January 6th Committee Hearings

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

What about Biden giving half a billion tax dollars to Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was coming after Hunter?

 

He admitted this on video....even boasted about it.

Ideology has rendered you too willingly ignorant to meaningfully engage unless someone has the time to take on every distortion you’ve absorbed. And then you still wouldn’t want to let go of your framework. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

6 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

If you only heard the prosecution in every case the defendant would go to jail 100% of the time. 

In this case the "Defense" was offered innumerable opportunities to present their "case" but has declined to do so. 

The only people willing to testify under oath have been those accusing Trump and his allied of wrongdoing. 

Anyone who believes Trump is innocent has thus far refused to testify under oath. 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Ideology has rendered you too willingly ignorant to meaningfully engage unless someone has the time to take on every distortion you’ve absorbed. And then you still wouldn’t want to let go of your framework. 

Says the person that has no idea this video exists. Sounds like you sir are too entrenched in your framework.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 7/3/2022 at 9:21 PM, Didba said:

It could fall under hearsay not offered for the truth of the matter asserted ie its not offered to show their effect on the listener or circumstantial evidence of declarant's state of mind like notice or knowledge.  Not certain on this one but its plausible. 

It would definitely fall under statement/admission of party opponent assuming Trump is a party to suit and the statements are offered by his opposing party.

It is is important to note the above are not exceptions to hearsay, they are considered admissible non-hearsay.

It could be considered a statement against interest if Trump was unavailable to testify and not a party to the suit.  The last two are unlikely to occur but if they did, it would get in.

Present state of mind is plausible but unlikely.

So it's very unlikely that Hutchinson's statements, as the declarant, would get in. And of course, any lawyer worth their salt would object.

I think the problem with these sort of senate hearings is that there are no rules. We want so badly to discuss criminality at every turn, except for the very rules that exist to protect any accused. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:11 AM, TexasTiger said:

I can’t think of one, off hand, but I’m rusty. But if Ornato testified he never said it, it would be admissible to counter his credibility— right?

For impeachment purposes, I think? But I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, and certainly not a prosecutor. I chase larger elephants

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

6 hours ago, Didba said:

Got a link for that video?

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

First video I found.

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by AU80cruiser

[jj3jordan 2,053]

8 hours ago, Didba said:

Got a link for that video?

Wait. Seriously Didba you haven’t seen or not aware of this video? 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So it's very unlikely that Hutchinson's statements, as the declarant, would get in. And of course, any lawyer worth their salt would object.

I think the problem with these sort of senate hearings is that there are no rules. We want so badly to discuss criminality at every turn, except for the very rules that exist to protect any accused. 

You don't think it would get in as a statement of party opponent? I wasn't sure if hurtchison heard trump herself or if it was hearsay within hearsay so I struggled on my analysis to figure out which statements she heard and which statements she was told by someone else which would be hearsay within hearsay. Even harder to get in.

[Didba 5,256]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Wait. Seriously Didba you haven’t seen or not aware of this video? 

No, I am very busy, and don't consume much normal media via videos. I read alot more than I watch.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, AU80cruiser said:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

First video I found.

 

Lmao, technically he threatened to omit giving the money if they didn't fire him, WHICH ISNT WHAT YOU SAID. I kid, I kid, this is definitely a bad look, and is essentially similar quid pro quo thay Trump was attacked for.

Also, I would like the whole interview for context sake because we don't even know what the question was here, still bad look, even if Biden was trying to be funny.

I am not a Biden fan whatsoever so just another reason to support other progressive candidates to hopefully push the old guard dems like Pelosi, Biden, and Clinton out of power.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

For impeachment purposes, I think? But I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, and certainly not a prosecutor. I chase larger elephants

It would get in for impeachment, if the other guy took the stand and said an inconsistent statement.

Yall don't impeach experts during civil cases? We do that quite often for opposing experts for construction defect. It helps that our defendants use really really bad experts

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

In this case the "Defense" was offered innumerable opportunities to present their "case" but has declined to do so. 

The only people willing to testify under oath have been those accusing Trump and his allied of wrongdoing. 

Anyone who believes Trump is innocent has thus far refused to testify under oath. 

This is a good point. If they have nothing to hide then they could just testify.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

This is political theater at it’s best.

 

 

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is political theater at it’s best.

 

 

I hope she runs so my Dad has a republican to vote for this go around. He was not happy having to vote blue for the first time in his life this past election

[Didba 5,256]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No s***. It has been 6 years since the 2016 Election. Where TF are the indictments?

We have been promised sedition, treason, collusion every ******* day for 6 ******* years.

I know people dont like it when people openly point out the truth but...have a laugh  on the video.

 

I think you are confused. This a new investigation to a completely independent criminal event that occurred on Jan 6, it has no relation to the 2016 election, nor does it have any connection to the Mueller investigation.

This is in half jest/half seriousness.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[TexasTiger 12,947]

2 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

First video I found.

 

You have zero understanding what he’s even talking about. 
 

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

[Didba 5,256]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You have zero understanding what he’s even talking about. 
 

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

That's paywalled just fyi

[TexasTiger 12,947]

34 minutes ago, Didba said:

That's paywalled just fyi

Thanks. It initially wasn’t for me, now it is.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

Lmao, technically he threatened to omit giving the money if they didn't fire him, WHICH ISNT WHAT YOU SAID. I kid, I kid, this is definitely a bad look, and is essentially similar quid pro quo thay Trump was attacked for.

Also, I would like the whole interview for context sake because we don't even know what the question was here, still bad look, even if Biden was trying to be funny.

I am not a Biden fan whatsoever so just another reason to support other progressive candidates to hopefully push the old guard dems like Pelosi, Biden, and Clinton out of power.

Not a bad look at all if one understands context. There was zero connection to Hunter Biden. Manufactured bull**** repeated incessantly. It’s unfortunate the FT article is now paywalled. It’s the best single one I’ve seen.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

[homersapien 11,385]

13 hours ago, autigeremt said:

You would be quite good at it. 

Not really.  I don't have that much experience dealing with toddlers.

[DKW 86 7,426]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

This isn't the issue on the table.  The Mueller investigation was conducted by the Trump/Republican DOJ.

Did you hurt your back moving those goalposts by yourself?

And the two impeachments and endless cable news bloviating was what? trump propaganda?

If someone has anything actually on him other than a boatload of Speculation, please show us the indictments, the trial dates, the charges and the convictions and sentences...

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by DKW 86

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Did you hurt your back moving those goalposts by yourself?

And the two impeachments and endless cable news bloviating was what? trump propaganda?

If someone has anything actually on him other than a boatload of Speculation, please show us the indictments, the trial dates, the charges and the convictions and sentences...

 

I think you are confused. This a new investigation to a completely independent criminal event that occurred on Jan 6, it has no relation to the 2016 election, the impeachment hearings nor does it have any connection to the Mueller investigation.

My god this has been explained to you so many times about how investigations/indictments works and yet you still parrot the same stuff. Its embarrassing at this point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, Didba said:

Yall don't impeach experts during civil cases?

If you mean Daubert motions, absolutely.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Did you hurt your back moving those goalposts by yourself?

And the two impeachments and endless cable news bloviating was what? trump propaganda?

If someone has anything actually on him other than a boatload of Speculation, please show us the indictments, the trial dates, the charges and the convictions and sentences...

 

Not paying attention at all, are you?

 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If you mean Daubert motions, absolutely.

I meant on cross-examination, impeaching their opinion, but Daubert too, though I wasn't specifically thinking of that