The Jan 6 Investigation (2)

Upchurch said:
I mean, a sitting President wanting to personally join an armed coup and expressly being okay if his VP becomes a casualty might top that…
Click to expand...

It's called humor, guy. A lot of people in this thread seem to be deficient in that.
 
As powerful and damning as Hutchinson's testimony was, much of it was hearsay and it would be relatively harmless in a criminal case. That concerns me, they really need someone like Cipollone to come to the plate.

For example (one of many) CNN and other MM outlets are headlining things like "Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

Very outrageous and incriminating, if it were true. Of course, it is patently false.
Hutchinson testified that Cippolone said "He thinks Mike deserves it"
Not only is this classic hearsay (inadmissible evidence) but it is not even Trump saying "Pence deserves to be hung" it is simply Cipollone's *interpretation* of what Trump *thinks*
Not at all what was reported by CNN and others.
Useless evidence.
And a lot of the other testimony was hearsay too, that was just the best example of it.

They need a Meadows or Eastman or someone closer to turn.
 
stanfr said:
As powerful and damning as Hutchinson's testimony was, much of it was hearsay and it would be relatively harmless in a criminal case. That concerns me, they really need someone like Cipollone to come to the plate.

For example (one of many) CNN and other MM outlets are headlining things like "Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

Very outrageous and incriminating, if it were true. Of course, it is patently false.
Hutchinson testified that Cippolone said "He thinks Mike deserves it"
Not only is this classic hearsay (inadmissible evidence) but it is not even Trump saying "Pence deserves to be hung" it is simply Cipollone's *interpretation* of what Trump *thinks*
Not at all what was reported by CNN and others.
Useless evidence.
And a lot of the other testimony was hearsay too, that was just the best example of it.

They need a Meadows or Eastman or someone closer to turn.
Click to expand...

Jim Jordan's talking points - it was hearsay. Jordan got schooled on Twitter about what is and isn't hearsay by Popehat.
 
crescent said:
It's not clear if the vehicle was moving yet. Was just grabbing the wheel to try to prevent them from getting going?

I could see that, the sort of arrogant boss thing: Grab the wheel. "We'll move when I say we'll move!"

Although that might be unusual. I have the impression is that when the President is in a vehicle, it moves. In most videos I have seen, the door opens almost as soon as the car stops and the President hops out. When the President gets in, the vehicle is moving almost as soon as the door is shut.
Click to expand...

Sounds more likely to me. I don't think it was implied Drumpf planned to steer from the back seat. He was having a little tantrum because he had no way to get his way. It reminds me of a kid saying they were going to hold their breath until they die if they don't get their way.
Also if it hasn't been posted already: It was the Suburban SUV not the "Beast" limo.
 
Bob001 said:
Not necessarily. She has testified about what she personally experienced and observed, and also about what others told her. If somebody told her something that turned out to be untrue, her account of the conversation could still be correct. And I think if the SS testify, they're going to be doing some fine parsing: "He may have gestured toward the front of the vehicle to indicate which way he wanted to go, but I don't recall him touching the wheel." "Yes, he did put his hand on my chest, but I thought he was just straightening my tie." Etc.
Click to expand...

Some testimony may be discounted but we don't know if it was corroborated. But a lot of the testimony if countered then becomes he said/she said and she was bigly credible, probably the most credible ever in history. ;)


eta: In all the reports I've read about the SS denying the tantrum in the vehicle, it's all hearsay. I didn't see anything that purported to be the SS person talking to the media. Oh the irony!
 
Last edited:
@PeterAlexander
A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
Click to expand...

So Peter Alexander is saying that an anonymous person told him that some other other person has told them something.

There is a term we use to describe such a statement. I wonder what that could be? ;)
 
The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.
 
I do wish people would stop using "hung" when they mean "hanged". A picture is/was hung on a wall but a person is/was hanged. It's really not that difficult.
 
mgidm86 said:
The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.
Click to expand...

It's not like the limo thing refutes that the Trump administration didn't do everything in its power to overthrow an election. It's not that Trump not only encouraged the rioters to go to the Capitol to "stop the steal" and fight. It's not that Trump for hours and hours did nothing to discourage the rioters.
 
Well...it's not like this wasn't predicted:

“I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,” Trump posted.

“Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news!” Trump added.
Click to expand...
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...chinson-as-bad-news-during-damning-testimony/

Trump also claimed that Hutchinson changed lawyers a few days ago and then "her entire story changed".
 
Stacyhs said:
... Trump also claimed that Hutchinson changed lawyers a few days ago and then "her entire story changed".
Click to expand...
That is now being reported as why the latest public hearing was held as opposed to Hutchinson being threatened. The threats have still happened.

The threats were stated as Hutchinson being told they knew she would do the right thing with the implication being the right thing was to lie for Drumpf.
 
slyjoe said:
Jim Jordan's talking points - it was hearsay. Jordan got schooled on Twitter about what is and isn't hearsay by Popehat.
Click to expand...

I don't know (or care) what Jordan said. What I quoted was definitely hearsay, as was quite a bit of her testimony. Some of it was not (her direct testimony about what T said)
 
stanfr said:
I don't know (or care) what Jordan said. What I quoted was definitely hearsay, as was quite a bit of her testimony. Some of it was not (her direct testimony about what T said)
Click to expand...

Not quite right. A person testifying to what someone told them is not always hearsay.

"Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

This IS hearsay if an attempt was made to use this is evidence against The Fat Orange Turd, but it is NOT hearsay if it were to be used against Mark Meadows.

There are also other hearsay exceptions in Section 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that may apply to some of what Ms Hutchinson said

Present Sense Impression.
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

Excited Utterance.
A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

Recorded Recollection. A record that:
- is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
- was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
- accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion if:
- the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
- the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
- making the record was a regular practice of that activity.

Reputation Concerning Character.
A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.​
 
mgidm86 said:
The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.
Click to expand...

Baiscaly, calling the Hutchnson a liar, and the usual "We have evidence that will prove that...coming out any day now".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom