Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think of it as a grand jury if it helps. Hearsay is admissable and hearsay is sufficient to indict. If it were to get to trial, then no. But these hearings are not a trial.
So then what are they for?
Other posters have stated DOJ is running a concurrent investigation and Grand jury. So why are these politicians getting involved in a criminal case?
Hearsay shouldn't be admitted in any court or congressional hearing. What she there or not.
I'm putting on my "thinking cap." I think that the committee wouldn't have allowed that topic to come up UNLESS they had something to back it. There are attorneys on the committee. They know exactly what "hearsay" means. Stay tuned, I just bet the Beast driver and other witness have already told their version of what happened and that is why they let today's witness talk about it.
I and many others on the forum realize that you Trump lovers can't bear to hear the truth about your guy. It hurts. It's a betrayal to us Americans and yes it hurts like hell. The poor man is clearly suffering from a mental disorder whether it be dementia or bipolar.
Think of it as a grand jury if it helps. Hearsay is admissable and hearsay is sufficient to indict. If it were to get to trial, then no. But these hearings are not a trial.
It's a political kangaroo court. Her testimony is useless to prevent Trump from running again. If she wasn't only the people at the hearing but talk is the Secret Agent and driver.
If I say that I heard you stole money at the job and I wasn't there, the internal investigation has to question the people in the accusation to verify the validity of the accusation.
Are they going to call the Agent and driver or they are just going to stick with her hearsay testimony?
It's a political kangaroo court. Her testimony is useless to prevent Trump from running again. If she wasn't only the people at the hearing but talk is the Secret Agent and driver.
If I say that I heard you stole money at the job and I wasn't there, the internal investigation has to question the people in the accusation to verify the validity of the accusation.
Are they going to call the Agent and driver or they are just going to stick with her hearsay testimony?
It’s funny they’re investing all of this effort because they’re scared of Trump running again and no other reason. Reality is DeSantis is probably a bigger threat in 2024 than Trump
You would love them too, you wish, you hope...Peter Alexander of NBC is cutting the Trump attack story down. This is what happens when you let third-person hearsay pass off as reality.
Even if it turns out that the story is not true, there is a veritable mountain of evidence that Trump planned an insurrection to take over the government after he lost the election and knew he lost the election. That's the point of the hearings and it's more clear every day.
Your post addresses many good points and sets forth a review of what brought us here. But it does not change the fact that her testimony would have been shredded on cross examination. Much of it was hearsay that would require corroborating witness testimony.
I still think the committee already has testimony from the Secret Service guys about the ride back to the WH. Otherwise they wouldn't have asked Hutchinson the question on live TV.
I still think the committee already has testimony from the Secret Service guys about the ride back to the WH. Otherwise they wouldn't have asked Hutchinson the question on live TV.
You think? if they don't, would you admit this is a Kangaroo court?
Stupid, you don't need a hearsay that wasn't there if you have the testimony of the 2 people there.
I wish the Secret Service agents would testify. They can clarify that part of the testimony and while they’re there, clarify anything else. Anything at all.
That goes for anyone else that can refute the testimony on record.
Anyone of those people who can prove something is not factual, step forward. DO.
I wish the Secret Service agents would testify. They can clarify that part of the testimony and while they’re there, clarify anything else. Anything at all.
That goes for anyone else that can refute the testimony on record.
Anyone of those people who can prove something is not factual, step forward. DO.
Once again though they could easily be lying just like everyone else
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
