House Select Committee Hearings on Jan. 6 (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    superchuck500 said:
    A lot of it is. But it doesn't really matter, this kind of testimony has long been allowed in congressional hearings.
    Click to expand...
    Yea. I'm talking about in terms of future criminal charges. They would need additional testimony for this information if this goes to court.
     
    It's definitely hearsay from an in-court perspective. It's why all those affidavits in support of the crazy election conspiracy suits failed -- they basically all stated something like "X told me he saw a batch of 10,000 ballots being dumped" or "I heard that a delivery van was backed up to a loading dock in a building where ballots were being counted" and not "I personally saw 10,000 unsigned ballots being counted."
     
    I think it's important to point out again that Pat Cipollone made it very clear that they would be committing crimes of obstruction and fraud if they went to the Capitol, and Trump physically tried to go anyway.

    We were just clearly shown that he knew it was a crime and had intent to commit anyway.
     
    Saintamaniac said:
    I'm not a lawyer but there was another person who can testify to what she said as being accurate. Cheney just made sure that came out.
    Click to expand...

    Yes, I think that's part of it here - efficiency. The committee may have sworn testimony from people with personal knowledge (non-hearsay) of what happened in these individual events but these hearings are unlike in a court proceeding that can go all day for as many days as it takes to put on the evidence in an admissible form.

    In this format, it's more efficient to have this single witness describe the events as she believes they happened, even if some of it is informed by hearsay.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    Yes, I think that's part of it here - efficiency. The committee may have sworn testimony from people with personal knowledge (non-hearsay) of what happened in these individual events but these hearings are unlike in a court proceeding that can go all day for as many days as it takes to put on the evidence in an admissible form.

    In this format, it's more efficient to have this single witness describe the events as she believes they happened, even if some of it is informed by hearsay.
    Click to expand...

    Yea, completely agree. Get the info out now, and let the DOJ tighten up the details.
     
    he, frumpy, grabbed the steering wheel...???? when SS was turning vehicle to return
    frump to WH and ...safety....becuz Everyone Knew the violence was imminent.

    wow.

    there are people who were around him that day who know who saw things that would
    be...even more shocking im sure.
    wow.

    they all knew what was going to, and what was happening that day, jan 6, at the capitol bldg.

    :wow:
     
    So, question for @superchuck500.

    If a former president is tried in criminal court, which court will have jurisdiction? And, more importantly, is there a potential scenario where this goes to the Supreme Court over some question (I don't see how it would, but I really don't know here)?

    And if it goes to the Supreme Court, could this SC just bounce him out because he appointed a third of them?
     
    brandon said:
    So, question for @superchuck500.

    If a former president is tried in criminal court, which court will have jurisdiction? And, more importantly, is there a potential scenario where this goes to the Supreme Court over some question (I don't see how it would, but I really don't know here)?

    And if it goes to the Supreme Court, could this SC just bounce him out because he appointed a third of them?
    Click to expand...

    Presuming they are federal charges, they would be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. And yes, any number of issues including the final result (if there's a trial and conviction) could get to the Supreme Court.
     
    brandon said:
    To be fair, I think this part of the testimony wouldn't be allowed in court. It's hearsay, right?

    Edit: Specifically, the events inside the Beast. She is telling what someone told her happened in the Beast, but she has no proof of.
    Click to expand...
    My question about this….would they ever think of subpoenaing a member of the presidents secret service detail to testify? Seems like that would be a bad precedent to set.
     
    I wouldn't think the idea of him appointing three of the Justices would come into play. First, the Supreme Court rarely intervenes on criminal prosecutions unless there is some confusion about the interpretation/application of a federal statute or a constitutional/procedural issue. Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, while the Trump Justices are more than happy to overturn Roe, that was a long-term conservative goal. Gorsouch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett probably don't give two poops for Trump and would just as soon as be rid of him and move on to Daddy Desantis.
     
    What the fork?

    I get Flynn taking the 5th on all of the other questions Cheney asked, but when she asked him "Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power in the United States?" HE TOOK THE FIFTH?
     
    FullMonte said:
    My question about this….would they ever think of subpoenaing a member of the presidents secret service detail to testify? Seems like that would be a bad precedent to set.
    Click to expand...
    I think there would be and exception for a possible crime being committed. It's like if trump raped someone again, this time in front of a SS agent. That's witnessing a crime and I don't think anyone can hide behind that. But again, I'm not a lawyer and I slept at home last night.
     
    I don't see it being an issue. There's no attorney-client privilege between the President and his Secret Service detail. Their job is to protect his life not necessarily guard his personal secrets unless something he did/said was a matter of national security or classified. Which this stuff clearly is not.
     
    SaulGoodmanEsq said:
    I don't see it being an issue. There's no attorney-client privilege between the President and his Secret Service detail. Their job is to protect his life not necessarily guard his personal secrets unless something he did/said was a matter of national security or classified. Which this stuff clearly is not.
    Click to expand...
    My question wasn’t so much of a legal issue…it was more of setting the precedent that a president might have to worry about SS testifying against them.

    President meets some hottie at a convention, and orders his sec detail to leave so they can’t see what he does, creating a security concern.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom