Wasn't the Secret Service guy supposed to refute Hutchinson?

[LV426]

It is still hearsay if you are repeating what another said.

Not necessarily.

Actually, not at all.

If you are repeating something that someone else said to you, that's not hearsay.

What might have been said to you might be hearsay, but the act of repeating what someone said to you isn't hearsay.

Hearsay would be alleging something that someone else said to someone else; if someone said it to YOU, it's not hearsay. In fact, it's a witness statement.

 

[Jarod]

As expected he was the last person the committee wanted on the witness stand......

Why would he need the committee to refute the claims?

 

[Jarod]

It is still hearsay if you are repeating what another said. In the example I gave you the report they (Amber's attorneys) had entered into evidence earlier Amber was a participant in the appointment that resulted in the report, but every time they tried to get her to talk about what was on the report it was Hearsay... because it was repeating what someone else said on something instead of testifying.

Let's say there is ketchup on the wall and someone tells her that it was because of tRump. Seeing ketchup is not hearsay, repeating the story even though you participated in the conversation is hearsay.

The way around this for her attorneys would be to have Amber read the report and then ask questions about what she read, but they kept trying to get her to talk about it rather than reference it.

Hearsay is evidence, just not generally evidence that has limitations to its admissibility in some hearings.

 

[RB 60]

Nope. Incorrect. She was not fired.

Apparently, she was working for Trump. Then she wasn't.

 

[Monad Portal]

Hearsay is evidence, just not generally evidence that has limitations to its admissibility in some hearings.

no its fucking not.

in a trial it is stricken from the record, idiot.

 

[LV426]

Let's say there is ketchup on the wall and someone tells her that it was because of tRump. Seeing ketchup is not hearsay, repeating the story even though you participated in the conversation is hearsay.

NO.

WRONG.

Repeating what someone told you isn't hearsay, what you are repeating might be hearsay, but the act of repeating it is not.

So what Hutchinson did was repeat what other people told her, and whether or not what those other people told her was hearsay has nothing to do with Hutchinson's credibility.

When you run cover for Nazis like you're doing, you end up making a TON of unforced errors like this.

 

[Damocles]

Not necessarily.

Actually, not at all.

If you are repeating something that someone else said to you, that's not hearsay.

Hearsay would be alleging something that someone else said to someone else, if someone said it to YOU, it's not hearsay.

So you've completely put your foot in your mouth here.

Again, incorrect. It is literally hearsay if you repeat the story from the valet about how the ketchup got on the wall even though you participated in the conversation. It is the literal definition of hearsay.

The left has a sudden and fundamental disconnect from rules of testimony because their "blockbuster witness" (per MSDNC, CNN, etc.) was pretty much all hearsay and still didn't show intent or incitement. I get that. However, this gossip would never be allowed to testify to the supposed "most shocking" events (the ones that The View told us were shocking as it showed the anger issues of tRump) as they are simple hearsay.

There is a reason they used hearsay "testimony" and didn't call the Agent, or the valet themselves... because the folks who actually witnessed things were not saying what they wanted to hear.

This is a propaganda show put on by folks who don't like tRump. We all understand this, only some of us pretend that someone repeating gossip is "evidence" of something. I know that even you get that.

I truly do actually hope that at some point something with meat appears so that Trump will not run.

 

[LV426]

so your argument is she should only have love for the man?

That's not my argument, that's Trump's.

Because she doesn't have sufficient loyalty, she's not to be trusted...that's your argument and it's pretty fucking weak considering she worked for Trump for a long-ass time.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Without all the smoke and mirrors,fact is Trump committed felonies on Jan 6!
No man is above the law.

 

[Monad Portal]

That's not my argument, that's Trump's.

Because she doesn't have sufficient loyalty, she's not to be trusted...that's your argument and it's pretty fucking weak considering she worked for Trump for a long-ass time.

she only has hearsay to offer and has no business even testifying in the farce.

 

[BidenPresident]

Without all the smoke and mirrors,fact is Trump committed felonies on Jan 6!
No man is above the law.

Trump was planning for the mob to violently attack the Capitol building on Dec. 18, 2020.

 

[Damocles]

Hearsay is evidence, just not generally evidence that has limitations to its admissibility in some hearings.

The easiest solution to this issue would be to call the Secret Service Agent instead of someone that overheard a conversation. Or the valet instead of having someone repeat what amounts to juicy gossip about how Trump uses ketchup on steak (should be a crime, though it is not) and may have been upset, also not a crime.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Apparently, she was working for Trump. Then she wasn't.

Duh. Because he had to leave the WH, stamping his dainty little orange feet in frustration as he pouted off into the sunset.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The easiest solution to this issue would be to call the Secret Service Agent instead of someone that overheard a conversation. Or the valet instead of having someone repeat what amounts to juicy gossip about how Trump uses ketchup on steak (should be a crime, though it is not) and may have been upset, also not a crime.

If and when #TRE45ON and/or associates come to trial, if deemed relevant by the prosecutors, they will have to have testimony from the Secret Service agents regarding the steering wheel event. Personally I don't think it has much relevance other than showing #TRE45ON's state of mind and intent to be at the Capitol attack, too. The fact that multiple other witnesses have testified to that desire, including some who directly tried to talk him out of it, should suffice instead.

 

[Jarod]

no its fucking not.

in a trial it is stricken from the record, idiot.

Not always, Florida has (I think) 26 exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay.

There are types of hearings where it is fully admissible.

 

[Jarod]

The easiest solution to this issue would be to call the Secret Service Agent instead of someone that overheard a conversation. Or the valet instead of having someone repeat what amounts to juicy gossip about how Trump uses ketchup on steak (should be a crime, though it is not) and may have been upset, also not a crime.

I agree that it is not an important part of the testimony as it it only a small bit of relevance to the crimes, but this is not really a hearing set at proving crimes but simply establishing facts.

My point is that even if the committee does not want to spend time trying to bolster the testimony, if the agent wants to tell his side all he has to do is release a statement.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Not necessarily.

Actually, not at all.

If you are repeating something that someone else said to you, that's not hearsay.

What might have been said to you might be hearsay, but the act of repeating what someone said to you isn't hearsay.

Hearsay would be alleging something that someone else said to someone else; if someone said it to YOU, it's not hearsay. In fact, it's a witness statement.

These people just cannot get that through their thick skulls. But...so what. This is not a trial...and "hearsay" only applies in a trial.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Again, incorrect. It is literally hearsay if you repeat the story from the valet about how the ketchup got on the wall even though you participated in the conversation. It is the literal definition of hearsay.

The left has a sudden and fundamental disconnect from rules of testimony because their "blockbuster witness" (per MSDNC, CNN, etc.) was pretty much all hearsay and still didn't show intent or incitement. I get that. However, this gossip would never be allowed to testify to the supposed "most shocking" events (the ones that The View told us were shocking as it showed the anger issues of tRump) as they are simple hearsay.

There is a reason they used hearsay "testimony" and didn't call the Agent, or the valet themselves... because the folks who actually witnessed things were not saying what they wanted to hear.

This is a propaganda show put on by folks who don't like tRump. We all understand this, only some of us pretend that someone repeating gossip is "evidence" of something. I know that even you get that.

I truly do actually hope that at some point something with meat appears so that Trump will not run.

Reporting what you were told is NOT hearsay.

Attempting to use what you were told to establish the truth of what is being contested...IS HEARSAY.

Hutchinson's testimony about what she was told...IS NOT HEARSAY.

 

[LV426]

she's basically a democrat.

LMAO!

She voted with Trump 93% of the time, which is higher than Elisa Stefanik, who only voted with Trump 78% of the time.

"A source close to JPP says that AssHatZombie is a globalist"...so I guess that makes you a globalist, then, right?

 

[LV426]

this is not really a bipartisan committee.

The GOP had every opportunity to participate in good faith, but chose not to.

So how is that anyone else's problem but theirs?

How about they take some responsibility for themselves? Why is that never on the table? Because you don't think they should be responsible for their actions? Do you hold yourself to that same, pathetically low standard?