Sean Hannity is doing AWESOME thread

[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, do ents, 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 bull . And it's time to call it what it is: bull .

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 they could be prosecuted for if under oath?

This is simply saying a lot of people say 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 bull ting, 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.

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.

"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 cir stances existed and so forth.

I'm talking about this universe, this cir stance. 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?

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 cir stances, 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 bull ting" 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.

[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 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.

you're a broken record. the jury can believe whatever they want. they determine credibility. not the oath he took.

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

"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 cir stances 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 cir stance. 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?

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”

Still triggered that Wiki exposed your witch.

[Pavlov]

You mean Brian Cates, the journalist.

"journalist"