Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 91
  1. #26
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,834
    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!



    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.



  2. #27
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    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

  3. #28
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    71,514
    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

  4. #29
    Watching the collapse benefactor's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Post Count
    40,683
    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

  5. #30
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,834
    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 bull ted 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)

  6. #31
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    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 bull ted 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


  7. #32
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    #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


  8. #33
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,834
    #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

    #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 bull he could change it to murder)
    But yes

    i was wrong

  9. #34
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    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 bull ting.
    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?

  10. #35
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    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?

  11. #36
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    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.

  12. #37
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Boiled down, Hannity might possibly be in trouble if a prosecutor decides he is

    (according to 21)

  13. #38
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Boiled down, Hannity might possibly be in trouble if a prosecutor decides he is

    (according to 21)
    Only if the AG agrees. They could issue a subpoena but I think anyone can be called to testify.

  14. #39
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    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 bull ting.
    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 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

    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

  15. #40
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    #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 bull 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.

  16. #41
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,264
    Damn. Spurraider murdered him. In cold blood.

  17. #42
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    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

    (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 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.

  18. #43
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    however, i'm not a criminal law expert
    You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. Settle down Dershowitz.

  19. #44
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. 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 ... i took the bar in july 2017 and got my results in november 2017. im trying my best

  20. #45
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,264
    You just allegedly passed the bar; you're not an expert anything. Settle down Dershowitz.
    Citizen X sounds very distinguished

  21. #46
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    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 ... i took the bar in july 2017 and got my results in november 2017. im trying my best
    I give you credit for not being a condescending bas like vy65.

  22. #47
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Citizen X sounds very distinguished
    Is Kyle Griffin distinguished for you?

  23. #48
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    I give you credit for not being a condescending bas like vy65.
    i can be pretty condescending from time to time imho

    and vy is arite

  24. #49
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    7,992
    I give you credit for not being a condescending bas like vy65.
    Not my fault you’re a ing idiot

  25. #50
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    95,840
    Not my fault you’re a ing idiot

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •