Political discussions about everything
By elklindo69
#134230
You can't make this stuff up. And don't blame me for electing this fucking lunatic. Trump is an absolute nutcase. Someone get a padded cell ready down at Arkham and lock him up and throw the key down the sewer.

1. The Jan 6 commission believes that they have evidence of witness tampering.

2. Trump's top aides requested pardons.

3. Proud boys had a line of communication to the White House.

4. Trump assaulted a secret service agent.

5. Trump unsuccessfully attempted to commandeer a secret service limousine.

6. Trump knew the Capitol rioters had weapons.

7. Trump threw lunch leaving ketchup stains on the wall (must have been a real shitty Big Mac).
#134250
It's sworn testimony under oath. And they know who the sources of the info., so if they have any issues they can testify under oath to verify.

I do find it interesting that MAGAland is claiming hearsay.....and I also find it interesting and not very surprising that nobody has volunteered to refute Hutchinson's testimony under oath.

I wonder when we will hear from Trump under oath????
#134273
"Calm down, this is just hearsay."-johnfoibles


"The not-so-subtle insinuation is that Hutchinson’s testimony isn’t credible — that no one should believe what she said because it is hearsay. The reality is both a lot more complicated and a lot less of a criticism than those leveling it want you to believe. At the risk of bringing nuance to a mud fight, here goes.

The textbook definition of hearsay is “an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” In other words, someone says something (or writes something down), and one side in a legal dispute wants to use that statement in a trial to prove not that the statement was made (that’s usually fine), but that its substantive content is correct. Imagine I saw John Doe jaywalking and told my friend Mike. It’s not hearsay if I testify about what I saw. But it is hearsay if Mike testifies as to what I told him I saw. The default rule is that such evidence is inadmissible — because it’s unreliable; just because I said something to Mike is n’t evidence that what I said is true, whereas my testifying to what I saw firsthand is.

With all of that having been said, there are three critical caveats to this (seemingly) broad understanding. First, hearsay applies only to judicial proceedings — to contexts in which hearsay is potentially being used to formally establish someone’s legal liability. (Hence the definition’s focus on out-of-court statements.) There’s no comparable hearsay rule in the court of public opinion or, as relevant here, in congressional proceedings, because there’s no formal establishment of liability in either. And no defendant whose right to confront adverse witnesses is at stake. Thus, even if every single word of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony on Tuesday would have been hearsay had it been given in court (and it wasn’t), that doesn’t make it inappropriate fodder for Congress.

Second, as anyone who has suffered through a law school evidence class can tell you, [johnforbes apparently hasn't] the hearsay rule is riddled with both exemptions and exceptions — circumstances in which statements that might otherwise appear to be hearsay are admissible, because they come with far fewer reliability concerns or they are far more likely to be probative (evidence of something relevant) or both. For instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence (which apply to all civil and criminal trials in federal court) don’t treat as hearsay many statements made by a “party opponent”; that is, someone on the other side of the dispute. So if Mark Meadows were charged with a crime, statements he made to Hutchinson wouldn’t be hearsay at all. And if a co-conspirator makes an admission to a third party in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime or a civil wrong, that can be admitted against all co-conspirators. In that respect, even if Hutchinson’s testimony had been part of a criminal proceeding (and, once again, it wasn’t), her testimony about what she saw and much of her testimony about what others told her wouldn’t have been hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence at all.

Even when statements do meet the definition of hearsay, they can still be admitted in court if they satisfy one of the “exceptions” to the hearsay rule.

Third, even when statements do meet the definition of hearsay, they can still be admitted in court if they satisfy one of the “exceptions” to the hearsay rule. For example, in federal court, witnesses can testify about “present-sense impressions”; that is, statements someone made about an event during it or immediately after it happened. Hutchinson’s testifying about text messages she exchanged with Meadows and others on Jan. 6, 2021, certainly meets that definition. The same is true for “excited utterances,” like Hutchinson’s testimony about Trump’s throwing his lunch against the wall. The Federal Rules of Evidence also allow witnesses to testify about “statements against interest” that others made to them, so long as the people who made the statements are unavailable — including because they have refused to testify themselves despite having been subpoenaed.

In other words, even if hearsay rules applied to congressional hearings (and, one last time, they don’t), the overwhelming majority of Hutchinson’s testimony would likely have been admissible — either because it wasn’t hearsay in the first place or because it was admissible hearsay owing to the nature of the statements and/or the refusal of those who made the statements about which she testified to put themselves in front of the Jan. 6 committee.

Were this a criminal trial, the one line of testimony about which there might be a colorable argument is Hutchinson’s statements about what Tony Ornato — a Secret Service agent who was the White House deputy chief of staff for operations — told her about Trump’s alleged altercation with a member of his Secret Service detail as he was leaving the Jan. 6 rally. But there are still several possible grounds on which even that statement might be admissible in a criminal trial, especially if there were other indications of the statement’s reliability or if Ornato refused to testify.

Of course, none of this proves that Hutchinson was telling the truth. The best evidence of that isn’t the applicability (or lack thereof) of hearsay rules; it is that Hutchinson gave her testimony under oath (lying to Congress is a felony whether you’re under oath or not, but the oath also raises the specter of perjury charges). And it doesn’t matter whether or not this current administration would decline to prosecute her; the statute of limitations for that offense is five years, meaning Hutchinson would be taking a heck of a risk by knowingly making false statements in her testimony.

The point here is one that even lawyers often forget — that Hutchinson’s testimony isn’t just about evidence; it is evidence itself. And that evidence is deeply important to the Jan. 6 committee’s work of fully unearthing the events leading up to and culminating in the violence at the Capitol. People are free to choose not to believe her (people are free to believe the Earth is flat), but contra the claims of Trump’s defenders, there’s just nothing inherently unreliable about virtually all of Hutchinson’s testimony and nothing inappropriate about the committee’s soliciting it and relying upon it."-Steve Vladeck


And johnny repeatedly says he's a lawyer. *pffffftt*

There is far more reason to believe Hutchinson than Trump or anyone else who refuses to testify under oath.

Once again, johnforbes has been schooled. Or should I say FOR THE FIRST TIME johnforbes has been schooled? At least given his ignorant statement above, he has apparently never been to law school at all.
#134282
Conservatives are claiming her testimony is hearsay. So whoever was a potential eyewitness can testify UNDER OATH to clear things up.

Trump can go and testify UNDER OATH just like Hillary Clinton did.
#134312
And the Fictitious Forbes dumps another load of steaming bullshit on the board. You must be really full of it when you really think that we are going to believe that Hutchinson is going to apply for a job in Mar de Crappo. Who is the source of this latest nonsensical bullshit? Trump?

LMFAO

Hutchinson told all of us what we all know about Trump....he's some narcissistic whiny man child who would do anything to stay in power.
#134334
speaking of Trump...

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that former FBI leaders James Comey and Andrew McCabe — whom former President Donald Trump repeatedly called for to be investigated or imprisoned for not running the agency the way he wanted — were targeted for an extremely rare and invasive type of tax audit that the Internal Revenue Service claims is "random."

The Trump Curse :laugh: :laugh:
#134338
Clown has drifted into Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Sure, Clown has also had organic brain syndrome in which his "brain" turned into lime-flavored Jello, but Clown's lunacy has worsened given his Trump obsession.
#134343
johnny, when Trump got his appointees to use the IRS to attack "the best people" he had hired for his administration that he decided he didn't like any more because they stood up for America instead of kissing his ass, that is corruption.

It has nothing to do with your asinine "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
#134360
I'm wondering if Trump ends up spending the rest of his life in prison trying to figure out what the term "seditious conspiracy" means. However it would be more entertaining to hear how Margie bet the corrections officer.
#134382
Another slip up by johnforbes.

He just revealed his real name is Charles Farrell. That fruity, effete guy in the home movie he posted. (Time stamp 0:30 to 1:00)

He misses the days when he could spank little children and control women.
#134392
No, that is not my name, but Clownswisher is indeed fruity and effete.

Normally, fruit is good for a person.

However, when a person is neon sign fruity like Clown, the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle changes.

After a ketoglutarate undergoes oxidative decarboxylation to form succinyl CoA, a 4C compound, the reaction is catalyzed by the 𝝰-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzyme complex. One molecule of CO2 is released and NAD+ is converted to NADH, and that means -- in summary -- that Clown is effing effeminate.
#134442
Former President Donald Trump's alleged attempt to speak with a witness before the January 6 congressional committee has been referred to the US Department of Justice, according to Rep. Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican who co-chairs the panel.

But former federal prosecutors say it will be difficult to prove that such a call constitutes illegal tampering with a witness.

"Trump is damn lucky that the witness did not answer the phone," Peter Zeidenberg, who served on the Justice Department's special prosecution team during the George W. Bush-era Valerie Plame Wilson investigation, told Insider. "That could have been a huge issue if he actually spoke with the witness. As it is, I don't think much can be done. But it's the kind of thing that scares the hell out of defense attorneys."

Cheney ended Tuesday's hearing of the January 6 committee with a bombshell revelation: "After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation — a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call."

That Republican hypocrisy rears its ugly head agai[…]

Trump campaigned on releasing all of the Epstein F[…]

Mr Forbes has never cited AI. In the most charmin[…]

Obliterated what?

As if Trump wasn't using unsecured private email s[…]

Well. A lot of people say a lot of things some tr[…]

I'd like to thank Mr Forbes for posting that

Hulk Hogan

Years ago, at Dulles Intl Airport, I ran into Hulk[…]