Reply With Quote
djohn just creamed his tighty whiteys.
ol sport just involved himself in a federal crime
djohn just creamed his tighty whiteys.
I would personally invest in the Orville Redenbacher and Pop Secret brands of Popcorn -
if Hannity is subpoenaed to testify before Congress.
"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?"
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.
And because of that, he may now be called to testify under oath
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!
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.? 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.
Sure, the conditions can change however at that time he was not under oath. How many people have said they could be prosecuted for if under oath?
Exactly.
Let him say it under oath.
Won't help trump, It will expose him more.
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
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.
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.
DMC 2019
Why would they put him under oath?Exactly.
Let him say it under oath.
Won't help trump, It will expose him more.
Keep reaching for someone to be investigated. When the soap opera concludes you'll be standing there holding your empty bag.
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.
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.
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 ing under oath, that’s absurd and only serves to alter the discussion.
that protection only applies if you are in custody and being interrogated/questioned. in those cir stances, 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
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 thereWas Hannity talking to a cop?
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 oathWhy all the scenarios that differ from reality? Let's talk about reality. In reality, he wasn't under oath.
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.
what's next, he didn't say simon says?
You brought up the cops which is a red herring. He wasn't talking to the cops.
They could look into him anyhow regardless of what he said. What would stop them from doing so?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
"Legal action" is a loose term that can mean a lot of things. I believe it could provide reasonable su ion 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 bull 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.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
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.
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
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.They could look into him anyhow regardless of what he said. What would stop them from doing so?
of course he can. and a jury would be able to make that credibility call."Legal action" is a loose term that can mean a lot of things. I believe it could provide reasonable su ion 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 bull excuses.
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 perjuryThey 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 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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
