Texcaster Loc: Queensland

An attorney quickly fired back on Twitter when an account linked to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) openly criticized the House Select Committee hearings by describing the groundbreaking Tuesday testimony as "all hearsay."

According to HuffPost, the attorney responded to a verified Twitter account for the House Judiciary GOP. The account, which names the Republican lawmaker as its ranking member, offered a critical assessment of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.

It’s literally all hearsay evidence. What a joke,” the tweet mockingly said Hutchinson’s testimony about former President Donald Trump’s final days in office.

A Twitter account for attorney Ken White quickly weighed in to disagree with the House Judiciary GOP's post. "Only some of it is hearsay," the account tweeted. "Need help understanding the difference? I'm here to help you. I'm hoping to help you."

He also offered a quick analogy to support his arguments. "So if a player comes up to you and says 'hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my g*****ls instead,' that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out-of-court statement, it's something that person perceived," he argued.

He added, "But if people came to you and said 'hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous g*****l exams'," that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements.

"Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said 'I told coach about it and he said I have nothing to do with this.'"

In conclusion, the account tweeted: "That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump.



TheKetchupDeserveditHat
@Popehat
·
Jun 29, 2022
Replying to @Popehat
/2 So if a player comes up to you and says "hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my g*****ls instead," that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out of court statement, it's something that person perceived.
TheKetchupDeserveditHat
@Popehat
·
Follow
/3 But if people came to you and said "hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous g*****l exams," that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements.
8:19 AM · Jun 29, 2022
5.5K
Reply
Share


TheKetchupDeserveditHat
@Popehat
·
Jun 29, 2022
Replying to @Popehat
/4 Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said "I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'"
TheKetchupDeserveditHat
@Popehat
·
Follow
/5 That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump
8:22 AM · Jun 29, 2022
5.4K
Reply
Share


TheKetchupDeserveditHat
@Popehat
·
Follow
Naw, man, only some of it is hearsay. Need help understanding the difference? I'm here to help you. I'm hoping to help you.
/1
House Judiciary GOP
@JudiciaryGOP
It’s literally all hearsay evidence. What a joke.

btbg

Are you claiming that Hutchinson's testimony is not hearsay. The claim is that Omato told her what happened as she was not there. Of course Omato says that he never spoke to her and that it didn't happen. Of course the bulk of the testimony is hearsay, and it isn't even accurate hearsay.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

This is an investigation—to find the t***h. It is not a trial. There are no hearsay rules in an investigation where people are interviewed based often on heresy. It might or might lead to more compelling admissible evidence. . If anybody is indicted, the rules will change in a trial.

btbg

You are right, it is supposed to be an investigation to find the t***h. However, that is not what is happening. When the committee puts Hutchinson on in public to tell her story when Omoto and the other secret service agent say that she is not telling the t***h makes it obvious that this is not a fact finding mission.

Raskin admitted today that they did not check with anyone to see if Hutchinson's story was true or not. And, I never said that there were hearsay rules for this. I said that Jordan is right that what Hutchinson said was hearsay. And, more importantly it was not the t***h. So, no, this committee is not after the t***h. If they were they would have questioned the four people that were in the room when Trump claims that he asked for National Guard troops. All four say they are willing to testify that he did. But, of course they have not questioned them. Why? Because they are not looking for the t***h.

If they were looking for the t***h they would have checked with the secret service agents. They did not. If they were looking for the t***h they would have checked with Bowers and Pelosi about why the National Guard was not called. If they were looking for the t***h they would ask who Ray Epps is. If they were looking for the t***h they would have questioned the FBI because when Cruz asked them in January whether or not they had people in the crowd that did the same thing as the FBI did in Michigan with governor Witmer they refused to answer, but of course the committee has not asked about that. Because this isn't about the t***h. This is about attempting to make it where Trump can never run for office again.

And, if they really wanted to get to the t***h then they would cross examine their witnesses, because that would give them the rest of the story. So, no, they are not looking for the t***h. Because the t***h is that 1*6 was messy and was bad for America, but it's not on Trump because he did indeed ask for National Guard troops in case there was violence and that was ignored. So, yes, lets get to the t***h, something this committee has not even tried to do.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

This is not a fact finding investigation, it's a Democrat lead sham clown show to manufacture evidence.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Do you have a problem with this optic?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Why not take testimony from the actual people who were there and forget all the f–––ing BS nonsense?

You know why this isn't being done? Because it's creating a phony feeding frenzy for people like you and 9v.

Triple G

I think all 700+ trump-riled i**********nists and would be Pence k**lers have testified in some form or another. Many say they were there because trump summoned them and they were there to be his m*****a. Is that what you mean?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Lol more of the same Russia collusion BS.

Triple G

Update: 874 of them. I think they may be called to testify!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-defense/he-invited-us-accused-capitol-r****rs-blame-trump-in-novel-legal-defense-idUSKBN2A219E

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Democracy dies in the darkness of these Democrat tribunals.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Unbelievable. Democracy is in darkness when a losing p**********l candidate tries in every way possible to discount the v**es of the people to overturn a f**r e******n—dismissing Constitutional mandates and the rule of law. Democracy attempts to save itself when a Congressional committee investigates the actions of this losing candidate so that future attempted c**ps can be prevented.
Some people are so terribly far out in the weeds, they are blinded to all evidence.

btbg

Yes, and you would be one of those people. Remember, you said yourself that this is a fact finding committee. So, why have they not talked to the four people who were in the room when Trump called for the National Guard? Because if what they say is true then Trump couldn't possibly have been plotting to o*******w the government.

And, why haven't they talked to the secret service agents who say Hutchinson is lying? I could go on, but what's the point. They clearly aren't looking for the facts. So, who is really blinded to the evidence. The committee is who is blinded. They won't even look for the facts.

Hutchinson was the last straw. She clearly is not telling the t***h, and Cheney hugged her after her testimony. Is that what a true fact finding committee member would do? Of course not. They would have talked to the people who were actually present when the events supposedly happened. But, they haven't done that, have they? So, who is blinded to the evidence and isn't looking for the t***h? Come on, just be honest. The fact finding committee isn't looking for facts, unless of course those facts support their narrative.

That isn't fact finding. Believe what you will about Trump, but at least be honest about the committee. They are clearly not on a fact finding mission or they would be trying to find the facts. And Raskin admitted to Jake Tapper on Wednesday that they have not even attempted to talk to the Secret Service agents that were there during what Hutchinson claimed happened. Of course they deny what she said, so the committee has chosen not to speak to them. Does that sound like fact finding to you?

You generally don't answer questions, but just try answering one of these questions. You might begin to see the t***h.

Triple G

DOJ will bring it all into the light with trump having to testify!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Lolololol you Lefties are conspiracy nuts.