By Curt_Anderson June 30, 2022 5:02 pm Category: Law (5.0 from 1 vote) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Why Cassidy Hutchinson's January 6 testimony can't be dismissed as 'hearsay'
The not-so-subtle insinuation is that Hutchinson’s testimony isn’t credible. The legal reality is a lot more complicated.

[Even] if hearsay rules applied to congressional hearings (and, one last time, they don’t), the overwhelming majority of Hutchinson’s testimony would likely have been admissible — either because it wasn’t hearsay in the first place or because it was admissible hearsay owing to the nature of the statements and/or the refusal of those who made the statements about which she testified to put themselves in front of the Jan. 6 committee. --MSNBC

The following is an example of what is and isn't hearsay from the source which I link to below.

For example, in a family law case, Henry wants to testify that his wife's mother, Mother May, stated that she saw the wife, Wendy, hit their child. Since Henry is testifying to what Mother May said, this testimony could be hearsay. If Henry is offering Mother May's statement as proof that Wendy hit their child, then it is hearsay. Henry is not the proper person to testify about what Mother May said. Mother May must testify to what she observed.

On the other hand, suppose Henry is offering Mother May's statement to show that Mother May and Henry communicate regularly about the child. Henry wants to support his claim that Mother May is an appropriate temporary guardian for the child. Henry is no longer trying to prove that Wendy actually hit their child. Since Henry is not offering this statement as proof that what Mother May said is true, the statement does not meet the definition of hearsay.

Cited and related links:

1. msnbc.com
2. lawshelf.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:12 pm Just speaking for pb: pb's saying that Ms Hutchinson's testimony is not powerful. It's essentially gossip. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 5:20 pm HtS, You may not think her testimony is powerful, but you have to admit her testimony has legs. It's all over the internet. The print media is devoting a lot of ink to it. There is lot of chatter on TV newscasts and late night shows. People are abuzz. Trump cult is in overdrive trying to refute it. Trump is gnashing his teeth. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:25 pm Curt, That's the nature of gossip. Sensational, yes. Powerful...useful to Trump’s prosecution? No. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 5:32 pm It depends on how that bit of testimony is used to prosecute Trump. It could be used a corroborating evidence that Trump was irate and demanded he be driven to the Capitol where he intended to lead an angry, armed mob to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:40 pm Of course. I said at the time that Lizzy was setting the table. I assumed she was setting the table with the Secret Service agents. Apparently, since they are chomping at the bit to refute Ms Hutchinson, not. by oldedude on June 30, 2022 6:42 pm If that was the case, why didn't they bring the other people with first hand knowledge of the situation? That would have been infinitely more powerful. If for nothing more than this one issue. That would have been an "oh crap" for the trumpsters and made much more of the hearing more believable than this fiasco, which is nothing more than questioning in a third world shthole. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 6:42 pm Megyn Kelly played recordings of Ms Hutchinson saying, "...something to the effect of..." twelve times during her testimony. Hilarious! View Video by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 7:38 pm HtS, Sounds like Megyn Kelly's sound clips were a laugh riot. Hutchinson is such a dork to be precise in her words. She should be like Trump who attributes statements as if they were direct quotes to his favorite sources: 1. My friend Jim, the “substantial guy” who told Trump that “Paris is no longer Paris” among other opinions. 2. Big Strong Men who constantly cry tears of joy because of Trump. 3. And the all purpose a lot of people are saying. newyorker.com thestar.com washingtonpost.com by oldedude on June 30, 2022 7:40 pm It seems to me that really isn't very strong "testimony" at all. Rough draft material. I do agree with Curt, there will be differences in their testimony. Minor differences are to be expect. That's why you don't demand they remember how many bullets were fired. You're not going to get a good answer on that. Grabbing the wheel of a car and attacking another person is a major thing. And although there will be changes because of perspective, the major points will be made. That's why Chaney knew there was an issue with the story. Perhaps she was coached and promised another job (other than being an "assistant" to someone). Chaney knows this is her last hoyah as a GOP member. Right now she's down 28% and falling as fast as pedojoe. by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2022 8:43 am Let us say for the sake of argument that Cassidy Hutchinson's recounting of what happened in the presidential SUV was not accurate. In the story as Hutchinson told it, the Secret Service agents come across as tough guys willing to forcefully push back on an irate president's demands. Logically, who was more likely to exaggerate the drama of the incident? The two Secret Service agents perhaps hoping to impress an attractive 25-year-old with a bit of macho bragadocio? Or would Cassidy Hutchinson under oath been more likely to inflate their description of the event? by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 9:17 am Curt, Logically, who was more likely to exaggerate the drama of the incident? Who cares! The practical impact. And, please verify this to your heart's content: Before the SwampMedia reported that the Secret Service agents challenged Ms Hutchinson, right wing media was pretending the hearings away. Since that moment, they are as gleeful as ghetto kids slapping in a pot hole water puddle after a torrential thunderstorm at the end of a hot summer day. Lizzy and Ms Hutchinson created a right wing narrative of the hearings, in those three minutes, out of whole cloth, and the right wing will be telling their own story long after the Committee has disbanded. "Remember when Liz Cheney and the Dems told those J6 lies in that sham Committee!!!!!? Bahahahahahahahahahaha. Do you remember where you were and what you doing when you first knew about the first lie that was exposed... Bahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hahahahahahahahaha hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hahahahahahahahaha hoohoohoohoohoohoohoo heeheeheeheeheeheehee hahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh." That's what's coming. by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2022 9:27 am Since you asked, it certainly seems like YOU care. Obviously it's of tantamount importance to you and other members of the Trump cult that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony be discredited. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 9:30 am Who cares to answer your question, "Logically, who was more likely to exaggerate the drama of the incident?" Non effin issue... ...over here, anyway. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 10:56 am "Logically, who was more likely to exaggerate the drama of the incident?" Lizzie Borton, butch Cassidy, shiftless, the little nancy, pedojoe, and all the other haters of the Constitution. (did I miss anyone?) Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page