• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

January 6 Hearings Live

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Drag its feet?

Not hardly. Things in DC do not move fast. At all.

The Watergate scandal took over 2 years to investigate—impeachment proceedings took nearly 2 years! It ended as quickly as it did only because as despicable as Nixon was, he had a great deal more honor than Trump. Not to mention, mental competence.

What you mean is that the Watergate scandal took only 2 years for 40 government officials to be indicted and some of those jailed and the president himself to resign in disgrace. There were consequences back then. The Trump scandals started with the head of the FBI being booted from office for failing to end the Russia investigation. The Mueller report identified prosecutable crimes and made clear that the president was indictable after leaving office. The January 6 riot was the first attempt by a sitting president to overthrow our government, but it wasn't the first time that Trump engaged in prosecutable crimes. Maybe there will be charges now, but what about the other crimes? Frankly, I don't see the sudden interest of the DoJ any more than trying to look busy while buying time to for more handwringing and dithering.
Well, he’s been impeached twice. Unfortunately, people voted along political lines.

DOJ was fairly hamstrung while Trump was in power—and he obviously had and still has minions there.

All of these investigations are meticulously thorough and actual testimony is being made public. Those who are not cooperating have been called out today. If evidence is not meticulously, scrupulously gathered and presented, recorded and made public.

Speed is not our friend. If this work is hurried, we risk not making an irrefutable case—and we need this to be irrefutable. We know for certain that there are people who don’t/won’t believe the testimony and there are those who support Trump regardless of the veracity of testimony. If the people do not support charges and support convictions-none of this will matter.

Yes, the works is different than it once was, only 50 years ago.
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
A true patriot testified today.

Yes, a courageous but oblivious one.
Unfortunately the poor woman will have to join the witness protection program now.

I hope that works out for her
,
Cassidy Hutchinson said:
As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, it was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie.
She lamented the loss of reputation for “all the good things he had done”.
IMO the best thing he ever did was to throw his food at the wall. At least that can be cleaned up.
Don't get me wrong, I disagree strongly with her politics. But when she was direct witness to crimes being committed against the country by her superiors, she stood up and spoke despite it clearly being the end of her career. That is true patriotism.

As for Meadows, well, words fail me.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...Well, he’s been impeached twice. Unfortunately, people voted along political lines.

DOJ was fairly hamstrung while Trump was in power—and he obviously had and still has minions there.

All of these investigations are meticulously thorough and actual testimony is being made public. Those who are not cooperating have been called out today. If evidence is not meticulously, scrupulously gathered and presented, recorded and made public.

Speed is not our friend. If this work is hurried, we risk not making an irrefutable case—and we need this to be irrefutable. We know for certain that there are people who don’t/won’t believe the testimony and there are those who support Trump regardless of the veracity of testimony. If the people do not support charges and support convictions-none of this will matter.

Yes, the works is different than it once was, only 50 years ago.

You see meticulous evidence-gathering. I see dithering and lack of will. Hence the need for public pressure. Without it, inertia becomes the precedent. Running out the clock has always been one of Trump's specialties when dealing with investigations and litigation. Ask the Mueller investigators.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
...Well, he’s been impeached twice. Unfortunately, people voted along political lines.

DOJ was fairly hamstrung while Trump was in power—and he obviously had and still has minions there.

All of these investigations are meticulously thorough and actual testimony is being made public. Those who are not cooperating have been called out today. If evidence is not meticulously, scrupulously gathered and presented, recorded and made public.

Speed is not our friend. If this work is hurried, we risk not making an irrefutable case—and we need this to be irrefutable. We know for certain that there are people who don’t/won’t believe the testimony and there are those who support Trump regardless of the veracity of testimony. If the people do not support charges and support convictions-none of this will matter.

Yes, the works is different than it once was, only 50 years ago.

You see meticulous evidence-gathering. I see dithering and lack of will. Hence the need for public pressure. Without it, inertia becomes the precedent. Running out the clock has always been one of Trump's specialties when dealing with investigations and litigation. Ask the Mueller investigators.
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,418
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
A source from the January 6 committee claims the committee has over a thousand text messages involving Mark Meadows. And apparently future hearings will involve the "War Room" activities. Meadows seems to be claiming executive privledge over his text messages prior to the insurrection attempt.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.

Timing is everything. I expect whatever indictments/charges are coming, to be filed by the end of September. If nothing happens by then, I’ll have to go with Copernicus’ take.
The pace going forward after November depends on whether the fascists gain control of Congress. If they win in November, the investigation will stop in January so it will get frenetic for those intervening months.
If Dems gain enough to kill the filibuster - even for limited applications, there will be legislation enacted to forestall another Trump coup attempt, codify RvW and undo a lot of the other damage done by Dolt45.

In either scenario, DOJ has 2 years to wrap it up and send all to jail who’s going to jail.

If we stay at a 50/50 Senate, that’s probably the worst possible outcome for democracy. We might have to hire Russian mercenaries to “de-nazify” the US.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.

Timing is everything. I expect whatever indictments/charges are coming, to be filed by the end of September. If nothing happens by then, I’ll have to go with Copernicus’ take.
The pace going forward after November depends on whether the fascists gain control of Congress. If they win in November, the investigation will stop in January so it will get frenetic for those intervening months.
If Dems gain enough to kill the filibuster - even for limited applications, there will be legislation enacted to forestall another Trump coup attempt, codify RvW and undo a lot of the other damage done by Dolt45.

In either scenario, DOJ has 2 years to wrap it up and send all to jail who’s going to jail.

If we stay at a 50/50 Senate, that’s probably the worst possible outcome for democracy. We might have to hire Russian mercenaries to “de-nazify” the US.
Oh, it would be far worse to lose Senate seats than to stay 50/50, even with two Dems not really Dems.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.

Timing is everything. I expect whatever indictments/charges are coming, to be filed by the end of September. If nothing happens by then, I’ll have to go with Copernicus’ take.
The pace going forward after November depends on whether the fascists gain control of Congress. If they win in November, the investigation will stop in January so it will get frenetic for those intervening months.
If Dems gain enough to kill the filibuster - even for limited applications, there will be legislation enacted to forestall another Trump coup attempt, codify RvW and undo a lot of the other damage done by Dolt45.

In either scenario, DOJ has 2 years to wrap it up and send all to jail who’s going to jail.

If we stay at a 50/50 Senate, that’s probably the worst possible outcome for democracy. We might have to hire Russian mercenaries to “de-nazify” the US.
Oh, it would be far worse to lose Senate seats than to stay 50/50, even with two Dems not really Dems.
Not sure at all about that. What could they do? Certainly not pass any legislation. Maybe launch some farce “investigations” into Hunter Biden or something, but they would become culpable for the entire country’s dissatisfaction in 2024.
At the current config, nothing gets done but Dems get the blame.
 

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
963
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.
But you have to at least see the difference between Trump not fearing prosecution from people who he could replace vs. fearing prosecution now. Bringing up Barr and Mueller is irrelevant - they both worked for Trump. Establishing: 1) There was no 'fraudulent election'; 2) You lost fair and square; 3) You knew these but could not come to grips with them; 4) You incited a riot (at the very least) on the capital to overturn the election results; 5) You persist with these lies today. It takes a very long time to connect these dots, particularly for people who cannot count.

If we achieve nothing more than pushing the right back to the center and ensuring that Trump and no one like him successfully runs for office again, these hearings will have been worth it.

aa
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The stakes are too high to be sloppy or fast.

I'm not asking for either, and they've already proven that they can be slow. Justice doesn't need to be rushed, but sloppiness is allowing the public to see criminal behavior by high officials go unpunished for years. That's part of the process of  democratic backsliding, aka autocratization. Trump feared prosecution. That's part of the reason for his coup attempt. He might not have bothered, if he had realized how easy things would be for him after his fall from power.

Timing is everything. I expect whatever indictments/charges are coming, to be filed by the end of September. If nothing happens by then, I’ll have to go with Copernicus’ take.
The pace going forward after November depends on whether the fascists gain control of Congress. If they win in November, the investigation will stop in January so it will get frenetic for those intervening months.
If Dems gain enough to kill the filibuster - even for limited applications, there will be legislation enacted to forestall another Trump coup attempt, codify RvW and undo a lot of the other damage done by Dolt45.

In either scenario, DOJ has 2 years to wrap it up and send all to jail who’s going to jail.

If we stay at a 50/50 Senate, that’s probably the worst possible outcome for democracy. We might have to hire Russian mercenaries to “de-nazify” the US.
Oh, it would be far worse to lose Senate seats than to stay 50/50, even with two Dems not really Dems.
Not sure at all about that. What could they do? Certainly not pass any legislation. Maybe launch some farce “investigations” into Hunter Biden or something, but they would become culpable for the entire country’s dissatisfaction in 2024.
At the current config, nothing gets done but Dems get the blame.
More appointed judges, more jerrymanderimg. We could lose the country entirely to a kleptocracy/oligarchy. That was Trump’s aim, so much as he could be said to have any aim ( after elected by surprise) other than self aggrandizement. It certainly is the motivation of nearly all his backers—or those with money.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,661
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Not sure at all about that. What could they do? Certainly not pass any legislation. Maybe launch some farce “investigations” into Hunter Biden or something, but they would become culpable for the entire country’s dissatisfaction in 2024.
At the current config, nothing gets done but Dems get the blame.
51 votes, they'll nuke the filibuster.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Not sure at all about that. What could they do? Certainly not pass any legislation. Maybe launch some farce “investigations” into Hunter Biden or something, but they would become culpable for the entire country’s dissatisfaction in 2024.
At the current config, nothing gets done but Dems get the blame.
51 votes, they'll nuke the filibuster.
You mean the Repugs? Yes, they would. And appoint more judges, launch lots of time-wasting investigations, lower taxes on the rich, rescind more rights of privacy etc.
then they’ll have to pay the piper, because they won’t have the USSS, the DOJ, FBI, NSA et al at their disposal in 2024. A last chance for Dems to cowboy up.

If after November things stay as they are now, dems will lose everything in’24.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Among the most damning testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson was the revelation that Trump knew his rally attendees were armed. They had set up magnetometers for people to enter the rally area, and they were confiscating guns, metal batons, brass knuckles, cans of bear spray, etc. So a large group of his supporters refused to go through "the mags", as they called them. Trump got mad that so many weren't coming in, so he tried to order the magnetometers removed, saying that they were not there to harm HIM. After being told of the weapons, he still urged them to march on the capitol and "fight like hell". Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.

Let's wait for the testimony by Secret Service agents before treating it as anything more significant than a rumor on the internet. That's really premature. We have testimony under oath from someone who actually talked to people with direct knowledge, one of whom was the head of the security detail in the limo. The other testimony sounds more like hearsay, but it would be great to get it recorded under oath. Like the testimony we saw today. I'm guessing that you did not actually listen to Hutchinson's testimony, since you thought it was "several levels of hearsay". You can actually find her testimony online, and I urge you to listen to it. My wife says that the president lunged at the driver, but went for the collar bones of Engel, the head of the security detail at the time. It isn't clear to me whose collar bones were being targeted, but it would be nice to hear from Engel and Pat Cipollone for corroboration or disagreement. Right now, Cipollone is refusing to testify, and a lot of people are pleading the fifth. Mark Meadows himself even asked for a pardon.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,867
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
I went through those mags for an event in DC once. It was set off by a pack of gum in my pocket. Very sensitive
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.

Let's wait for the testimony by Secret Service agents before treating it as anything more significant than a rumor on the internet. That's really premature. We have testimony under oath from someone who actually talked to people with direct knowledge, one of whom was the head of the security detail in the limo. The other testimony sounds more like hearsay, but it would be great to get it recorded under oath. Like the testimony we saw today. I'm guessing that you did not actually listen to Hutchinson's testimony, since you thought it was "several levels of hearsay". You can actually find her testimony online, and I urge you to listen to it. My wife says that the president lunged at the driver, but went for the collar bones of Engel, the head of the security detail at the time. It isn't clear to me whose collar bones were being targeted, but it would be nice to hear from Engel and Pat Cipollone for corroboration or disagreement. Right now, Cipollone is refusing to testify, and a lot of people are pleading the fifth. Mark Meadows himself even asked for a pardon.
So "trust, but verify."

I wonder aloud if this testimony is a preview of things to come. As the committee continues to show their cards, more and more former members of the administration may rethink their reluctance to tell the committee what they saw and what they know. People like Flynn and Eastman are taking the 5th, while staffers - who have a lot of inside information but don't have a legal defense fund - are starting to realize they may be in legal jeopardy and are trying to get out ahead of it. How many other assistants and second tier people are going to come out of the woodwork and say "actually, I'm going to testify after all...."?

The true believers and inner circle might not turn on Trump, but the folks who were just there to get "White House" on their resume' have to weigh how much their loyalty will be repaid. And they have to know that Trump does not know the meaning of the word "repaid."
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.

Let's wait for the testimony by Secret Service agents before treating it as anything more significant than a rumor on the internet. That's really premature. We have testimony under oath from someone who actually talked to people with direct knowledge, one of whom was the head of the security detail in the limo. The other testimony sounds more like hearsay, but it would be great to get it recorded under oath. Like the testimony we saw today. I'm guessing that you did not actually listen to Hutchinson's testimony, since you thought it was "several levels of hearsay". You can actually find her testimony online, and I urge you to listen to it. My wife says that the president lunged at the driver, but went for the collar bones of Engel, the head of the security detail at the time. It isn't clear to me whose collar bones were being targeted, but it would be nice to hear from Engel and Pat Cipollone for corroboration or disagreement. Right now, Cipollone is refusing to testify, and a lot of people are pleading the fifth. Mark Meadows himself even asked for a pardon.

I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
Thus far, the committee has been pretty methodical about the witnesses they call, the testimony they get, and having vetted the information before putting it out there. I chalk it up to Cheney being genetically ruthless, but it would be a rare misstep if this could be shot down so easily. I'm guessing they've got corroboration on this account. And Bret Baier (of all people) made an interesting point on the Fox News. He said "Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social."
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
And that he wanted to go to the Capitol is directly supported by the NSC chat log. The alleged steering wheel incident is irrelevant.

Oh, and Meadows lied in his book when he said that Trump didn't want to go the Capitol. I'm shocked. /s
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
Thus far, the committee has been pretty methodical about the witnesses they call, the testimony they get, and having vetted the information before putting it out there. I chalk it up to Cheney being genetically ruthless, but it would be a rare misstep if this could be shot down so easily. I'm guessing they've got corroboration on this account. And Bret Baier (of all people) made an interesting point on the Fox News. He said "Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social."
Yes, I would agree, but ultimately, the higher issue is the mens rea, what was Trump's intent. While assaulting his secret service staff looks awful (we'd need video of this for the public to finally just be done with this goon), it is the underlying premise that he intended to join with an armed mob marching to the Capitol, with the intent of changing the results of the election. That is damning evidence. If the Secret Service agent testified and confirmed the testimony, Garland would think, OMG, I could actually get a conviction on this... if it ever went to trial.

Everyone needs to remember, this case would go to the Supreme Court. And while the Supreme Court was conservative, it ruled bribery is free speech, there is a right to religiously held discrimination. This current group, would likely say sedition is a task of the President.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.

Let's wait for the testimony by Secret Service agents before treating it as anything more significant than a rumor on the internet. That's really premature. We have testimony under oath from someone who actually talked to people with direct knowledge, one of whom was the head of the security detail in the limo. The other testimony sounds more like hearsay, but it would be great to get it recorded under oath. Like the testimony we saw today. I'm guessing that you did not actually listen to Hutchinson's testimony, since you thought it was "several levels of hearsay". You can actually find her testimony online, and I urge you to listen to it. My wife says that the president lunged at the driver, but went for the collar bones of Engel, the head of the security detail at the time. It isn't clear to me whose collar bones were being targeted, but it would be nice to hear from Engel and Pat Cipollone for corroboration or disagreement. Right now, Cipollone is refusing to testify, and a lot of people are pleading the fifth. Mark Meadows himself even asked for a pardon.

I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
You realize that in the context of these hearings, hearsay rules do not apply?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
Thus far, the committee has been pretty methodical about the witnesses they call, the testimony they get, and having vetted the information before putting it out there. I chalk it up to Cheney being genetically ruthless, but it would be a rare misstep if this could be shot down so easily. I'm guessing they've got corroboration on this account. And Bret Baier (of all people) made an interesting point on the Fox News. He said "Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social."
Yes, I would agree, but ultimately, the higher issue is the mens rea, what was Trump's intent. While assaulting his secret service staff looks awful (we'd need video of this for the public to finally just be done with this goon), it is the underlying premise that he intended to join with an armed mob marching to the Capitol, with the intent of changing the results of the election. That is damning evidence. If the Secret Service agent testified and confirmed the testimony, Garland would think, OMG, I could actually get a conviction on this... if it ever went to trial.

Everyone needs to remember, this case would go to the Supreme Court. And while the Supreme Court was conservative, it ruled bribery is free speech, there is a right to religiously held discrimination. This current group, would likely say sedition is a task of the President.
I think the underlying premise is that he intended to LEAD the mob. Not as in walking in front of the mob---Trump? Walk 100 yards? Not happening. No, he wanted to be there to be their inspiration and to feel their adulation.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
Thus far, the committee has been pretty methodical about the witnesses they call, the testimony they get, and having vetted the information before putting it out there. I chalk it up to Cheney being genetically ruthless, but it would be a rare misstep if this could be shot down so easily. I'm guessing they've got corroboration on this account. And Bret Baier (of all people) made an interesting point on the Fox News. He said "Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social."
Yes, I would agree, but ultimately, the higher issue is the mens rea, what was Trump's intent. While assaulting his secret service staff looks awful (we'd need video of this for the public to finally just be done with this goon), it is the underlying premise that he intended to join with an armed mob marching to the Capitol, with the intent of changing the results of the election. That is damning evidence. If the Secret Service agent testified and confirmed the testimony, Garland would think, OMG, I could actually get a conviction on this... if it ever went to trial.

Everyone needs to remember, this case would go to the Supreme Court. And while the Supreme Court was conservative, it ruled bribery is free speech, there is a right to religiously held discrimination. This current group, would likely say sedition is a task of the President.
I think the underlying premise is that he intended to LEAD the mob. Not as in walking in front of the mob---Trump? Walk 100 yards? Not happening. No, he wanted to be there to be their inspiration and to feel their adulation.
Sure. No doubt, hence the damning. But "sedition is a lawful discharge of his office"... at least, that is what the goons in SCOTUS would rule.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
That is true. I feel any aggressive incident in the vehicle takes a back seat to him wanting to go to the Capitol. He allegedly tried to leave the White House to go.
Thus far, the committee has been pretty methodical about the witnesses they call, the testimony they get, and having vetted the information before putting it out there. I chalk it up to Cheney being genetically ruthless, but it would be a rare misstep if this could be shot down so easily. I'm guessing they've got corroboration on this account. And Bret Baier (of all people) made an interesting point on the Fox News. He said "Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill. The president is on Truth Social."
Yes, I would agree, but ultimately, the higher issue is the mens rea, what was Trump's intent. While assaulting his secret service staff looks awful (we'd need video of this for the public to finally just be done with this goon), it is the underlying premise that he intended to join with an armed mob marching to the Capitol, with the intent of changing the results of the election. That is damning evidence. If the Secret Service agent testified and confirmed the testimony, Garland would think, OMG, I could actually get a conviction on this... if it ever went to trial.

Everyone needs to remember, this case would go to the Supreme Court. And while the Supreme Court was conservative, it ruled bribery is free speech, there is a right to religiously held discrimination. This current group, would likely say sedition is a task of the President.
There were details I had not heard before Hutchinson's testimony yesterday but there had been many reports of Trump saying that Mike Pence deserved to be hanged, for example. To me, that is extremely damning.
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic

I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
You realize that in the context of these hearings, hearsay rules do not apply?
They clearly don't because there is no judge to rule on admissibility. But just because they could bring in hearsay doesn't mean that they should have. It's a red herring that, if proven wrong, will damage her credibility in the court of public opinion. And let's face it, that is what these hearings are about. I think that the committee made a serious tactical error in bringing it up if they don't have first-hand testimony that it occurred.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.
You realize that in the context of these hearings, hearsay rules do not apply?
They clearly don't because there is no judge to rule on admissibility. But just because they could bring in hearsay doesn't mean that they should have. It's a red herring that, if proven wrong, will damage her credibility in the court of public opinion. And let's face it, that is what these hearings are about. I think that the committee made a serious tactical error in bringing it up if they don't have first-hand testimony that it occurred.
I don’t think the court of public opinion with regards to Hutchinson is even remotely a concern as far as the Jan 6 committee goes.

What I do know is that, thus far, the Committee has been meticulous about presenting only what can be backed up by other testimony, audio/visual documentation, and by hard physical evidence. It would be more than a little shocking if the committee allowed her public testimony without having other corroboration.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I wanna hear from the valet.
Does fatso throw his food like a girl, or does he have a great fastball? Could we have learned anything from the ketchup spatter pattern if Ms Hutchinson had not erased the evidence?
Inquiring minds…
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
They clearly don't because there is no judge to rule on admissibility. But just because they could bring in hearsay doesn't mean that they should have. It's a red herring that, if proven wrong, will damage her credibility in the court of public opinion. And let's face it, that is what these hearings are about. I think that the committee made a serious tactical error in bringing it up if they don't have first-hand testimony that it occurred.
I don’t think the court of public opinion with regards to Hutchinson is even remotely a concern as far as the Jan 6 committee goes.
The credibility of a witness's testimony is critical to making a case to any audience. And the January 6th Committee has tweeted "we showed the American people...," spelling out who their primary audience is.

What I do know is that, thus far, the Committee has been meticulous about presenting only what can be backed up by other testimony, audio/visual documentation, and by hard physical evidence. It would be more than a little shocking if the committee allowed her public testimony without having other corroboration.

I agree. Which is why I was shocked in real time when they aired such a headline-grabbing claim and didn't show any corroborating evidence.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The testimony that Mr Trump has such rage that he assaulted a Secret Service officer or would fling plates against a wall is believable. I suspect it was made to further reveal the true character of that treacherous scumbag in order to further reduce his poisonous influence on the GOP and our politics.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Later, he became enraged at the head of his Secret Service detail physically stopping him from grabbing the steering wheel of the limo and then assaulted the driver by trying to grab his collar bones. After being forcibly driven to the White House, he still tried to leave on foot to go the the Capitol mall. He really wanted a riot, and he wanted to egg the mob on personally.
The steering wheel grab and assault are several levels of hearsay and wouldn't be admissible in court. A number of credible reports say that the secret service agents involved are preparing to testify under oath that it didn't happen. Which is a pity because if it wasn't true then the trumpies will use that to try to discredit her entire testimony, most of which was first-person and admissible.

Let's wait for the testimony by Secret Service agents before treating it as anything more significant than a rumor on the internet. That's really premature. We have testimony under oath from someone who actually talked to people with direct knowledge, one of whom was the head of the security detail in the limo. The other testimony sounds more like hearsay, but it would be great to get it recorded under oath. Like the testimony we saw today. I'm guessing that you did not actually listen to Hutchinson's testimony, since you thought it was "several levels of hearsay". You can actually find her testimony online, and I urge you to listen to it. My wife says that the president lunged at the driver, but went for the collar bones of Engel, the head of the security detail at the time. It isn't clear to me whose collar bones were being targeted, but it would be nice to hear from Engel and Pat Cipollone for corroboration or disagreement. Right now, Cipollone is refusing to testify, and a lot of people are pleading the fifth. Mark Meadows himself even asked for a pardon.

I watched the testimony live. She said that Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the wheel and hit Engle. Ornato was not in the car so that is at least two levels of hearsay. And where did Ornato hear it? So yes, I'm treating it as rumor until someone who directly witnessed or was a participant in the incident testifies. As is required in court.

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.

 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,149
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic

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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

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

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
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.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
"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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
"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

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
"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."
 
Top Bottom