Snake Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 "very clearly, he said something to the effect of," Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 3 hours ago, Snake said: "very clearly, he said something to the effect of," The entire place is rotten to the core Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 This was an interesting read yesterday... 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 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. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sorry-trump-hutchinson-s-january-6-testimony-isn-t-hearsay-n1296674 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 this was also interesting https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legitimate-secret-service-interests-explain-why-ornato-and-engel-may-not-want-to-testify Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 1, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 1, 2022 55 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: This was an interesting read yesterday... 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 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. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sorry-trump-hutchinson-s-january-6-testimony-isn-t-hearsay-n1296674 3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: this was also interesting https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/legitimate-secret-service-interests-explain-why-ornato-and-engel-may-not-want-to-testify Some people just love to be fed an opinion that's the same as theirs... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 22 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: Some people just love to be fed an opinion that's the same as theirs... contradict it, I have time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 1, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 1, 2022 5 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: contradict it, I have time I'm sure you do.................. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: I'm sure you do.................. so you're saying you can't contradict it, or you won't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bontz Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 I think I'll pass on going any further than this ... clicking on that link. FFS - if you take anything from these clowns as newsworthy, you may as well just get your news from DUH-underground 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 seems hundreds have lied about the slobfather…..and his brain dead chimps still follow his stink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 40 minutes ago, Mainecat said: seems hundreds have lied about the slobfather…..and his brain dead chimps still follow his stink. very clearly, he said something to the effect of Mainecat likes little children... Using your logic... this is a fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 1, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Crnr2Crnr said: so you're saying you can't contradict it, or you won't? Why would I argue what someone's opinion is, that just stupid, almost as stupid as believing it..Almost... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 20 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: Why would I argue what someone's opinion is, that just stupid, almost as stupid as believing it..Almost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Bontz said: I think I'll pass on going any further than this ... clicking on that link. FFS - if you take anything from these clowns as newsworthy, you may as well just get your news from DUH-underground Can you refute the content posted from the link? A little lib media would do you some good bontzy. I hear 'Q' is back too Keep missing you on the road, but my aim is getting better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 I wonder if any of you can wrap your minds around this op Ed from a conservative judge that was an advisor to Mike Pence? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/opinion/electoral-count-act.html I doubt it, but let's see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 "As of now, it is hearsay," Tapper said. Raskin replied: "Oh, sure. We’re not in a court of law, and we’re not charging anybody with any particular offense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 It’s not hearsay you fuckin dolt. She was under oath and until someone denies it under oath it’s truth. Ya see how this works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 seems like all her testimony was heresay, why was that even allowed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 Just now, Mainecat said: It’s not hearsay you fuckin dolt. She was under oath and until someone denies it under oath it’s truth. Ya see how this works? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Very clearly, he said something to the effect of, MC likes small children. See how that works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 Definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. noun Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor. noun Law Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination. from The Century Dictionary. noun Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip. Of or pertaining to or depending upon hearsay, or the talk of others; told or given at second hand. from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English. noun Report; rumor; fame; common talk; something heard from another. noun (Law) that species of testimony which consists in a narration by one person of matters told him by another. It is, with a few exceptions, inadmissible as testimony. from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. noun information that was heard by one person about another noun law evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath noun law evidence: an out-of-court statement offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted; normally inadmissible because not subject to cross-examination, unless the hearsay statement falls under one of the many exceptions from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved. adjective heard through another rather than directly noun gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry 976 Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 13 minutes ago, Mainecat said: It’s not hearsay you fuckin dolt. She was under oath and until someone denies it under oath it’s truth. Ya see how this works? You can not testify as to what someone else told to you or what someone else told you they heard from someone else unless that person is present to testify and be cross examined other wise it's hearsay What is hearsay in simple terms? Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination. As such, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry 976 Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 15 hours ago, Snake said: "very clearly, he said something to the effect of," On the night in question Purr-say Your Honor - - - - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 Imagine the desperation of hanging your hat on fucking hearsay? The liberals are literally turning the law on it's head to get Orange Man Bad. Want an example of the hearsay rule? A dying declaration minutes before death. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.