Sean Hannity is doing AWESOME thread

[djohn2oo8]

1101304055769583618

ol sport just involved himself in a federal crime :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

djohn just creamed his tighty whiteys.

[Spurs Homer]

I would personally invest in the Orville Redenbacher and Pop Secret brands of Popcorn -

if Hannity is subpoenaed to testify before Congress.


:corn:


"Mr. Hannity, in all those countless times that Cohen advised you that he has paid porn stars for the president and not tell him - how many of those times did you report that information to the FBI?"



:lmao

[DMC]

He wasn't under oath. Some here don't get it.

[djohn2oo8]

He wasn't under oath. Some here don't get it.
? He was told about a crime he didn’t go the feds about and instead took that information PUBLICLY to the one other person implicated by the SDNY as directing that crime. So now he may be a material witness.

:lol DMC

[djohn2oo8]

And because of that, he may now be called to testify under oath

:lol DMC again

[Spurs Homer]

He wasn't under oath. Some here don't get it.

He can be put under oath and then he can tell his millions of FOX viewers how and where he got proof about Hillary, Mueller, FBI personnel - being criminals and/or a crime family.

Or he can testify truthfully and all the FOX viewers can hear for themselves that Hannity's comments/accusations/reporting - for the past two years have all been "entertainment."

He can testify that all of the crimes he recounted on national TV were just "fake news."

That will be good tv!

[DMC]

? He was told about a crime he didn’t go the feds about and instead took that information PUBLICLY to the one other person implicated by the SDNY as directing that crime. So now he may be a material witness.

:lol DMC

You can say anything you want if you're not under oath. He can just say he was making it all up if they pressure him.

[DMC]

He can be put under oath and then he can tell his millions of FOX viewers how and where he got proof about Hillary, Mueller, FBI personnel - being criminals and/or a crime family.

Or he can testify truthfully and all the FOX viewers can hear for themselves that Hannity's comments/accusations/reporting - for the past two years have all been "entertainment."

He can testify that all of the crimes he recounted on national TV were just "fake news."

That will be good tv!

Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said shit they could be prosecuted for if under oath?

[Spurs Homer]

You can say anything you want if you're not under oath. He can just say he was making it all up if they pressure him.

Exactly.

Let him say it under oath.

Won't help trump, It will expose him more.


:lmao

[CitizenDwayne]

Lol imagine being in a place in your life where you feel compelled to defend Sean Hannity. A guy who gets paid millions to lie to senior citizens

[Spurs Homer]

Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said shit they could be prosecuted for if under oath?

He lied. Trump lied. The crime was committed. Cohen is going to prison. The guy that directed the crime will be prosecuted.

All of your defense of these liars and criminals is for nothing.

[spurraider21]

Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said shit they could be prosecuted for if under oath?
doesn't have to be under oath. if you make a confession to police officers, for instance, that can be used as evidence, even if you refuse to testify at trial.

[Winehole23]

Lol imagine being in a place in your life where you feel compelled to defend Sean Hannity. A guy who gets paid millions to lie to senior citizensDMC 2019

[DMC]

Exactly.

Let him say it under oath.

Won't help trump, It will expose him more.


:lmao
Why would they put him under oath?

Keep reaching for someone to be investigated. When the soap opera concludes you'll be standing there holding your empty bag.

[DMC]

Lol imagine being in a place in your life where you feel compelled to defend Sean Hannity. A guy who gets paid millions to lie to senior citizens

Why is stating a fact defending someone? I don't like Hannity, he's worse than O'Reilly. The fact though is that he wasn't under oath.

[DMC]

doesn't have to be under oath. if you make a confession to police officers, for instance, that can be used as evidence, even if you refuse to testify at trial.

After your rights have been read to you, and you've acknowledged them. Was Hannity talking to a cop?

Why all the scenarios that differ from reality? Let's talk about reality. In reality, he wasn't under oath.

[CitizenDwayne]

Why is stating a fact defending someone? I don't like Hannity, he's worse than O'Reilly. The fact though is that he wasn't under oath.
Stating an irrelevant fact. What he said further implicates him in a pretty complex web of lies involving the president, and it’s not outrageous that therefore he would be called in to testify. You can’t just dismiss everything he said because he wasn’t fucking under oath, that’s absurd and only serves to alter the discussion.

[spurraider21]

After your rights have been read to you, and you've acknowledged them.
that protection only applies if you are in custody and being interrogated/questioned. in those circumstances, absent being read your rights, your admission would be presumed involuntary. if you freely say something on national TV, that certainly wouldn't be an issue


Was Hannity talking to a cop?
no. so he cant be charged for making false statements to law enforcement. doesnt mean they cant look into his statement/admission and decide how to proceed from there


Why all the scenarios that differ from reality? Let's talk about reality. In reality, he wasn't under oath.
i'm not bringing up a scenario differing from reality. he made a public statement/admission that could be the basis for action by law enforcement. i dont know that his statement actually implicates him of any crimes, though thats for law enforcement and prosecutors to decide. but the fact is that yes, these statements could be the basis for legal action even if they aren't under oath

[DMC]

Stating an irrelevant fact. What he said further implicates him in a pretty complex web of lies involving the president, and it’s not outrageous that therefore he would be called in to testify. You can’t just dismiss everything he said because he wasn’t fucking under oath, that’s absurd and only serves to alter the discussion.

It gives him an out. It's only irrelevant because you got too excited about it and don't want your party pooped on. Just breathe.

[spurraider21]

what's next, he didn't say simon says?

[DMC]

that protection only applies if you are in custody and being interrogated/questioned. in those circumstances, absent being read your rights, your admission would be presumed involuntary. if you freely say something on national TV, that certainly wouldn't be an issue

You brought up the cops which is a red herring. He wasn't talking to the cops.


no. so he cant be charged for making false statements to law enforcement. doesnt mean they cant look into his statement/admission and decide how to proceed from there

They could look into him anyhow regardless of what he said. What would stop them from doing so?


i'm not bringing up a scenario differing from reality. he made a public statement/admission that could be the basis for action by law enforcement. i dont know that his statement actually implicates him of any crimes, though thats for law enforcement and prosecutors to decide. but the fact is that yes, these statements could be the basis for legal action even if they aren't under oath
"Legal action" is a loose term that can mean a lot of things. I believe it could provide reasonable suspicion that he could have some answers and is willing to talk, so he could be subpoenaed. Because he's with the news media it would have to be approved by the AG. That's my understanding. Either way, he can simply claim he was offering a hypothetical or playing Devil's advocate or any number of bullshit excuses. They would have to accept it unless there's other evidence. So imo there's no reason to think he incriminated himself since he wasn't under oath.

[DMC]

what's next, he didn't say simon says?
As an attorney you better than anyone should know that he hasn't implicated himself in a crime. Hearing something from someone doesn't make you a responsible party, especially in his job. But keep acting a fool.

[spurraider21]

You brought up the cops which is a red herring. He wasn't talking to the cops.
it wasn't a red herring. i was pointing out that statements dont have to be "under oath" to be held against you. one example would be talking to cops. another example would be saying it on national TV. you then brought up miranda rights as a red herring to derail the conversation. it wasn't a relevant discussion point but i indulged you anyway


They could look into him anyhow regardless of what he said. What would stop them from doing so?
his public statements would be evidence against him in a legal proceeding, even if they aren't under penalty of perjury. now he could testify under oath and say "what i said then was inaccurate" and it would be up to a jury to decide which statement was more credible.


"Legal action" is a loose term that can mean a lot of things. I believe it could provide reasonable suspicion that he could have some answers and is willing to talk, so he could be subpoenaed. Because he's with the news media it would have to be approved by the AG. That's my understanding. Either way, he can simply claim he was offering a hypothetical or playing Devil's advocate or any number of bullshit excuses.
of course he can. and a jury would be able to make that credibility call.


They would have to accept it unless there's other evidence. So imo there's no reason to think he incriminated himself since he wasn't under oath.
that's just demonstrably false. his previous statements would be admissible as evidence against him, even if they were on TV and not under any oath or penalty of perjury

[spurraider21]

As an attorney you better than anyone should know that he hasn't implicated himself in a crime. Hearing something from someone doesn't make you a responsible party, especially in his job. But keep acting a fool.
that's why i said "i dont know that his statement actually implicates him of any crimes"

but if a prosecutor deems that it does implicate him and presses some charges, then those statements would be admissible evidence that a jury can rely upon

[Spurs Homer]

Pretty sure that this little conversation was Trumps idea.

I am pretty sure that Trump figured it would be a good plan to have Hannity exonerate him on the air for the cult to hear.

I also don't think they thought it through!

:lmao:lmao

Hannity has some cool choices here;

A) He can say he was being truthful in that statement and open up a can of worms into his involvement in this crime - and possibly implicate himself in concealing evidence in a crime that Cohen is facing prison for -

B) He can admit that he lied to protect the president - which might implicate him in a cover up of a crime in which Cohen is going to prison for and for which Trump orchestrated, coordinated and paid for from his own bank account.


:lmao:lmao

[spurraider21]

Hannity has some cool choices here;

A) He can say he was being truthful in that statement and open up a can of worms into his involvement in this crime - and possibly implicate himself in concealing evidence in a crime that Cohen is facing prison for -
unless he was directly questioned or subpoenaed, he'd have no obligation to come forward and be an errand boy for the prosecution


B) He can admit that he lied to protect the president - which might implicate him in a cover up of a crime in which Cohen is going to prison for and for which Trump orchestrated, coordinated and paid for from his own bank account.
its not a crime to lie, though. and that wasnt a statement made to law enforcement or under oath. i would say that he'd just lose credibility, but i dont think that really applies to hannity. he has no credibility to anybody but his viewers, who think he can do no wrong

[ducks]

People do not get it
It is wrong to lie but not a crime unless under oath
If it was the prison would be full

[benefactor]

People do not get it
It is wrong to lie but not a crime unless under oath
If it was the prison would be full
Yeah that's already been covered, short bus

[Spurs Homer]

unless he was directly questioned or subpoenaed, he'd have no obligation to come forward and be an errand boy for the prosecution


its not a crime to lie, though. and that wasnt a statement made to law enforcement or under oath. i would say that he'd just lose credibility, but i dont think that really applies to hannity. he has no credibility to anybody but his viewers, who think he can do no wrong

Not really sure you are correct here...

#1 scenario - Hannity doubles down says Cohen told him he kept it from trump - the the SDNY would want to question Hannity to see why THEIR evidence is contradicted by Hannity's claim - which could lead to any crimes that they uncover while investigating hannity's new claim in a case they had ALREADY CONCLUDED that Individual 1- directed, coordinated and gave direction to -

#2- Hannity admits he just bullshitted in that interview - then the SDNY (if they chose to get involved - they probably won't) - would be able to advise him that his lies might land him in an obstruction of justice case if he is not careful
(not to mention that it would embarrass trump - again lol)

[spurraider21]

Not really sure you are correct here...

#1 scenario - Hannity doubles down says Cohen told him he kept it from trump - the the SDNY would want to question Hannity to see why THEIR evidence is contradicted by Hannity's claim - which could lead to any crimes that they uncover while investigating hannity's new claim in a case they had ALREADY CONCLUDED that Individual 1- directed, coordinated and gave direction to -

#2- Hannity admits he just bullshitted in that interview - then the SDNY (if they chose to get involved - they probably won't) - would be able to advise him that his lies might land him in an obstruction of justice case if he is not careful
(not to mention that it would embarrass trump - again lol)
#1 - yeah they can question hannity if they want to. even if he tells them he lied on TV and that cohen never told him that, lying on TV isn't a crime.

#2 - how would making a statement like that on national tv be obstructing justice?


PS i get to call scoreboard after that dallas cop was charged with MURDER and not manslaughter

:bobo

[Winehole23]

#1 - yeah they can question hannity if they want to. even if he tells them he lied on TV and that cohen never told him that, lying on TV isn't a crime.

#2 - how would making a statement like that on national tv be obstructing justice?


PS i get to call scoreboard after that dallas cop was charged with MURDER and not manslaughter

:bobo:bobo

[Spurs Homer]

#1 - yeah they can question hannity if they want to. even if he tells them he lied on TV and that cohen never told him that, lying on TV isn't a crime.

#2 - how would making a statement like that on national tv be obstructing justice?


PS i get to call scoreboard after that dallas cop was charged with MURDER and not manslaughter

:bobo

#2: well if they questioned hannity and found out he lied (hannity admits) they could say-
“trump is legally an unindicted co-conspirator in this crime- why are you involving yourself in the evidence and claiming you have contradicting evidence? They could ask him, “did individual 1 ask you to say that? (Opening up that ol’ can of worms lol

yes

you called it on that dallas cop
(i did say that i thought if that prosecutor found her story to be bullshit he could change it to murder)
But yes

i was wrong

[DMC]

it wasn't a red herring. i was pointing out that statements dont have to be "under oath" to be held against you. one example would be talking to cops. another example would be saying it on national TV. you then brought up miranda rights as a red herring to derail the conversation. it wasn't a relevant discussion point but i indulged you anyway


It's a red herring because I didn't make such a broad statement.


his public statements would be evidence against him in a legal proceeding, even if they aren't under penalty of perjury. now he could testify under oath and say "what i said then was inaccurate" and it would be up to a jury to decide which statement was more credible.

Unless he said he was bullshitting.
The jury would need corroborating evidence to consider him a liar. If a convicted perjurer can testify before congress again and be believed, then it would be very difficult for Hannity to even go to trial based on something he said while not under oath. There would need to be something else, and what he said could be brought up in the process.

Do you think a judge would schedule a trial for something someone said while not under oath, with no other evidence?


of course he can. and a jury would be able to make that credibility call.
Why would he be on trial?


that's just demonstrably false. his previous statements would be admissible as evidence against him, even if they were on TV and not under any oath or penalty of perjury
If they are the only evidence, would it be worthy of a trial?

[DMC]

that's why i said "i dont know that his statement actually implicates him of any crimes"

but if a prosecutor deems that it does implicate him and presses some charges, then those statements would be admissible evidence that a jury can rely upon

You mean that a judge would look at along with the AG to decide if a trial is warranted? Or are you just going to FFWD to a trial by jury?

[DMC]

unless he was directly questioned or subpoenaed, he'd have no obligation to come forward and be an errand boy for the prosecution

This is what I have said already. Not under oath.

Why are you defending Hannity? You must have a sad life.


its not a crime to lie, though. and that wasnt a statement made to law enforcement or under oath. i would say that he'd just lose credibility, but i dont think that really applies to hannity. he has no credibility to anybody but his viewers, who think he can do no wrong
Make up your mind.

[Chris]

Boiled down, Hannity might possibly be in trouble if a prosecutor decides he is :tu

(according to 21)

[DMC]

Boiled down, Hannity might possibly be in trouble if a prosecutor decides he is :tu

(according to 21)

Only if the AG agrees. They could issue a subpoena but I think anyone can be called to testify.

[spurraider21]

It's a red herring because I didn't make such a broad statement.
yes, you did. your exact quote was: "Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said they they could be prosecuted for if under oath."

and i explained to you that being under oath is not required for your words to be held against you. you only have to be under oath to testify in court. but your out of court statements, even those not under oath, can still be used to prosecute you.

the main distinction between being under oath and not being under oath is the state's ability to try you for perjury.


Unless he said he was bullshitting.
The jury would need corroborating evidence to consider him a liar.
that's just not true. the prosecution can literally play the tape of his interview on fox and submit nothing further. even if hannity took the stand (defendants almost never do, so this exercise is pointless) and said UNDER OATH that he was just bullshitting, the jury can still conclude that his televised interview was the truth and he's just lying now under oath to save his skin. they would not need any additional evidence. i'm not guaranteeing that they would find him guilty based on that, but there is no "requirement" for additional evidence


If a convicted perjurer can testify before congress again and be believed,
red herring. irrelevant to the question of whether or not charges could be brought against hannity just because he wasn't under oath during his tv interview


then it would be very difficult for Hannity to even go to trial based on something he said while not under oath.
the jury decides credibility. you seem to think that by not being under oath your words have less consequence. that is only true in the context that you cannot be tried for perjury unless you are under oath. again, i'm not here saying that hannity's words are going to get him indicted and he will face trial. but to blanket dismiss the possibility of somebody being charged with a crime because he wasn't under oath is just a misunderstanding of the law.


There would need to be something else, and what he said could be brought up in the process.
no, there would not "need to be something else." im sure the prosecution would like to have more evidence but technically speaking his statements made on TV alone would be enough, if those statements revealed a crime.


Do you think a judge would schedule a trial for something someone said while not under oath, with no other evidence?
based on where he is being charged, there would either be a grand jury proceeding or a preliminary hearing to determine if there is probable cause that a crime was committed. all you need is probable cause for the case to advance to the trial stage.


Why would he be on trial?
depends on what he's charged with? again, im reiterating that i dont think his statements amount to, or reveal the commission of any crime. but if i'm wrong, those statements alone WOULD be enough to support a conviction, as long as the jury agrees. even though they are not under oath


If they are the only evidence, would it be worthy of a trial?
see above

[spurraider21]

#2: well if they questioned hannity and found out he lied (hannity admits) they could say-
“trump is legally an unindicted co-conspirator in this crime- why are you involving yourself in the evidence and claiming you have contradicting evidence? They could ask him, “did individual 1 ask you to say that? (Opening up that ol’ can of worms lol

yes

you called it on that dallas cop
(i did say that i thought if that prosecutor found her story to be bullshit he could change it to murder)
But yes

i was wrong
even if they found a hand written letter from donald trump instructing hannity that "i want you to lie about cohen on national TV" i still dont see how that would amount to an obstruction of justice.

[djohn2oo8]

Damn. Spurraider murdered him. In cold blood.

[spurraider21]

You mean that a judge would look at along with the AG to decide if a trial is warranted? Or are you just going to FFWD to a trial by jury?


This is what I have said already. Not under oath.

Why are you defending Hannity? You must have a sad life.

Make up your mind.


Boiled down, Hannity might possibly be in trouble if a prosecutor decides he is :tu

(according to 21)
i've been consistent the whole way. but to be completely clear

a) i do not have any reason to believe that hannity's statements on TV were a crime or revealed any underlying crime. however, i'm not a criminal law expert and maybe there's some code he violated that i'm not aware of. i personally dont think so based on what i do know

b) IF(!) there in fact was some criminal element to what he said or what he discussed, then the prosecution can try to have him indicted. based on the jurisdiction, that would either be via a grand jury or a preliminary hearing. the prosecution only needs to show that probable cause exists that a crime was committed to advance past this stage, at which point a trial will be set. in a preliminary hearing, there is a judge present. both attorneys are present. and the judge ultimately makes the call if there is probable cause. in a grand jury proceeding, there is no judge present, and the defense cant even ask questions. if the grand jury decides there is probable cause, the matter is set for trial. based on the circumstances, its possible that his out of court statements alone would be sufficient to establish probable cause. there is no basis to say "no, his words werent under oath, so he cant get in trouble for them"

c) and this was my main point... the mere fact that hannity's statements weren't under oath don't matter whatsoever. there is no inherent need for additional, corroborating evidence. there is no need to have him under oath for his words to count against him in a court of law. again, this all is under the assumption that his statements were criminal or revealed something criminal which would land him in court (an assumption that i do not hold). but you cant just say "nuh uh, doesnt count, wasn't under oath." that's not how it works. at all. and even if he rebuts himself under oath and testifies that "i was just bullshitting" the jury isn't forced to disregard his previous comments. they can weigh the credibility of his in-court statements vs his out-of-court statements and decide what they wish.

[Chris]

however, i'm not a criminal law expert

You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. :lol Settle down Dershowitz.

[spurraider21]

You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. :lol Settle down Dershowitz.
more accurately, its not part of my regular practice. i've only dealt with 2 criminal matters. criminal law/procedure have some fairly universal principles that apply from state to state, and im knowledgeable enough to talk about basic principles like the ones in this thread. but i'm not going to pretend to know every section of the US Code and tell you if "this" or "that" is a crime. contrary to popular belief, you dont spend law school memorizing statutes/codes. you learn doctrines and general principles.

and cmon man :lol... i took the bar in july 2017 and got my results in november 2017. im trying my best :cry

[djohn2oo8]

You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. :lol Settle down Dershowitz.
Citizen X sounds very distinguished

[Chris]

more accurately, its not part of my regular practice. i've only dealt with 2 criminal matters. criminal law/procedure have some fairly universal principles that apply from state to state, and im knowledgeable enough to talk about basic principles like the ones in this thread. but i'm not going to pretend to know every section of the US Code and tell you if "this" or "that" is a crime. contrary to popular belief, you dont spend law school memorizing statutes/codes. you learn doctrines and general principles.

and cmon man :lol... i took the bar in july 2017 and got my results in november 2017. im trying my best :cry

I give you credit for not being a condescending bastard like vy65.

[Chris]

Citizen X sounds very distinguished

Is Kyle Griffin distinguished for you?

[spurraider21]

I give you credit for not being a condescending bastard like vy65 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=11399).
i can be pretty condescending from time to time imho

and vy is arite

[vy65]

I give you credit for not being a condescending bastard like vy65.

Not my fault you’re a fucking idiot

[spurraider21]

vy is arite


Not my fault you’re a fucking idiot
https://media.giphy.com/media/3kIcyN7fUtlUA/giphy.gif

[djohn2oo8]

Is Kyle Griffin distinguished for you?
More so than Stealth Jeff

[ElNono]

The question is if there's already an ongoing court case in the matter of payments, besides the overall Mueller investigation.

In that case, he basically just made himself a material witness and a judge can compel him to testify under oath (and that doesn't need any attention from the AG, the presiding judge certainly has the authority to compel testimony if the prosecution or defense require it), more so since he's not making claims about a third party source, but conversations he allegedly had himself with Cohen.

In that context, if he admits under oath to have been lying, he opens up himself to potential libel and defamation from Cohen. If he doubles down, he risks to being exposed to be lying under oath if there's evidence that Dennison instructed Cohen to make the payments (recordings, documents, etc) AND libel and defamation.

Overall, a piss poor move. But, let's not forget these are the same people that trusted the now evil, liar Cohen to handle legal matters for them for I don't know how long, so the lack of sound judgement apparently isn't new.

[Chris]

More so than Stealth Jeff

You mean Brian Cates, the journalist.

[spurraider21]

You mean Brian Cates, the journalist.
yeah this guy


This is when the double standard is going to be laid bare. Trump can't be attacked. Ever. Front runner or not. He is a deeply flawed candidate and they know it. That's why they shriek so loudly whenever anyone starts talking back to Trump. It can't be allowed. Whoever starts to talk back to Trump must be instantly shouted down.

Trump can attack whoever he wants at will and anybody who fires back at him is 'destroying the GOP' or something. What bullshit. And it's time to call it what it is: bullshit.

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-nikki-haley-rule-ever-since-south.html

[TSA]

You mean Brian Cates, the journalist.

The butthurt oozes from Pavlov whenever he’s brought up. Poor fella is just jealous someone else is getting paid for spending their time online all day.

[Chris]

The butthurt oozes from Pavlov whenever he’s brought up. Poor fella is just jealous someone else is getting paid for spending their time online all day.

Someday he will get MVP

[djohn2oo8]

The butthurt oozes from Pavlov whenever he’s brought up. Poor fella is just jealous someone else is getting paid for spending their time online all day.
Brian who?

[DMC]

yes, you did. your exact quote was: "Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said they they could be prosecuted for if under oath."

and i explained to you that being under oath is not required for your words to be held against you. you only have to be under oath to testify in court. but your out of court statements, even those not under oath, can still be used to prosecute you.

the main distinction between being under oath and not being under oath is the state's ability to try you for perjury.

No, what I said was


Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said shit they could be prosecuted for if under oath?

This is simply saying a lot of people say shit they wouldn't say if under oath. Nowhere did I even hint you could say anything to anyone at anytime without fear of prosecution if you're not under oath.



that's just not true. the prosecution can literally play the tape of his interview on fox and submit nothing further. even if hannity took the stand (defendants almost never do, so this exercise is pointless) and said UNDER OATH that he was just bullshitting, the jury can still conclude that his televised interview was the truth and he's just lying now under oath to save his skin. they would not need any additional evidence. i'm not guaranteeing that they would find him guilty based on that, but there is no "requirement" for additional evidence

The fundamental problem is you have him on trial for something he said while not under oath. Is that enough for a trial by jury? Ye or no? If you're going to add a caveat of something else, then what he said isn't why he's on trial. You're moving the goalposts.


red herring. irrelevant to the question of whether or not charges could be brought against hannity just because he wasn't under oath during his tv interview

No it's not. It's relevant since you have put Hannity on trial by jury for something he said while not even under oath, and have the jury not believing him when he said he was lying.


the jury decides credibility. you seem to think that by not being under oath your words have less consequence. that is only true in the context that you cannot be tried for perjury unless you are under oath. again, i'm not here saying that hannity's words are going to get him indicted and he will face trial. but to blanket dismiss the possibility of somebody being charged with a crime because he wasn't under oath is just a misunderstanding of the law.

Fuck dude. How did you get from where we are now to Hannity being on trial by jury? What else is going to get him there? You cannot magically bridge that gap with "and then".

I didn't say he cannot be charged. You're another here who likes to put words in people's mouths instead of arguing against what I said. Time and again you do this and time and again I have to point you back to the facts.


no, there would not "need to be something else." im sure the prosecution would like to have more evidence but technically speaking his statements made on TV alone would be enough, if those statements revealed a crime.

:lol "there doesn't need to be something else" followed by "if those statements revealed a crime". What crime? The crime would be the "something else", don't you think?


based on where he is being charged, there would either be a grand jury proceeding or a preliminary hearing to determine if there is probable cause that a crime was committed. all you need is probable cause for the case to advance to the trial stage.

A conviction? How did you get past the AG to even have a trial by jury because someone said they were told something?


depends on what he's charged with? again, im reiterating that i dont think his statements amount to, or reveal the commission of any crime. but if i'm wrong, those statements alone WOULD be enough to support a conviction, as long as the jury agrees. even though they are not under oath

You're creating a hypothetical that isn't reality at all. In an alternate universe if a totally different set of circumstances existed and so forth.

I'm talking about this universe, this circumstance. How could saying he was told something reveal a crime, when the crime would be him being told something... when he's not under oath? He cannot lie without going to jail? :lol


see above
You said the same thing over and over.

I could say that Cohen told me something multiple times. Does that mean I could go to jail?

[DMC]

i've been consistent the whole way. but to be completely clear

a) i do not have any reason to believe that hannity's statements on TV were a crime or revealed any underlying crime. however, i'm not a criminal law expert and maybe there's some code he violated that i'm not aware of. i personally dont think so based on what i do know

b) IF(!) there in fact was some criminal element to what he said or what he discussed, then the prosecution can try to have him indicted. based on the jurisdiction, that would either be via a grand jury or a preliminary hearing. the prosecution only needs to show that probable cause exists that a crime was committed to advance past this stage, at which point a trial will be set. in a preliminary hearing, there is a judge present. both attorneys are present. and the judge ultimately makes the call if there is probable cause. in a grand jury proceeding, there is no judge present, and the defense cant even ask questions. if the grand jury decides there is probable cause, the matter is set for trial. based on the circumstances, its possible that his out of court statements alone would be sufficient to establish probable cause. there is no basis to say "no, his words werent under oath, so he cant get in trouble for them"

c) and this was my main point... the mere fact that hannity's statements weren't under oath don't matter whatsoever. there is no inherent need for additional, corroborating evidence. there is no need to have him under oath for his words to count against him in a court of law. again, this all is under the assumption that his statements were criminal or revealed something criminal which would land him in court (an assumption that i do not hold). but you cant just say "nuh uh, doesnt count, wasn't under oath." that's not how it works. at all. and even if he rebuts himself under oath and testifies that "i was just bullshitting" the jury isn't forced to disregard his previous comments. they can weigh the credibility of his in-court statements vs his out-of-court statements and decide what they wish.

To reveal something criminal there would have to be corroborating evidence.

Example:

Hannity in interview: I was there, I left the murder weapon under the big tree near the lake to the left of the boat ramp

Corroborating evidence: Police found the murder weapon where Hannity said he left it, and it wasn't publicized.

In this case, Hannity has incriminated himself. Oath not required.

Even then though he could be guessing, it's not open and shut.

However, you cannot just have a statement that in and of itself is incriminating without corroborating evidence from surrounding events. In fact, every time you offer up that he could incriminate himself and say "no need for corroborating evidence" you then insert something other than his statement to use to tie him to a crime. That something is corroborating evidence.

I'd like to see you offer up a scenario where someone could be found guilty of a crime based on something they said not under oath without a criminal event to tie it to, because talking isn't a crime.

[djohn2oo8]

Can't even get the team right derp. :lmao
:lol

[Spurs Homer]

To reveal something criminal there would have to be corroborating evidence.

Example:

Hannity in interview: I was there, I left the murder weapon under the big tree near the lake to the left of the boat ramp

Corroborating evidence: Police found the murder weapon where Hannity said he left it, and it wasn't publicized.

In this case, Hannity has incriminated himself. Oath not required.

Even then though he could be guessing, it's not open and shut.

However, you cannot just have a statement that in and of itself is incriminating without corroborating evidence from surrounding events. In fact, every time you offer up that he could incriminate himself and say "no need for corroborating evidence" you then insert something other than his statement to use to tie him to a crime. That something is corroborating evidence.

I'd like to see you offer up a scenario where someone could be found guilty of a crime based on something they said not under oath without a criminal event to tie it to, because talking isn't a crime.

Who ever said he was guilty of a crime just for his words to trump about Cohen?

What people have said (unless I missed it - I didn't read every post)

is that Hannity might have implicated himself and might be subpoenaed to testify.


Of course - depending on his testimony - he could just be revealed to be a liar - and Trump would be embarrassed again - and lose his "fake alibi" that Hannity was trying to give Trump.

Or - again - depending on his testimony - he could be implicated in something more serious -

But no one said - as far as I know - that he was ALREADY guilty of a crime.

[DMC]

Who ever said he was guilty of a crime just for his words to trump about Cohen?

What people have said (unless I missed it - I didn't read every post)

is that Hannity might have implicated himself and might be subpoenaed to testify.

SR21 has him being on trial by jury already. This is where we are in the discussion.


Of course - depending on his testimony - he could just be revealed to be a liar - and Trump would be embarrassed again - and lose his "fake alibi" that Hannity was trying to give Trump.

My point is that he can simply walk back his statement. If that means he could be sued for libel or defamation by Cohen, I'm sure he'd take that risk over being called to testify before congress.


Or - again - depending on his testimony - he could be implicated in something more serious -

This would be the "corroborating evidence" I spoke of earlier. How could a trial be held based solely on what Hannity said in an interview?


But no one said - as far as I know - that he was ALREADY guilty of a crime.
I never even hinted that they did. I said without something else to match his comments to, he has the option of just saying "it didn't happen" or they simply have to take his word for it, because the narrative could easily be that Cohen lied to Hannity as well, to protect the POTUS. It would make sense that a guy willing to lie under oath would lie about the same thing when there's no repercussions.

[Spurs Homer]

SR21 has him being on trial by jury already. This is where we are in the discussion.

My point is that he can simply walk back his statement. If that means he could be sued for libel or defamation by Cohen, I'm sure he'd take that risk over being called to testify before congress.

This would be the "corroborating evidence" I spoke of earlier. How could a trial be held based solely on what Hannity said in an interview?

I never even hinted that they did. I said without something else to match his comments to, he has the option of just saying "it didn't happen" or they simply have to take his word for it, because the narrative could easily be that Cohen lied to Hannity as well, to protect the POTUS. It would make sense that a guy willing to lie under oath would lie about the same thing when there's no repercussions.

That's why I said "depending on his testimony"

so yes - if he walks it back under oath - and there is ZERO other evidence that comes to light - it would just be an embarrassment to him and to Trump.

[DMC]

That's why I said "depending on his testimony"

so yes - if he walks it back under oath - and there is ZERO other evidence that comes to light - it would just be an embarrassment to him and to Trump.

It wouldn't embarrass Trump that Hannity lied. Trump would be in the same position either way since he's not relying on Hannity's statement to exonerate himself. We've seen time and again that Trump has the will and ability to cut ties with his closest allies in an instant if they become a burden.

That said, Hannity should be fired from Fox because of his comments.

[Spurs Homer]

It wouldn't embarrass Trump that Hannity lied. Trump would be in the same position either way since he's not relying on Hannity's statement to exonerate himself. We've seen time and again that Trump has the will and ability to cut ties with his closes allies in an instant if they become a burden.

Probably

but to be really accurate -

it would embarrass trump for a second - but he would just say it didn't and move the goalpost

"Mr. President - do you have a comment about Sean Hannity walking back his statement that Cohen paid Stormy on his own?"

Trump: "we should be looking at the Democrats.... the FBI...blah blah...."

[DMC]

Probably

but to be really accurate -

it would embarrass trump for a second - but he would just say it didn't and move the goalpost

"Mr. President - do you have a comment about Sean Hannity walking back his statement that Cohen paid Stormy on his own?"

Trump: "we should be looking at the Democrats.... the FBI...blah blah...."

"It's unfortunate, Sean is a good guy"

Non-POTUS Trump wouldn't flinch at it. POTUS Trump surely wouldn't.

[spurraider21]

No, what I said was



This is simply saying a lot of people say shit they wouldn't say if under oath. Nowhere did I even hint you could say anything to anyone at anytime without fear of prosecution if you're not under oath.
my point is that being under oath only matters in the context of being under penalty of perjury. his statements not under oath would be equally damning evidence of any statements made under oath for any crime besides perjury. you keep dancing around that.


The fundamental problem is you have him on trial for something he said while not under oath.
see above. you keep demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of this fact. not being under oath shields you from perjury charges. that's about it.


Is that enough for a trial by jury? Ye or no? If you're going to add a caveat of something else, then what he said isn't why he's on trial. You're moving the goalposts.
i've already said i dont think he implicated himself with his comments. my primary point is that his "not being under oath" isn't a factor in that.


No it's not. It's relevant since you have put Hannity on trial by jury for something he said while not even under oath, and have the jury not believing him when he said he was lying.
:sleep you're a broken record. the jury can believe whatever they want. they determine credibility. not the oath he took.


Fuck dude. How did you get from where we are now to Hannity being on trial by jury? What else is going to get him there? You cannot magically bridge that gap with "and then".
for the umpteenth time, i dont think his statements implicate him criminally. now if i'm wrong with that assessment, and he did implicate himself, these statements would lead to charges, and absent a plea deal, a trial.


I didn't say he cannot be charged. You're another here who likes to put words in people's mouths instead of arguing against what I said. Time and again you do this and time and again I have to point you back to the facts.
you've implied time and time again that his words cant be held against him in a court of law because they weren't under oath. not being charged is the logical result


:lol "there doesn't need to be something else" followed by "if those statements revealed a crime". What crime? The crime would be the "something else", don't you think?
"there doesn't need to be something else" in the sense that in theory, a single out of court (not under oath) statement could be enough to support a conviction. i've already said that i dont think he implicated himself in any crime, such as obstruction of justice as spurs homer suggested.


A conviction? How did you get past the AG to even have a trial by jury because someone said they were told something?
the AG? it could be a state DA or a US attorney. i didn't "get past" anything. if charges are filed then a trial will follow absent a plea deal.


You're creating a hypothetical that isn't reality at all. In an alternate universe if a totally different set of circumstances existed and so forth.
im not. im illustrating the point that i've made over and over again, which you've ignored and been mistaken on time and time again, that his not being under oath in any way shields him from prosecution, or that if he had same the same exact things under oath, the ramifications would be different. (the only notable difference is the penalty of perjury)


I'm talking about this universe, this circumstance. How could saying he was told something reveal a crime, when the crime would be him being told something... when he's not under oath? He cannot lie without going to jail? :lol
his not being under oath DOES. NOT. MATTER. unless we are talking about being tried for perjury. we are not.

your comments could easily reveal a crime. if trump jr said (not under oath) that he had cigars with putin in 2015 and they laid out the groundwork to do such and such, those statements could be used as an admission in court and could be enough for a conviction. not saying a jury would necessarily convict him (we can never predict juries).


You said the same thing over and over.
yeah which is confusing why you cant understand it


I could say that Cohen told me something multiple times. Does that mean I could go to jail?
i dont think what hannity said implicates him criminally. nor would it implicate you.

[spurraider21]

To reveal something criminal there would have to be corroborating evidence.

Example:

Hannity in interview: I was there, I left the murder weapon under the big tree near the lake to the left of the boat ramp

Corroborating evidence: Police found the murder weapon where Hannity said he left it, and it wasn't publicized.

In this case, Hannity has incriminated himself. Oath not required.

Even then though he could be guessing, it's not open and shut.

However, you cannot just have a statement that in and of itself is incriminating without corroborating evidence from surrounding events. In fact, every time you offer up that he could incriminate himself and say "no need for corroborating evidence" you then insert something other than his statement to use to tie him to a crime. That something is corroborating evidence.

I'd like to see you offer up a scenario where someone could be found guilty of a crime based on something they said not under oath without a criminal event to tie it to, because talking isn't a crime.
you keep mentioning the being under oath part. you keep misunderstanding what being under oath means.

hows this. wife is missing. guy reveals on TV that he murdered his wife with his bare hands, destroyed her body. he could be tried for that. oath doesnt matter

[Spurs Homer]

you keep mentioning the being under oath part. you keep misunderstanding what being under oath means.

hows this. wife is missing. guy reveals on TV that he murdered his wife with his bare hands, destroyed her body. he could be tried for that. oath doesnt matter

dmc: “not if that guy is trump”
tsa: “fbi killed her framed the guy if it is trump”

lolol

[djohn2oo8]

dmc: “not if that guy is trump”
tsa: “fbi killed her framed the guy if it is trump”

lolol
“Hillary did it in a pizza shop and ate the body”

[koriwhat]

“bing bong ching chong... ching chong bing bong...”

[Spurs Homer]

Lol calf tats hiding in da park

[DMC]

you keep mentioning the being under oath part. you keep misunderstanding what being under oath means.

hows this. wife is missing. guy reveals on TV that he murdered his wife with his bare hands, destroyed her body. he could be tried for that. oath doesnt matter

You just gave a caveat.. the "criminal event" his words tie him to.

What if he said he murdered his wife and no one had checked yet to see if she was even missing? Would he still be charged with murder and put on trial by jury?



Hannity says under oath "he told me at least a dozen times that he made the payment without Trump's knowledge", Hannity is tied to knowing and any backing out = perjury

Otherwise Hannity has an easy out and no trial by jury or otherwise will happen because it's simply his word against anyone else. Why is that so difficult to understand? There's a reason I didn't say "cannot be charged" and no, I did not imply it. He can be charged with anything at any time, but a trial by jury has a loftier requirement than just being charged with something.

[Spurtacular]

“Hillary did it in a pizza shop and ate the body”

:lmao Still triggered that Wiki exposed your witch. :lmao

[Pavlov]

You mean Brian Cates, the journalist.:lmao "journalist"

[Chris]

:cry He's not a mouthpiece for the DNC/Globalists :cry

[Pavlov]

He's not a journalist.

[Chris]

Sure he is.

[Pavlov]

lol no

[RandomGuy]

DMC loves him some Hannity.

[RandomGuy]

Sure he is.

Because journalists take the stage at presidential campaign rallies. That's totally normal.

[RandomGuy]

No, what I said was



This is simply saying a lot of people say shit they wouldn't say if under oath. Nowhere did I even hint you could say anything to anyone at anytime without fear of prosecution if you're not under oath.

The fundamental problem is you have him on trial for something he said while not under oath. Is that enough for a trial by jury? Ye or no? If you're going to add a caveat of something else, then what he said isn't why he's on trial. You're moving the goalposts.

No it's not. It's relevant since you have put Hannity on trial by jury for something he said while not even under oath, and have the jury not believing him when he said he was lying.

Fuck dude. How did you get from where we are now to Hannity being on trial by jury? What else is going to get him there? You cannot magically bridge that gap with "and then".

I didn't say he cannot be charged. You're another here who likes to put words in people's mouths instead of arguing against what I said. Time and again you do this and time and again I have to point you back to the facts.

:lol "there doesn't need to be something else" followed by "if those statements revealed a crime". What crime? The crime would be the "something else", don't you think?

A conviction? How did you get past the AG to even have a trial by jury because someone said they were told something?

You're creating a hypothetical that isn't reality at all. In an alternate universe if a totally different set of circumstances existed and so forth.

I'm talking about this universe, this circumstance. How could saying he was told something reveal a crime, when the crime would be him being told something... when he's not under oath? He cannot lie without going to jail? :lol

You said the same thing over and over.

I could say that Cohen told me something multiple times. Does that mean I could go to jail?

:lol autistic screeching

[DMC]

:lol autistic screeching

parroting again