Hearsay and the Cipollone testimony.

[forkup]

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

Technically it's an investigation to try to ascertain facts in order to draw up legislation to prevent this from happening again. Public opinion is secondary, and of course, criminality is a matter for the DOJ.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's being taped.

Ever heard of selective editing?

Furthermore, if he is being misrepresented Cippolone would have plenty of chances to refute the characterization of his testimony.

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!"

Tucker Carlson would be glad to have him on his show for something like that.

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?

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

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?

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

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.

 

[Lesh]

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.

No. It's NOT "like that"

At All

 

[Independent thinker]

No. It's NOT "like that"

At All

Sure it is. House democrats can abuse their power however the hell they want with a simple vote of 218-217, including having a kangaroo investigation where they round up political enemies and convict them in their kangaroo court. If you don't believe me, then you will understand a lot better after Republicans win back the House. Turnabout is fair play. If that's the way you want to play the game then we'll play that game with your very own rules starting next January.

 

[Lesh]

Sure it is. House democrats can abuse their power however the hell they want with a simple vote of 218-217, including having a kangaroo investigation where they round up political enemies and convict them in their kangaroo court. If you don't believe me, then you will understand a lot better after Republicans win back the House. Turnabout is fair play. If that's the way you want to play the game then we'll play that game with your very own rules starting next January.

So the penalty here is hanging...ya know...like in those Nazi courts that were "exactly like this"?

No?

Ohhh

 

[berg80]

The committee wants every Republican's testimony

Indeed they do. Proving that they want a complete picture of what happened.

I should note the extraordinary degree of cooperation by the vast majority of Repubs the committee sought testimony from. Many who worked for Trump. That's a departure from what we saw during most of his presidency. I believe the reason so many were finally forthcoming (though they kept silent until now) is while they held their collective noses during much of the heinous acts they witnessed, the attempted coup was a bridge too far. It even caused a number of cabinet members to resign in disgust.

 

[jc456]

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?

Got him this time

 

[berg80]

Sure it is. House democrats can abuse their power

Good thing they haven't. Otherwise they could legitimately be accused of acting like Trump. For example, when he tried to extort Zelensky in order to get help with the campaign against Biden in 2020.

 

[jc456]

So the penalty here is hanging...ya know...like in those Nazi courts that were "exactly like this"?

No?

Ohhh

You got him this time! When’s it going to court?

 

[berg80]

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?

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

 

[jc456]

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.

nope. must be remarks heard from a defendant, the hearsay is from others and not a defendant.

What is admissible hearsay evidence? – Sweatlodgeradio.com

www.sweatlodgeradio.com

 

[Lesh]

nope. must be remarks heard from a defendant, the hearsay is from others and not a defendant.

What is admissible hearsay evidence? – Sweatlodgeradio.com

www.sweatlodgeradio.com

He just explained that this being a hearing and not a trial … those rules do not apply

 

[jc456]

He just explained that this being a hearing and not a trial … those rules do not apply

So as I already explained, it can’t go to court, so what’s the purpose?

It’s hearsay nonsense. Are you excited over it?

 

[Lesh]

So as I already explained, it can’t go to court, so what’s the purpose?

It’s hearsay nonsense. Are you excited over it?

It is a fact finding exercise and that is important in a democracy.

Am I excited? No…. Especially about the silly “steering wheel” story

What I do see as important is the fact that Trump knew his supporters were armed and not only didn’t care, not only tried to facilitate that by demanding metal detectors be removed, but wanted to lead that armed and angry mob to the Capitol in an attempt to stop the electoral count

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is a fact finding exercise and that is important in a democracy.

Am I excited? No…. Especially about the silly “steering wheel” story

What I do see as important is the fact that Trump knew his supporters were armed and not only didn’t care,

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

 

[Independent thinker]

So the penalty here is hanging...ya know...like in those Nazi courts that were "exactly like this"?

No?

Ohhh

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?

 

[Independent thinker]

Indeed they do. Proving that they want a complete picture of what happened.

I should note the extraordinary degree of cooperation by the vast majority of Repubs the committee sought testimony from. Many who worked for Trump. That's a departure from what we saw during most of his presidency. I believe the reason so many were finally forthcoming (though they kept silent until now) is while they held their collective noses during much of the heinous acts they witnessed, the attempted coup was a bridge too far. It even caused a number of cabinet members to resign in disgust.

Just as I said, just like in Nazi Germany where they would round up all of their enemies and dispose of them with a kangaroo court.

 

[Independent thinker]

Good thing they haven't. Otherwise they could legitimately be accused of acting like Trump. For example, when he tried to extort Zelensky in order to get help with the campaign against Biden in 2020.

Of course they have. They can do whatever the hell they want in the House with a simple vote of 218-217. You'll find out when Republicans take back the House and you will understand much better. Then you will be screaming Republicans are out to take democracy away, just as Democrats are doing today.