like next week is still the joint the chairman of the joint chiefs, he is still in charge of our military branches, so to speak, his job is to advise whatever president and so he advised both trump and now president biden and so it wasn t like trump was talking about some past person, a former cabinet official, the joint chiefs is still in power and still reflecting the u.s. position. and that s a sort of disclosure of present information, this is not past conduct. talking about a current one. any admissibility issues here, norm, in court? well, team trump will fight it. and the hearsay rules are complex in bringing in an out of court case. but when you have this kind of an admission, it is so powerful. there are a set of exceptions that have evolved really over
emily: substantive due process. i mean, i will say this is all about home field advantage, right? this is just like a grand jury proceeding where it s about the prosecution, all hearsay rules, no objections, no cross-examination, there s no evidence whatsoever, and that is why grand injuries lead to a 99.9% indictment rate. and the other difference is that grand jury proceedings are secret usually where this is being played out on national television. and to me the credibility issue here is the fact that these guys are holding themselves out to be the ultimate fact finders. these are the investigators, sfliet when in grand jury proceedings, the whole point is that that kicks off whereas one of the first stepping of the criminal justice proceedings, right? they go then to trial. they go then to bring charges. but here obviously there would be a referral, but they are holding themselves out as the ultimate court and, for sure, in the court of public opinion, that seems to be what they
two crimes he was worried that were in progress by trump officials. and that s what he told her. you may have heard this thing cropping up on the right where some folks who are sifrm thetic to trump will say some of this is hearsay. two points on that. one, as audio legal matter, some of this is hearsay. but this is not a criminal yet. if folks are indicted for those type of offenses, then you deal of the hearsay rules. two, the reason the cipollone testimony is currently hearsay is because of one person not her, not the star witness just heard, not the other witnesses, not the committee, the only reason it is allegedly hearsay is because mr. cipollone has not come in to testify fully on the record according to the committee. again given day he or mike pence or anyone else who wants to address so-called hearsay can stand up, show a little bit of courage as much as all their
is that considered an intimate area? and then when it comes to the assistant in his office, that clearly is an intimate area. the allegation is he touched her breast and her butt. if that s the case, then that would meet the statute. but there is no independent witness for that. the corroboration would be her contemporaneous comments to others. there could be hearsay rules and restrictions. so that s why it s not a slam dunk whether the prosecutor files charges here. this could be just a civil matter, an administrative matter and left to the court of public opinion. it s definitely not an automatic criminal charge. that s an important point, joey. the attorney general, letitia james, was very clear that the work of her office, she repeatedly said, is finished. listen to her in her own words. our work is concluded, and the document is now public. and the matter is civil in nature and does not have any criminal consequences.
witnesses being called because it falls squarely at the feet of trump. thanks. that s what you heard from mike quigley saying there are people how the there who could testify on this, that s what i heard from hakeem jeffries as well. that s what they re waiting for temperature there is the expectations that maybe some of these folks would want to say their piece and defend themselves. the other thing you should hear is what about the substance of the argument. you re arguing about hearsay rules of evidence because you do not want to talk about the substance of the arguments. they should subpoena all the people who were in that restaurant in kiev because apparently trump was talking so loud, we could probably get other witnesses who overheard that conferring. how do we piece more of this together? we understand there s another person who overheard that call in an opening statement last night that was so loud he had to