WHOOPS SHE LIED

Damocles said:
Still nonsense. "And then I saw" is not hearsay. "And then he told me he saw" is. If you are telling me about anything anyone else has said, that is hearsay (note compound word meaning repeating what you heard)....
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. And as expected you did not answer the question honestly. So let's try again.

When Hutchinson says that Cippilone told her not to let Trump go to the Capitol, and Hutchinson relates that conversation under oath, is that hearsay? Yes or No?
 
Concart said:
That's not what you said. And as expected you did not answer the question honestly. So let's try again.

When Hutchinson says that Cippilone told her not to let Trump go to the Capitol, and Hutchinson relates that conversation under oath, is that hearsay? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

If she said Cippilone said <insert anything at all here> it is hearsay.
 
WHOOPS --> HE <-- LIED......???

volsrock said:
Tony Ornato denies telling Cassidy Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.
Click to expand...

So it's beyond the realm of the right-wing mentality (for lack of a better word) that maybe this guy is either still a dedicated Trump supporter - OR - he's concerned about his future career prospects.

Either way, it's no surprise that right wingers, who are known for their hatred and disrespect for women, would immediately assume his version of the story over hers.
 
Adam Schiff said Hutchinson was a very reliable witness. She consistently and explicitly stated when she was describing what she saw or heard from describing what someone told her.
Right wingers are lying about her testimony.
 
Damocles said:
If it is about what someone else said it is hearsay. No matter how much you want it to be different. Any sentence that includes, 'They told me" or "They said" is literally hearsay.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Just stop. You are making a fool of yourself.
 
Damocles said:
Says the guy who thinks a story repeating what the valet said is "evidence" of something and not hearsay.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned the valet. When someone recounts a conversation they had with someone else, the conversation is first hand testimony, not hearsay. You are absolutely, totally clueless. Just wow.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish, even ketchup on the wall was hearsay. While she may have seen ketchup, the story of how it got there was hearsay. Pretty much every part of her story was, "they told me this"... total crap. Not even evidence. Their "blockbuster witness" was just weak stories being retold after they were heard. Just gossip.

I'm not even a supporter and I can tell what is gossip when I hear it.
Click to expand...

Federal Rules of Evidence disagree with you.

... "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, 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.

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."

(Continued)

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...-s-january-6-testimony-isn-t-hearsay-n1296674

 
Damocles said:
I don't need to "discredit" anyone. I am telling you that her testimony was hearsay. Portions of which were literally discredited by more credible sources. (Like the stupid "lunging for the steering wheel" nonsense).

The reality is, this gossip was not a "blockbuster witness", they were literally repeating what they heard from "Then the valet told me" to "And I heard that he lunged" from beginning to end every story had a portion where she literally said, "they told me <enter nonsense here>"... her "testimony" was the literal definition of hearsay.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
 
Damocles said:
I watched it. Deliberate ignorance is not from my side of things, folks saying she was a witness should rewatch and actually listen.. She did not say, "And then I saw him lunge for the steering wheel" she said, "And they told me he lunged"... She didn't say, "I saw him throw the lunch" nope, she said, "Then the valet told me that"...

Every story... This woman was not a "witness" she was a gossip.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Guess it was the valet who threw the dish at the wall, breaking it and spraying ketchup everywhere.
 
zymurgy said:
now you are lying. she was not a party to the dinner being thrown against the wall either

"The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall."
Click to expand...

He called her into the room to show her the damage, and she picked up a towel to help wipe away the spattered ketchup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top