January 6 Hearings Live

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, an actual Nothing Burger! Absolutely nothing can be resolved from that video.

 

[Elixir]

 

[Toni]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wow, an actual Nothing Burger! Absolutely nothing can be resolved from that video.

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything too.

 

[Toni]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

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]

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.