most property owners are.

Democrats just love you, you'll believe anything they make up. That and you're a racist. Democrats love racists, always have. Pick up a history book and read about your party's connection to black oppression and racism since the Civil War. Why do you think they welcomed you so much into their party? You're a racist, it's home!

 

[rightwinger]

Um ... he did ... the courts weren't interested in exploring it. So they demanded he prove it before they let it be investigated. What country are you from, anyway? Welcome to America! Appreciate it, FooledByEVERYONE

Trump knew better than take his unfounded claims to court.
So he had his lawyers do it……They were laughed out of court
Some were disbarred