Joke 6 Committee "Hearing"

[Jibartik]

Oh yea this trial is a witch hunt and I dont support any of it!

[Reiwa]

I forget why I'm supposed to dislike this person.

Several points deserve underscoring. For starters, a “referral” from the committee would have no legal significance.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, what are we talking about? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cheese

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Several points deserve underscoring. For starters, a “referral” from the committee would have no legal significance.[/URL]

Not sure what you point is? If by legal significance you mean legally able to compel the DOJ to do something then yeah no shit, that's how the system works. Thanks for stating the obvious.

What's significant about a committee referring something to DOJ for criminal investigation is that this usually happens where there's some likelihood that a crime was committed by one or more persons involved. So yeah, it would be a pretty big deal if that referral happened (especially considering the subject matter involved; i.e. a President trying to stop the certification of a legitimate and legal election to keep himself in power...if there is a referral to the DOJ about that it's an absolutely massive event in US history).

[Castle2.0]

"Bob said Billy did this."
-Person Who Was Not Present

Is there a hearsay exemption for this? ^

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not sure what you point is? If by legal significance you mean legally able to compel the DOJ to do something then yeah no shit, that's how the system works. Thanks for stating the obvious.

What's significant about a committee referring something to DOJ for criminal investigation is that this usually happens where there's some likelihood that a crime was committed by one or more persons involved. So yeah, it would be a pretty big deal if that referral happened (especially considering the subject matter involved; i.e. a President trying to stop the certification of a legitimate and legal election to keep himself in power...if there is a referral to the DOJ about that it's an absolutely massive event in US history).

I'm trying to find non-contempt referrals to find out the weight of it happening if it happens.

Also lol Neil Gorsuch's mama almost got done up for contempt

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Bob said Billy did this."
-Person Who Was Not Present

Is there a hearsay exemption for this? ^

I'm assuming you're referring to her statement about the incident in the Secret Service vehicle where Trump tried to grab the steering wheel and things he apparently said while in that car? Or are you asking about other statements? I'll try to explain it as clearly as possible for the former.

Obviously, as an initial matter hearsay rules do not apply in Congressional hearings. Just getting that basic point out of the way. So I'm assuming we're talking about in the case of an actual criminal trial. The hearsay rules have multiple different exemptions and also exceptions that allow the testimony to be admitted as evidence.

Now, another thing to remember here is that hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. That's an important distinction because the testimony on the Secret Service incident isn't hearsay if it's not used at trial to actually prove Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. For example, a prosecutor could argue that they are just using that testimony as part of showing Trump's state of mind (although even then there's also a hearsay exemption for that) and if a judge agrees with them then it's not hearsay at all.

If a judge deems it to be hearsay then one of the ways for a prosecutor to argue for it IMO would be present sense impression. Statements someone made about an event either during or very soon after it happened. This is one of the ways the Secret Service story could potentially come in. A prosecutor could argue that she is testifying to comments made right after an event and she is saying right after this happened person A told me this and person B who was also in the car didn't contradict him.

Excited utterance is a possibility, but a bit less firm than the present sense impression. As noted above, defendant's state of mind is also a relevant exemption if we're talking about a case where Trump is the defendant.

Another way you could get that story in if you're in a criminal trial against Trump himself is: 1. First try to get Ornato guy to testify to Trump's actions/statements...in that case it's a statement made by a party who is an opponent in the case (i.e. Trump) and therefore the hearsay rule wouldn't prohibit the testimony; 2. If Ornato refuses to testify, then Hutchinson's testimony fall under an exception to the rule that allows it to be admitted as evidence (you don't want a witness to refuse to testify in order to prevent evidence from being presented). Just another thing to note, if Ornato was a witness in a criminal trial, Hutchinson's testimony about things he said out of court are generally considered exempt from the hearsay rule (so just another thing to consider).

Other things she said are a lot more clearly within exceptions/exemptions to the hearsay rule, but there are ways for the testimony about what was said in the Secret Service vehicle to come in. Really not hard at all to get that into evidence in a criminal trial.

[Rethalis]

Do you think the human population on Mars will be paying attention the the January 6th investigation lead by Nancy Pelosi the IV and Chuck Schumer JR III?

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If your stance is that most of the people in the OT forum on P99 are a good gauge for what the majority of American citizens are like you might need to seriously re-evaluate your analysis.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Rethalis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you think the human population on Mars will be paying attention the the January 6th investigation lead by Nancy Pelosi the IV and Chuck Schumer JR III?

no the same way we stopped giving a shit about the prodistants and the catholics when we came to the last new world.

the problem with earth is we have no new frontier for the brave and intrepid few, so instead they're all trapped in here with the nutjobs.