January 6 Hearings Live

[Artemus]

Actually, you forgot one detail in that testimony. When Ornato told her the story, Bobby Engel was sitting in the room and could easily have contradicted or modified the details of what he had told Ornato. Hutchinson testified that he never did that. So it wasn't exactly "several levels of hearsay". It was in the presence of the direct witness.

Someone saying that someone said that someone said that something happened is second-order hearsay, period. If she had testified that a) she then said "Mr. Engle, is that correct, the President assaulted you?" and b) he replied "Yes", then her testimony about the event would be first-order hearsay and still inadmissible. We can argue semantics about if "second-order" is "several-order", but it never should have been brought up in the first place unless they had direct evidence to show that the incident actually occurred. Run a web search and see how the right-wing press is using this to try to discredit her entire testimony, exactly like I predicted yesterday evening. Like I said before, I'm rather astounded that they made such a fundamental mistake when they've been so careful up to now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Artemus is right, coming from a first source would be a lot more direct and compelling. I've got to think the Commission has more on this, and wouldn't have dared air this without knowing there was multiple confirmations.

 

[Politesse]

Actually, you forgot one detail in that testimony. When Ornato told her the story, Bobby Engel was sitting in the room and could easily have contradicted or modified the details of what he had told Ornato. Hutchinson testified that he never did that. So it wasn't exactly "several levels of hearsay". It was in the presence of the direct witness.

Someone saying that someone said that someone said that something happened is second-order hearsay, period. If she had testified that a) she then said "Mr. Engle, is that correct, the President assaulted you?" and b) he replied "Yes", then her testimony about the event would be first-order hearsay and still inadmissible. We can argue semantics about if "second-order" is "several-order", but it never should have been brought up in the first place unless they had direct evidence to show that the incident actually occurred. Run a web search and see how the right-wing press is using this to try to discredit her entire testimony, exactly like I predicted yesterday evening. Like I said before, I'm rather astounded that they made such a fundamental mistake when they've been so careful up to now.

Small point of order: That's not how hearsay rules work in the post-Crawford world, at least not in a federal court. Unless she was conducting an investigation at the time, her testimony would be non-testimonial hearsay and though not a great argument from a rhetorical perspective, but it would not be inadmissable, even if this were a true court procedure. Hearsay rules are yet another Constitutional protection that this Court has degraded from what they used to be.

But I agree that this is another rather wild piece of evidence to be presenting in this context. No one is going to change their mind from whatever it is already set on by someone saying that someone said that something happened.

 

[Copernicus]

Someone saying that someone said that someone said that something happened is second-order hearsay, period. If she had testified that a) she then said "Mr. Engle, is that correct, the President assaulted you?" and b) he replied "Yes", then her testimony about the event would be first-order hearsay and still inadmissible. We can argue semantics about if "second-order" is "several-order", but it never should have been brought up in the first place unless they had direct evidence to show that the incident actually occurred. Run a web search and see how the right-wing press is using this to try to discredit her entire testimony, exactly like I predicted yesterday evening. Like I said before, I'm rather astounded that they made such a fundamental mistake when they've been so careful up to now.

Artemus, we needn't argue over this. I agree that this is just her testimony, but you are the one arguing semantics here. If she is telling the truth that Engel was in the room and didn't contradict the story being told by Ornato, that is pretty compelling testimony. I think you are being a bit silly when you say "it should never have been brought up in the first place unless they had direct evidence". This is a congressional hearing, not a criminal trial, where hearsay evidence might be treated differently. And what the president is alleged to have done wasn't really much of a crime. That wasn't the purpose of the testimony. It was to establish what was likely Donald Trump's intent at that time. Unless Engel or the driver come forward to contradict her testimony, it was convincing for the purpose of the hearing. A secondary reason for having it was to publicly pressure others with more direct knowledge to come forward.

 

[blastula]

General Flynn, a true patriot.

 

[ZiprHead]

"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.

 

[Jarhyn]

General Flynn, a true patriot.

Anyone for whom answering those questions is incriminating has incriminated themselves by not answering anyway.

All it could mean is that their oaths of office have been broken.

 

[Ford]

"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.

He's still reeling from that WWE-style body slam which nearly killed him and his entire entourage outright.

 

[Politesse]

General Flynn, a true patriot.

Anyone for whom answering those questions is incriminating has incriminated themselves by not answering anyway.

All it could mean is that their oaths of office have been broken.

Given the current state of things at the Pentagon, I can see where even a person who did not break their oaths and did not plan to would be justifiably afraid to say so in an open court. Remember Alexander Vindman?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.

link

Wow. I mean wow!

"That is absurd, she wasn't even around when I was dumping the bodies at the harbor."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

General Flynn, a true patriot.

Liz Cheney: Loser pleads the fifth?
Flynn: Fifth.
Committee: LOLZ

 

[Copernicus]

The head of Trump's Secret Service detail, Robert Engel, had previously testified before the committee, and his testimony corroborated that he had a disagreement with Trump about going to the capital. It was Engel that Cassidy Hutchinson said was attacked by Trump in "the Beast" for trying to stop him from grabbing the steering wheel, and it was Engel who sat in the room while Ornato told Hutchinson about what had happened in the limo. She testified that Engel never denied the details she had been given, even though he was present when she got them. Here is a link to a story about Engel's testimony:

Trump privately raised Jan. 6 Capitol appearance with Secret Service agent, select panel hears​

Now the Secret Service is complaining that the Jan 6 committee did not reach out to them before Hutchinson gave her sworn testimony. They have contradicted her claim that she wrote a note to Trump, but that it had been a different person who wrote the note in question. They have also said that they would make any SS agent (presumably, Engel) available to answer further questions, if asked. So it will be interesting to see what he says about the incident under oath, especially since Ornato would be able to confirm or contradict her testimony, as well.

Secret Service: Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony​

 

[Toni]

That is extremely interesting.

It will be very interesting to learn what they have to say.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side. Both sides equally phony, fraudulent, hypocritical.

 

[Politesse]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.

The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...

 

[ZiprHead]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.

The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...

And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good things he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.

 

[blastula]

Melania is a real Trump.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just for you, Lumpen.

As then-President Donald Trump left a rally with his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, he appears to have held out hope until the last minute — even as chaos unfolded — that he’d be able to join them at the Capitol.

Trump even raised the prospect privately with the head of his Secret Service detail at the time, Robert Engel, according to a person familiar with the agent’s congressional testimony. Engel rode with Trump in the presidential armored car called “The Beast” back to the White House after the Ellipse rally that preceded that day’s violent riot.

Engel told Jan. 6 select committee investigators that the two men discussed Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic. Engel noted that they went back to the White House instead of heading to Capitol Hill. The contents of Engel’s testimony have not been previously reported. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi declined to comment.

The testimony shows just how much Trump wanted to be at the Capitol with his backers as Congress voted to certify his Electoral College loss to Joe Biden. And he expressed his desire to join the protesters even as violence was unfolding.

From Copernicus' Politico link above.

Obviously there was a dispute. Without knowing more from Engle's testimony we can't be sure. But considering lawyers know to never ask a question they don't know the answer to, I'm thinking Engle will confirm. Or already has.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.

The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...

And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good thins he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.

And therefore the testimony of those Secret Service agents is not necessary? It's OK that she lied and nothing about it should be investigated? because she was a Trump supporter it's OK to excuse the lying and not investigate who prompted her to tell these lies? And how many other lies are there that Dems should not investigate? How much more of the truth must Dems suppress in order to advance their propaganda crusade?

No, if Dems refuse to get that testimony, they prove themselves to be liars, putting political propaganda ahead of the truth and the good of the nation.

And further, this lying and fraud will cost Democrats even further votes in November and will increase the likely Republican majority next year. This will only confirm the propaganda of the Right-wing talking heads and radio talk shows, which influence millions of Republican voters (and also some independents). They are already cashing in on this.

Dems must issue those subpoenas and face the consequences in order to prove that they have any credibility.

If it turns out that the witness did lie, then Dems might absolve themselves by apologizing for this fiasco. Or they could claim her testimony is still mostly credible though some of it was perjury. And it's also possible the SS agents will confirm most of her story, and the damage can be minimized. But if they fail to put those SS agents into the hearings to get their testimony, they have lost all credibility, and it's obvious that the Dems are just as fraudulent as the other side.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.

The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...

And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good thins he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.

And therefore the testimony of those Secret Service agents is not necessary? It's OK that she lied and nothing about it should be investigated? because she was a Trump supporter it's OK to excuse the lying and not investigated who prompted her to tell these lies? And how many other lies are there that Dems should not investigate? How much more of the truth must Dems suppress in order to advance their propaganda crusade?

No, if Dems refuse to get that testimony, they prove themselves to be liars, putting political propaganda ahead of the truth and the good of the nation.

And further, this lying and fraud will cost Democrats even further votes in November and will increase the likely Republican majority next year. This will only confirm the propaganda of the Right-wing talking heads and radio talk shows, which influence millions of Republican voters (and also some independents). They are already cashing in on this.

Dems must issue those subpoenas and face the consequences in order to prove that they have any credibility.

If it turns out that the witness did lie, then Dems might absolve themselves by apologizing for this fiasco. Or they could claim her testimony is still mostly credible though some of it was perjury. And it's also possible the SS agents will confirm most of her story, and the damage can be minimized. But if they fail to put those SS agents into the hearings to get their testimony, they have lost all credibility, and it's obvious that the Dems are just as fraudulent as the other side.

Poor Lumpen. Bless your heart.