Is The 1/6 Commission Coming?

[TRUEFANVol]

I’m a life long just left of center democrat. I have not changed my beliefs at all and the leftist in here regularly try to hang a Maga label on me…..because they actually have no foundation of beliefs to stand on.

I could have never guessed your political affiliation. I haven't seen you post anything that would make me think you're a MAGA Trumper

 

[Orangeslice13]

I could have never guessed your political affiliation. I haven't seen you post anything that would make me think you're a MAGA Trumper

it happened earlier today. Lol

 

[TRUEFANVol]

it happened earlier today. Lol

From whom? I didn't see it

 

[RockyTop85]

I see we need law primer:

Hearsay is made inadmissible by rules of evidence. Rules of evidence are created by courts or judicial branch committees to apply to specific courts. The Tennessee rules of evidence don’t apply in New Mexico and vice versa. It is not some global truism that hearsay is inadmissible everywhere. Pretty sure you don’t see nattering grandmas shouting objections to hearsay at bridge club when Susan starts talking about what her neighbor told her about the pastor at First Baptist. The only way it would be inadmissible in congress is if there’s some specific congressional rule against it. If you’re trying to say this woman’s testimony is “inadmissible,” which I saw at least once, you look desperate.

Just because the person identified as the declarant refutes the hearsay statement, that does not make a case for perjury. Perjury, like any other crime, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t even begin to describe the stupidity and inconsistency of people who spent 4 years defending a guy who had more sexual assault accusations than DeShaun Watson arguing that the sworn statements of a lone person makes a case for anything.

All of these things undermine her credibility. (And yes, if the secret service detail contradicts her that undermines her credibility). That’s it.

You’re welcome. Carry on.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I’m a life long just left of center democrat. I have not changed my beliefs at all and the leftist in here regularly try to hang a Maga label on me…..because they actually have no foundation of beliefs to stand on.

So you are a Centrist and a Moderate. Welcome to the Club. People will hang a label on you as it has been done to me no matter what you say or do. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[hndog609]

You've never read Luther's, LG"s, BB's, luvDD's or woodsman's posts I see.

bnhunt feels left out here.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I’m a life long just left of center democrat. I have not changed my beliefs at all and the leftist in here regularly try to hang a Maga label on me…..because they actually have no foundation of beliefs to stand on.

Double Post.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Cool your fapping jets….



and another…

Haha, so many fell for the little girls testimony. So typically leftist.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I see we need law primer:

Hearsay is made inadmissible by rules of evidence. Rules of evidence are created by courts or judicial branch committees to apply to specific courts. The Tennessee rules of evidence don’t apply in New Mexico and vice versa. It is not some global truism that hearsay is inadmissible everywhere. Pretty sure you don’t see nattering grandmas shouting objections to hearsay at bridge club when Susan starts talking about what her neighbor told her about the pastor at First Baptist. The only way it would be inadmissible in congress is if there’s some specific congressional rule against it. If you’re trying to say this woman’s testimony is “inadmissible,” which I saw at least once, you look desperate.

Just because the person identified as the declarant refutes the hearsay statement, that does not make a case for perjury. Perjury, like any other crime, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t even begin to describe the stupidity and inconsistency of people who spent 4 years defending a guy who had more sexual assault accusations than DeShaun Watson arguing that the sworn statements of a lone person makes a case for anything.

All of these things undermine her credibility. (And yes, if the secret service detail contradicts her that undermines her credibility). That’s it.

You’re welcome. Carry on.

It can be stated she has a big set... truth or not.

She has a great Lawyer, Experienced and Professional.

Don't think she would have stated what she stated had it not been true. Do not think her lawyer would have allowed her to say it had it not been true? Think it was in her notes. Some seem to think that she is throwing Crap against the wall to see what sticks.

I don't think she and SS Agents were the only ones in the Conversation...
There are several more witnesses to this statement than just her.
Believe what you want --- but to believe the head of the SS for the President is going to report this incident to a 25-year-old WH staffer is just dumb. To believe that is to give her more authority than she was entitled.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It can be stated she has a big set... truth or not.

She has a great Lawyer, Experienced and Professional.

Don't think she would have stated what she stated had it not been true. Do not think her lawyer would have allowed her to say it had it not been true? Think it was in her notes. Some seem to think that she is throwing Crap against the wall to see what sticks.

I don't think she and SS Agents were the only ones in the Conversation...
There are several more witnesses to this statement than just her.
Believe what you want --- but to believe the head of the SS for the President is going to report this incident to a 25-year-old WH staffer is just dumb. To believe that is to give her more authority than she was entitled.

All it did was muddy the water. Should have known that the people she was talking on behalf of we’re going to call her a liar (that’s what they’re doing by saying they will testify that it’s not true) and probably should have said nothing

 

[RockyTop85]

It can be stated she has a big set... truth or not.

She has a great Lawyer, Experienced and Professional.

Don't think she would have stated what she stated had it not been true. Do not think her lawyer would have allowed her to say it had it not been true? Think it was in her notes. Some seem to think that she is throwing Crap against the wall to see what sticks.

I don't think she and SS Agents were the only ones in the Conversation...
There are several more witnesses to this statement than just her.
Believe what you want --- but to believe the head of the SS for the President is going to report this incident to a 25-year-old WH staffer is just dumb. To believe that is to give her more authority than she was entitled.

I don’t think the fact that she has a lawyer bolsters her credibility. How is the Lawyer to know what’s true? He wasn’t there. His counsel is only as good as the information he receives from her. Also, he can tell her the same thing I just did: a perjury conviction is pretty difficult to obtain on the known facts.

I don’t find it implausible that a secret service agent had a conversation with a young, pretty woman. If it is implausible, I don’t think that rehabilitates her credibility. If they had other witnesses to bolster her version of this conversation, they should have called them all at once, like they did with the DOJ/WH attorneys.

If the Secret Service contradicts her and there’s no receipts or rebuttal witness then I think people can choose to throw out anything or everything that she said.

This committee has been pretty competently run. Right now, this looks like a mistake, in my opinion.

 

[McDad]

I don’t think the fact that she has a lawyer bolsters her credibility. How is the Lawyer to know what’s true? He wasn’t there. His counsel is only as good as the information he receives from her. Also, he can tell her the same thing I just did: a perjury conviction is pretty difficult to obtain on the known facts.

I don’t find it implausible that a secret service agent had a conversation with a young, pretty woman. If it is implausible, I don’t think that rehabilitates her credibility. If they had other witnesses to bolster her version of this conversation, they should have called them all at once, like they did with the DOJ/WH attorneys.

If the Secret Service contradicts her and there’s no receipts or rebuttal witness then I think people can choose to throw out anything or everything that she said.

This committee has been pretty competently run. Right now, this looks like a mistake, in my opinion.

A tangential question, if I may:
Is our judicial system (including para judicial events like the subject of the thread) predicated on truth from witnesses? Or, in other words, is truth required for justice?

 

[NorthDallas40]

A tangential question, if I may:
Is our judicial system (including para judicial events like the subject of the thread) predicated on truth from witnesses? Or, in other words, is truth required for justice?

So having done my citizen duty just last week the instructions are very clear. We were only to consider information in deliberation of statements made under oath from the witness chair and media properly admitted to the formal record as evidence. Everything else is absolutely excluded.

Edit: and upon rereading your question I clearly didn’t answer what you asked about. Oh well

 

[McDad]

So having done my citizen duty just last week the instructions are very clear. We were only to consider information in deliberation of statements made under oath from the witness chair and media properly admitted to the formal record as evidence. Everything else is absolutely excluded.

I wonder if "under oath" statements is meant to bolster the jury's / judge's belief in the truthfulness of statements.

Are the people deciding the judgement to consider lies made under oath as equally germane as truth under oath?

 

[Weezer]

I see we need law primer:

Hearsay is made inadmissible by rules of evidence. Rules of evidence are created by courts or judicial branch committees to apply to specific courts. The Tennessee rules of evidence don’t apply in New Mexico and vice versa. It is not some global truism that hearsay is inadmissible everywhere. Pretty sure you don’t see nattering grandmas shouting objections to hearsay at bridge club when Susan starts talking about what her neighbor told her about the pastor at First Baptist. The only way it would be inadmissible in congress is if there’s some specific congressional rule against it. If you’re trying to say this woman’s testimony is “inadmissible,” which I saw at least once, you look desperate.

Just because the person identified as the declarant refutes the hearsay statement, that does not make a case for perjury. Perjury, like any other crime, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t even begin to describe the stupidity and inconsistency of people who spent 4 years defending a guy who had more sexual assault accusations than DeShaun Watson arguing that the sworn statements of a lone person makes a case for anything.

All of these things undermine her credibility. (And yes, if the secret service detail contradicts her that undermines her credibility). That’s it.

You’re welcome. Carry on.

Hell, even when proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's selectively prosecuted. Both Clintons say hello.

 

[RockyTop85]

A tangential question, if I may:
Is our judicial system (including para judicial events like the subject of the thread) predicated on truth from witnesses? Or, in other words, is truth required for justice?

Theoretically, but the jury gets to decide what is and isn’t true and that determination is nearly unassailable.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I wonder if "under oath" statements is meant to bolster the jury's / judge's belief in the truthfulness of statements.

Are the people deciding the judgement to consider lies made under oath as equally germane as truth under oath?

I think it’s more a warning to the witness honestly. Weight is given to information submitted from the witness chair so don’t recklessly impugn that trust.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I don’t think the fact that she has a lawyer bolsters her credibility. How is the Lawyer to know what’s true? He wasn’t there. His counsel is only as good as the information he receives from her. Also, he can tell her the same thing I just did: a perjury conviction is pretty difficult to obtain on the known facts.

I don’t find it implausible that a secret service agent had a conversation with a young, pretty woman. If it is implausible, I don’t think that rehabilitates her credibility. If they had other witnesses to bolster her version of this conversation, they should have called them all at once, like they did with the DOJ/WH attorneys.

If the Secret Service contradicts her and there’s no receipts or rebuttal witness then I think people can choose to throw out anything or everything that she said.

This committee has been pretty competently run. Right now, this looks like a mistake, in my opinion.

Competently Ran, but yet you state that one of the most damning testimonies thus far was a mistake by the competent committee to allow her to testify without any verification of facts.

As for her lawyer, he is very competent and would not allow her to testify to the truth without verification. Should be noted that she changed lawyers about two months ago.

The Committee knew to ask the question and the witness expected it and both knew the what her answer was going to be. The committee didn't need this but they asked anyway. Rule is don't ask a question you don't know the answer to and can prove if need be.

Time will tell... no mistake.

 

[McDad]

Theoretically, but the jury gets to decide what is and isn’t true and that determination is nearly unassailable.

Does our system of jurisprudence suffer because what is shared in a courtroom cannot be guaranteed irrefutable?

 

[whodeycin85]

The Committee got what they wanted outt the story....orange man bad and outta control....doesn't matter if true or not. It's out there

 

[Weezer]

The Committee got what they wanted outt the story....orange man bad and outta control....doesn't matter if true or not. It's out there

I doubt they've changed any minds. People on one extreme will still support Trump, and people on the other will still believe him the anti-Christ, or whatever the atheist equivalent of the anti-Christ is. I think most of us in the middle realize he's an egocentric, over-the-top personality that doesn't need to see the WH again. Doesn't mean he should be going to jail.

FFS, both parties need to provide better options, but they won't.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Just checking in. Does the Wile E Coyote committee “have him now”?

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Just checking in. Does the Wile E Coyote committee “have him now”?

Their latest “star” witness just went down in flames.

Pollak: L.A. Times' 8 'Bombshells' from Hutchinson Testimony Are All Duds

 

[KB5252]

Haha, so many fell for the little girls testimony. So typically leftist.

I accidentally saw some of her testimony last night on comedy central. She looked uncomfortable describing that situation.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

“All we can say is that before choosing to elicit Hutchinson’s account in a hyped public hearing, the committee heard Engel’s testimony. Presumably, if Engel gave the committee reason to believe Hutchinson’s hearsay account was wrong, Cheney would not have adduced it,” McCarthy wrote.

“If it turns out that Engel disputed Hutchinson’s story, and that Cheney knew that but adduced that Hutchinson’s story anyway, without confronting Hutchinson with Engel’s contrary version of events, the committee might as well pack up its bags and go home. Going forward, the committee must come clean with all the evidence it has collected on this matter. At the very least, we should hear testimony from Ornato.”






One Paragraph Sums Up The Razor’s Edge The J6 Committee Is On Right Now