Jan. 6 committee member says witnesses do not 'corroborate other witnesses'

Washington Examiner ^ | July 10, 2022 | Abigail Adcox

[where's_the_Outrage?]

A member of the Jan. 6 committee indicated former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was not directly asked to corroborate or respond to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that he had advised former President Donald Trump against going to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said on Sunday that Capitol riot investigators do not call witnesses to "corroborate other witnesses" but stressed that Cipollone provided testimony that "does not dispute" what Hutchinson told the committee.

"We never call in witnesses to corroborate other witnesses or to give their reaction to other witnesses," Lofgren said during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "I will say that he did interview with us for eight hours and provide very insightful information, and that augments and certainly does not dispute Ms. Hutchinson's testimony."

[Williams]

So. They have the “bombshell” witness who didn’t actually see or hear anything.

Then they get in the person she spoke to and who did see and hear things directly.

Naturally, they don’t ask the actual witness what really happened.

Remember how they said the ones calling Hutchinson a liar weren’t under oath?

The committee makes sure you never hear them calling her a liar under oath.

[circlecity]

“ Cipollone provided testimony that "does not dispute" what Hutchinson told the committee.‘

Only because they intentionally avoided asking questions on those matters. A standard procedure in any investigation is to attempt to corroborate testimony from someone who would have first hand information.

[Lazamataz]

In other words, they embrace false and/or hearsay testimony, and reject any exculpatory testimony that contraindicates that false and/or hearsay testimony.

This is a total Soviet Show Trial.

[Lazamataz]

We owe the Soviet Union, and Stalin, a sincere apology.

[bobbo666]

What flaming idiot is going on about corroborating witnesses?

It is the examination of exculpatory evidence that it important, you missed abortion client!

If you have a liar on stage and someone off stage is screaming “Liar, liar, pants of fire!” don’t you feel obliged to at least ask him what he is objecting to? NO? Then you are part of the lie.
This is why real trials are treated as adversarial. When one gets up and talks the other is SUPPOSED to counter that. If not, it is a kangaroo court. A sham.

[JWNM]

They seem to want it both ways. They want to be taken seriously as if they were conducting a legitimate hearing with appropriate rules of evidence and witness testimony. And they want to claim the rights of law enforcement by threatening subpoenas and contempt charges. Yet, when called out about the inconsistencies they whine that “it’s a hearing, not a court of law” and, therefore, the same rules don’t apply. Since when do witnesses NOT corroborate other witnesses’ testimony? ONLY when that testimony may actually disprove their narrative.

[Agatsu77]

I was under the impression that witnesses were questioned for just this reason. Lying pieces of s^^t!

[markman46]

8 hrs that is not a interview

[FreeReign]

Lofgren said during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "I will say that he did interview with us for eight hours and provide very insightful information, and that augments and certainly does not dispute Ms. Hutchinson's testimony."

Slippery Zoe Lofgren.

If they don't ask the wittness about Hutchinson's testimony, then the witness can't give testimony that disputes Hutchinson's testimony.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

"We never call in witnesses to corroborate other witnesses or to give their reaction to other witnesses," Lofgren said during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.

Because they are not trying to find out the facts, all they want are soundbites they can use to smear Trump.

[Organic Panic]

Just setting up the new standard for the “justice” system.