They didn't actually say that, a couple of reporters said they had sources saying otherwise. None of it matters until they are under oath. You can expect that to be happening soon.
They already have testified under oath, and they have no right to refuse, thanks to the Whitewater Hunting Expedition. Ooops.
But they wouldn't refuse to testify again. They'll never be called to, unless it's by the next congress.
First off, you are right that they will need direct testimony from the agent or agent involved in an actual trial. Second, this is not an actual criminal trial. It an investigative questioning that will be used if there ever is an actual criminal trial. There won't be a criminal trial because the present administration put a traitorous asswipe loyal to trump into the AG position. I will believe otherwise if they ever stop being loyal to trump and charge him. However, there is no recalling witnesses if there is a trial because that would be the first time they are called in a criminal trial. This is all just a shoiw for the american people to pretend they are doing something until a real criminal trial happens.
Not true. This testimony cannot be admitted into an actual trial because she is saying what she heard happened from another person. That is not even eye witness evidence. That is hearsay. Yes, it would be something a prosecutor might use to call the actual secret service agents in the car and try to get them to make the statement in a real criminal trial. This is not a criminal trial. This is an investigative hearing with absolutely no charges or ability to convict on those charges. Since the Biden administration appointed an AG who has said he will not prosecute trump this is all just a gigantic reality TV show with no power to convict. This is the news and politics trying to get more ratings than the kardashians with their new political reality TV series. There is not even a trial behind this shit like there was with OJ or any of the police trials we have had over the decades. Trump has not been arrested or charged with a crime. Even if he was the jury would never hear this because it is in admissible. This does not mean shit because his people believe in bigfoot and aliens and would never not vote for him unless there was someone worse. O know you are probably hopeful living in a land of far less corruption and some laws and things, but this is america. We don't have shit here unless you have a black man doing something innocent and then we will have the cops shoot him in the back. Trump is white with an orange spray tan and amendment 1 of the constitution is rich white guys can do anything the fuck they want to.
Basically, I agree with you, except that Garland is hardly loyal to Trump. Regardless, these agents apparently have far more credibility and honor than some 25 year old fringe assistant looking for her 15 mins. This is just another disaster for the dems and smacks of desperation.
Yeah, that makes sense. 'Let's be loyal to the guy who tried to commandeer the vehicle and put me into a Vulcan neck lock' You guys are pathetic. But hey, let's put these guys on national tv. It will NEVER happen.
See, you went too far. It is a disaster for the dems because they are not going to do anything about it. I am not sure what your idea of loyalty is, but mine would include not prosecuting a guy who has an overwhelming body of evidence against him that he committed multiple crimes. I do not know what else to call that. As for the assistant's testimony all that would do in a case would be to possibly establish probably cause to search for evidence and to interview the actual agents involved. Garland is not doing any of that shit so this is just a new form of entertainment. There is clearly enough evidence to charge trump and many of his people with crimes of all sorts. I am not saying what the verdict would be, but we should be charging them with breaking the laws that it appears they broke. I will continue to insist that Garland and Biden are loyal to trump until the day that the executive branch of the federal government charges him and his people with the crimes we see so much evidence for. If there was this much evidence against Biden for trying to stop congress and the US from the legal exchange of power and to install a new government the republicans would have already had him tried and executed for treason, and I would agree with that decision in that case.
Of course she is. You republicans act like the left is attached to the clintons. The only thing I say is don't tell me the Bush and Trump families are better. If there wass a chance to see Hillary and Bill in prison for their creimes I would be there too, but not when it means McConnel and cheney walk free. Seriousdly, I was not so opposed to the idea of the insurrectionists hanging all of congress, even if there were a couple of decent ones caught up in it. I just was not up for putting Trump into power. Hang him with the rest. That is the problem. They are not just about getting rid of the obviously corrupt. They are about putting their own corrupt into power. The reason I know that is because it is obvious Trump and evangelical preachers are ripping these people off and they keep on giving to them. Look at the progressives. Sinema completely conned them and she is not getting a second term, nor does she have any real backing anymore. Trump is a notorious liar and he had a reputation beforehand, unlike sinema, and they still voted for him and support him. When you are on that side you are clearly not against corruption and crime. If it is a choice of corruption and crime I am not stupid enough to run to the gang that wants to kill people like me. I am not Dave Rubin or an actual cis woman who is a christian.
The Federal Rules of Evidence disagree! Stop getting your information from Matlock and pay attention to the actual law, you nitwit.
Please do feel free to show your work and prove me wrong. cite the rule that would allow it at a criminal trial and hot a hearing.
You just... know. Once again, you have put your keen and penetrating intellect to the task and come to the wrong conclusion.
Cassidy Hutchison's statement about the steering wheel thing is, generally, "Secret service guy told me that Donald Trump acted like a toddler when denied the chance to go to the Capitol and tried to choke another Secret Service guy. And the guy he supposedly tried to choke was sitting there and didn't deny this account." Obvious hearsay and thus not admissible, right? Hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In federal evidence law, the statement of a party-opponent is specifically defined as "not hearsay." In a case against Trump, he would be the opposing party. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-801/ So in the strictest sense, it's not hearsay. It would obviously be more convincing to have the actual Secret Service agent or a first-hand witness to the statement testify, but it is not inadmissible. Even if hypothetically the rule did not define statements of a party opponent as non-hearsay, there are exceptions that could allow what would ordinarily be considered hearsay to be admissible. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ There is an argument that in this case, any of the first three exceptions would apply.
You "know"? Please provide a link to the evidence and resulting ruling and length of prison time. Otherwise, you "know" nothing. The rest of us, however, "know" you're an idiot and succumb to propaganda.