The house select committee on Jan 6 Pt 2

[JayJay]

@margaretms2

If you understood who she said told her that, you might also understand why the committee was so deliberate in questioning her and why dismissing it as “hearsay”—as it applies in a legal court—has little to do with why it’s important here.

But I now understand more about why discussing this here is so hard: it comes from a lot of people not paying much attention, or just skimming from RW sources.

Hell many of them don’t even read the POSTS to which they are responding.

PS I learned yesterday that by the Federal of Evidence Section 801, Hutchinson’s limo testimony is an exception to hearsay rules. Like you said, she is recounting things to which she was a party, so yes because she said Ornato was the one who told her, and Engel was with him when he told her, that’s very important.

I’m still waiting for either Ornato or Engel themselves, and not “sources close to them” to state she made up what she said they told her. And, more specifically, WHAT is is about her testimony that was inaccurate.

And we shall see if Cipillone can show he wasn’t in the White House January 6.

[margaretms2]

@Smyrna

@margaretms2

If you understood who she said told her that, you might also understand why the committee was so deliberate in questioning her and why dismissing it as “hearsay”—as it applies in a legal court—has little to do with why it’s important here.

But I now understand more about why discussing this here is so hard: it comes from a lot of people not paying much attention, or just skimming from RW sources.

Why didn’t the committee just skip the middle man and go right to the source and have them testify?

Indirectly, you might end up stumbling on something here: yes, why would those lawyers ask her to testify in such a public way, with such carefully parsed questions?

[JayJay]

@Smyrna

@Smyrna

Why didn’t the committee just skip the middle man and go right to the source and have them testify?

@margaretms2

Name the specific error.

…skipping the middle man and just having direct testimony that’s then credible in a court of law?

Again- according to the federal rules of evidence, Hutchinson’s testimony is admissible in a court of law. It’s one of the hearsay exceptions.

[FreeAndClear]

Sorry again which exception is this under rule 803?

[Smyrna]

@margaretms2

Indirectly, you might end up stumbling on something here:

@JayJay

the federal rules of evidence, Hutchinson’s testimony

Uh, huh…no conflict of interest and nothing biased…promise…pinky swear.

[FreeAndClear]

Party to the conversation is an exclusion in very limited circumstances like state of mind or excited utterance

[margaretms2]

Okay. Wow. You’re on a different planet here.

It’s fine if you think Cheney and co. are idiot stumblebums, setting up their trap only to be foiled easily by Breitbart and eagle-eyed hannity forumites, but it kinda makes this undiscussable in any meaningful way.

[JayJay]

@Smyrna

@margaretms2

Indirectly, you might end up stumbling on something here:

@JayJay

the federal rules of evidence, Hutchinson’s testimony

Uh, huh…no conflict of interest and nothing biased…promise…pinky swear.

And your point is?

[FreeAndClear]

Just a thing on hearsay.

Hearsay is any statement made out of court used for the matter asserted.

I don’t see how anything Hutchison says falls under one of the exclusions. More importantly it doesn’t have to since this isn’t a court of law.

[Camp]

[JayJay]

@FreeAndClear

Party to the conversation is an exclusion in very limited circumstances like state of mind or excited utterance

Yes these are the ones.

Here’s a good explanation as to why a lot of Hutchinson’s testimony that might otherwise be considered hearsay might nonetheless be admissible in federal court.

Opinion | Why the GOP's first attempt to undermine Cassidy Hutchinson's...

And the key thing is Hutchinson testified under oath. Now, Trump opponents might say, no one on this current January 6 committee is gonna prosecute her for that, and they might be correct.

HOWEVER, as the article I linked points out, statute of limitations on lying to Congress is five years. The midterms are a few months away. If Congress flips, you can be damn well certain there’d be poeple now in power in Congress who would love to go after Hutchinson.

So…ask yourself whether she would lie to Congress knowing that a hostile GOP Congress may be less than a year away from being a reality.

[FreeAndClear]

Ah crim pro. Okie makes more sense now. I was positioning from civil litigation. I have no idea why lol.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

PS I learned yesterday that by the Federal of Evidence Section 801,

Which subsection are you invoking?

[margaretms2]

As a cf., I thought this was kinda funny/possibly significant in this context. Hmmmmmm.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

It’s one of the hearsay exceptions.

Which one?

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

More importantly it doesn’t have to since this isn’t a court of law.

You are correct sir.

[BraveGear]

Don’t give them any ideas.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

PS I learned yesterday that by the Federal of Evidence Section 801,

Which subsection are you invoking?

The party opponent subsection. Explained in a later posting and I softened “is admissible” to “might be admissible”.

[margaretms2]

Also, look carefully at 1) what she actually claimed; 2) who she used as a source; 3) and what the weirdly veiled, unnamed source actually seems to be refuting.

The legalism and parsing makes your head hurt. But—in a literal sense—what Trump did or didn’t do re: SS agent/ steering wheel doesn’t matter, even with regard to her specific testimony. In fact, she didn’t even make a claim about it.

I’m in such a poorly timed work lull. LOL.

[DougBH]

I am still trying to get out of you what specific exception to the federal rules of evidence on hearsay this is. Or did you not learn that part?