The Jan 6 Investigation (2)

[I Am The Scum]

In a now-deleted tweet, Rudy Giuliani completely told on himself in an attempt to deny that he ever sought a pardon.

Quote:

Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon.

Actually, I told the President I did not want or need one.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

In a now-deleted tweet, Rudy Giuliani completely told on himself in an attempt to deny that he ever sought a pardon.

And this guy was once a great district attorney......

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

"Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reputation Concerning Character.
A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

No, it is quite right. I am aware of the exceptions and usage, as a former criminal defense attorney.
My post was in reference to a potential criminal case against TRUMP. The example I gave was HEARSAY against T. Period. (aside from the fact that that statement was probative of nothing, since the word "thinks" was used) No exceptions are applicable. It would not make it past any judge. Some of there exceptions might apply to other statements, but not that one, and from what I heard there was quite a bit of additional hearsay.

[Warp12]

I don't think her testimony is earth-shattering. It sounds a bit gossipy, to me. More sizzle than steak. I think they have a lot better stuff than this, tbh.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by stanfr

My post was in reference to a potential criminal case against TRUMP. The example I gave was HEARSAY against T. Period.

I accept that, but you made no mention of that in your post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=23

There is potential for charges against a LOT more people than just The Fat Orange Turd - Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Brooks, Gosar, Gaetz et al

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think her testimony is earth-shattering. It sounds a bit gossipy, to me. More sizzle than steak.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think they have a lot better stuff than this, tbh.

This is the first thing you have said in this thread that I agree with.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Baiscaly, calling the Hutchnson a liar, and the usual "We have evidence that will prove that...coming out any day now".

Ah yes.. the "Pillow Guy" defence

[shemp]

Originally Posted by eerok

For example, Trump might one day be well-hanged.

Well, we have heard from some women that he was never well-hung.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I do wish people would stop using "hung" when they mean "hanged". A picture is/was hung on a wall but a person is/was hanged. It's really not that difficult.

Is that why my picture is dead and there's a convicted murderer on my lounge room wall?

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I accept that, but you made no mention of that in your post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=23

There is potential for charges against a LOT more people than just The Fat Orange Turd - Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Brooks, Gosar, Gaetz et al

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the benefit of others, the exceptions you listed are exceptions to the rule that forbids hearsay as evidence. They are not exceptions to what qualifies as hearsay, it is still hearsay--just admissible!

I was simply stating that some in the media are unfortunately characterizing some of her testimony as being a lot stronger than it actually would be in a criminal case. It is absolutely crucial they get some more people close to trump to start talking. I am sure they already have, and hopefully the dominoes will start falling. The Justice Dept has to step up to the plate and not be concerned about repercussions, because democracy and the rule of law are most definitely at stake.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by stanfr

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the benefit of others, the exceptions you listed are exceptions to the rule that forbids hearsay as evidence. They are not exceptions to what qualifies as hearsay, it is still hearsay--just admissible!

I was simply stating that some in the media are unfortunately characterizing some of her testimony as being a lot stronger than it actually would be in a criminal case. It is absolutely crucial they get some more people close to trump to start talking. I am sure they already have, and hopefully the dominoes will start falling. The Justice Dept has to step up to the plate and not be concerned about repercussions, because democracy and the rule of law are most definitely at stake.

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the benefit of others

hhttps://www.govinfo.gov/app/details...ule803/summary

The title of the law that grants some hearsay to be used in evidence is called...

28 USC § 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness[/hilite]

... and in the Federal Rules of Evidence, that section is called....

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Its pretty strange, don't you think, that both the Law and the Rule regarding a list of exceptions, that are called exceptions, are not exceptions?

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think her testimony is earth-shattering. It sounds a bit gossipy, to me. More sizzle than steak. I think they have a lot better stuff than this, tbh.

"These are not the droids you are looking for." MAGA denial is a wonderful thing

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the benefit of others

hhttps://www.govinfo.gov/app/details...ule803/summary

The title of the law that grants some hearsay to be used in evidence is called...

28 USC § 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness[/hilite]

... and in the Federal Rules of Evidence, that section is called....

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Its pretty strange, don't you think, that both the Law and the Rule regarding a list of exceptions, that are called exceptions, are not exceptions?

It's not a trial so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Stacyhs]

If they have worse than Hutchinson's testimony coming up, I need to go to Costco and stock up on popcorn.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

It's not a trial so it doesn't matter anyway.

True, but regardless, evidence given at these hearings still has to be assessed as to it admissibility in a trial.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I do wish people would stop using "hung" when they mean "hanged". A picture is/was hung on a wall but a person is/was hanged. It's really not that difficult.

Mussolini being an exception.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by stanfr

I was simply stating that some in the media are unfortunately characterizing some of her testimony as being a lot stronger than it actually would be in a criminal case. It is absolutely crucial they get some more people close to trump to start talking. I am sure they already have, and hopefully the dominoes will start falling. The Justice Dept has to step up to the plate and not be concerned about repercussions, because democracy and the rule of law are most definitely at stake.

Yes, I think the main value of Hutchinson's testimony is in the stage it sets. There's no question now that the testimony of Meadows and Cipollone is required, and I doubt they'll be able to continue ducking their responsibility for long. It won't look good if they fifth it like Flynn, either.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Is that why my picture is dead and there's a convicted murderer on my lounge room wall?

There was a novel or short story I read once, with a scene of a police detective arriving at a crime scene and being briefed by someone who arrived earlier.

"We found the victim hung in the next room."
"Hanged. People are hanged. Sides of meat are hung."
"I know. We found the victim hung in the next room."

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

There was a novel or short story I read once, with a scene of a police detective arriving at a crime scene and being briefed by someone who arrived earlier.

"We found the victim hung in the next room."
"Hanged. People are hanged. Sides of meat are hung."
"I know. We found the victim hung in the next room."

I see you were thinking along similar lines

Originally Posted by jimbob

Mussolini being an exception.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think her testimony is earth-shattering. It sounds a bit gossipy, to me. More sizzle than steak. I think they have a lot better stuff than this, tbh.

How unsurprising.

Never mind the temper tantrums. She overheard highly significant conversations.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by varwoche

How unsurprising.

Never mind the temper tantrums. She overheard highly significant conversations.

You know what I heard? "Rizzo got a bun in the oven!".

Like I said, they have a lot better stuff than this. I can hear it in court now, "Yes, it's true...there was ketchup on the wall. I swear."

Sure this is the kind of stuff that excites some Dems and gets them chatting, but it is isn't the concrete, serious stuff.

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the benefit of others

hhttps://www.govinfo.gov/app/details...ule803/summary

The title of the law that grants some hearsay to be used in evidence is called...

...snip...

Its pretty strange, don't you think, that both the Law and the Rule regarding a list of exceptions, that are called exceptions, are not exceptions?

I don't know why you are confused, you just reiterated the point i made, which is that the statements are still *hearsay* but may be admissible if they fall under exceptions. None of your cited rules are contrary to my OP, where i said that Hutchinson's statement was "hearsay" And no exception is applicable, especially with such a vague statement. I hope we can both agree that T is a seditious lunatic who belongs in jail. I am simply (again, and again) pointing out that Hutchinson's testimony, while useful, is not as valuable as the media made it out to be.

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

True, but regardless, evidence given at these hearings still has to be assessed as to it admissibility in a trial.

Yep, and that is why i made my initial assessment of it. It is obvious that the panel is laying out the reasons to indict Trump, that has been the theme from the first day. And he is clearly the focus, as opposed to the other players. If one of them would testify against T in return for full immunity, i bet they would offer it!
The only reason they are reluctant is 1) they still think team T is a winning team 2) they are insane (1&2 might go hand in hand) or 3) they fear for their safety.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by varwoche

How unsurprising.

Never mind the temper tantrums. She overheard highly significant conversations.

I find it disturbing that anyone from the White House was phoning the War Room in the Willard on the night of January 5.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You know what I heard? "Rizzo got a bun in the oven!".

Like I said, they have a lot better stuff than this. I can hear it in court now, "Yes, it's true...there was ketchup on the wall. I swear."

Sure this is the kind of stuff that excites some Dems and gets them chatting, but it is isn't the concrete, serious stuff.

Whew, thanks Warp! It's getting pretty warm outside but all your handwaving is really creating a nice breeze.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by eerok

Yes, I think the main value of Hutchinson's testimony is in the stage it sets. There's no question now that the testimony of Meadows and Cipollone is required, and I doubt they'll be able to continue ducking their responsibility for long. It won't look good if they fifth it like Flynn, either.

People should keep in mind the right wing is knowingly using this business about hearsay, especially the focus on supposed Suburban incident to distract from the actual issue: there is a lot of evidence of pre-planning and what Drumpf's fantasy plan* was leading a 'army' into Congress so he could stop the certification process Pence wouldn't stop.

Keep that in mind, this is a purposeful talking point, don't look behind the curtain.



*This is a repeating symptom of Drumpf's mental illness, like imagining COVID would simply go away. He imagined he could stop the election process and stay in power. Think of the fantasy: a gizillion soldiers behind him, vs reality: at best a small rag-tag group of soldier cosplayers plus a crazed crowd.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You know what I heard? "Rizzo got a bun in the oven!".

Like I said, they have a lot better stuff than this. I can hear it in court now, "Yes, it's true...there was ketchup on the wall. I swear."

Sure this is the kind of stuff that excites some Dems and gets them chatting, but it is isn't the concrete, serious stuff.

There was plenty of 'evidence' revealed in Hutchinson's testimony. You simply have to resist the distractions the right wing is flinging out.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There was plenty of 'evidence' revealed in Hutchinson's testimony. You simply have to resist the distractions the right wing is flinging out.

If you had to pick just one piece of evidence from her testimony as being the most solid and significant, what would it be?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If you had to pick just one piece of evidence from her testimony as being the most solid and significant, what would it be?

How about this?

The Fat Orange Turd knew the crowd was armed, with firearms, that he wanted the metal detectors removed to allow more armed people into the crowd, and that he wanted to go to the Capitol with that armed mob.

I believe this aspect is the most important revelation, and it has not gone unnoticed that the right wing media have been silent on this... they don't want their sheep focusing on this. They are busy trying distract and deflect from by playing up the dispute over whether or not he threw food at a wall or tried to grab a steering wheel. Those things are just fluffery, thing that help to confirm what we already knew, that he is a toddler who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way - behaviour that shows he was always unfit for the Office

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about this?

The Fat Orange Turd knew the crowd was armed, with firearms, that he wanted the metal detectors removed to allow more armed people into the crowd, and that he wanted to go to the Capitol with that armed mob.

I believe this aspect is the most important revelation, and it has not gone unnoticed that the right wing media have been silent on this... they don't want their sheep focusing on this. They are busy trying distract and deflect from by playing up the dispute over whether or not he threw food at a wall or tried to grab a steering wheel. Those things are just fluffery, thing that help to confirm what we already knew, that he is a toddler who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way - behaviour that shows he was always unfit for the Office

Indeed. Also, his rational for letting in the armed brown-shirts was NOT that they were harmless. Rather, they posed no threat to Trump. Stated specifically.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about this?

The Fat Orange Turd knew the crowd was armed, with firearms, that he wanted the metal detectors removed to allow more armed people into the crowd, and that he wanted to go to the Capitol with that armed mob.

True or not, don't you think that is the kind of testimony that would need some significant corroboration in order to hold up in court? Yes, I know this isn't a trial. I'm just asking what gives validity to her statements in that regard?

Sometimes this stuff reads like the made-for-tv dramatization. Maybe it is all true? Hard to say without more testimony.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Like I said, they have a lot better stuff than this. I can hear it in court now, "Yes, it's true...there was ketchup on the wall. I swear."

I said never mind the temper tantrums. And you cite a temper tantrum.

You seem to be determined to overlook the legally significant, direct observations.

[Donal]

"Her testimony was hearsay" - people trying to convince you 2000 Mules is legit.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

True or not, don't you think that is the kind of testimony that would need some significant corroboration in order to hold up in court? Yes, I know this isn't a trial. I'm just asking what gives validity to her statements in that regard?

How about that she was there, in the tent behind the stage at the Ellipse, with The Fat Orange Turd, and heard what he said.

Oh, and this is NOT hearsay - she is testifying directly to what The Fat Orange Turd said.

LIZ CHENEY: And did you go to the rally in the Presidential motorcade?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I — I was there, yes, in the motorcade.

LIZ CHENEY: And were you backstage with the President and other members of his staff and family?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was.

LIZ CHENEY: And you told us, Ms. Hutchinson, about particular comments that you heard while you were in the tent area.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When we were in the offstage announce area tent behind the stage he was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that we would get, because the rally space wasn't full. One of the reasons which I've previously stated was because he wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally.

And he felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in. But another leading reason and likely the primary reason is because he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren't letting people through the mags with weapons, what the Secret Service deemed as weapons and are — are weapons.

But when we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of, you know, I - - I don't effing care that they have weapons.
They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about that she was there, in the tent behind the stage at the Ellipse, with The Fat Orange Turd, and heard what he said.

Oh, and this is NOT hearsay - she is testifying directly to what The Fat Orange Turd said.

LIZ CHENEY: And did you go to the rally in the Presidential motorcade?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I — I was there, yes, in the motorcade.

LIZ CHENEY: And were you backstage with the President and other members of his staff and family?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was.

LIZ CHENEY: And you told us, Ms. Hutchinson, about particular comments that you heard while you were in the tent area.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When we were in the offstage announce area tent behind the stage he was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that we would get, because the rally space wasn't full. One of the reasons which I've previously stated was because he wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally.

And he felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in. But another leading reason and likely the primary reason is because he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren't letting people through the mags with weapons, what the Secret Service deemed as weapons and are — are weapons.

But when we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of, you know, I - - I don't effing care that they have weapons.
They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.

That is not solid testimony, imo.

"But another leading reason and likely...". That sounds like her interpretation, and nothing more.

She heard "something to the effect of"...while "in the vicinity of"...again, not very solid.

Like I said, could all be true...but sounds like gossip more than hard facts without something to bolster her account. Maybe she will get a book deal, though. It's all got a "juicy" ring to it.

I can see why some may not find her testimony convincing.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is not solid testimony, imo.

"But another leading reason and likely...". That sounds like her interpretation, and nothing more.

She heard "something to the effect of"...while "in the vicinity of"...again, not very solid.

Like I said, could all be true...but sounds like gossip more than hard facts without something to bolster her account. Maybe she will get a book deal, though. It's all got a "juicy" ring to it.

I can see why some may not find her testimony convincing.

Well, there are two facts that give me confidence she is speaking the truth here,

1. Crickets! Not one of the other people in that tent have come out and said "Trump never said that" or "that is not what was said". No-one has contradicted her testimony.

2. She testified to this under oath; under penalty of perjury. Those who might contradict anything in her testimony are unwilling to do so under oath.


Even in the non-issues of the plate throwing and steering wheel grabbing, all we have is one journalist, Peter Alexander telling the public, that someone told him that someone else said that what Ms Hutchinson said was incorrect. This isn't just hearsay, its hearsay about hearsay!

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

.....
She heard "something to the effect of"...while "in the vicinity of"...again, not very solid.

Like I said, could all be true...but sounds like gossip more than hard facts without something to bolster her account. Maybe she will get a book deal, though. It's all got a "juicy" ring to it.

I can see why some may not find her testimony convincing.

She's not a stenographer. She testified under oath to the substance of what people said to her, and what she herself heard from others. If someone else told her something that turns out to be wrong, it doesn't devalue her testimony. She said she herself heard Trump rage about the magnetometers that were keeping weapons out of his rally and demand that they be removed. He knew that he was sending an armed mob to march on the Capitol. That is probably the single most damning thing she reported. If anyone wants to say she's lying, let them them testify in public under oath. But so far there are no takers.

[dudalb]

Pat Cipollone,formeraly an attorney for Trump, has been supoened by the commitee.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

People should keep in mind the right wing is knowingly using this business about hearsay, especially the focus on supposed Suburban incident to distract from the actual issue: there is a lot of evidence of pre-planning and what Drumpf's fantasy plan* was leading a 'army' into Congress so he could stop the certification process Pence wouldn't stop.

Keep that in mind, this is a purposeful talking point, don't look behind the curtain.



*This is a repeating symptom of Drumpf's mental illness, like imagining COVID would simply go away. He imagined he could stop the election process and stay in power. Think of the fantasy: a gizillion soldiers behind him, vs reality: at best a small rag-tag group of soldier cosplayers plus a crazed crowd.

Exactly. Warp et al can handwave away the temper tantrum incidents but those of us not choosing to wear blinders can see that it's part of a pattern of erratic, unstable behavior. It's not the steak but it's definitely part of the "Trump is mentally unfit for office" stew.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is not solid testimony, imo.

"But another leading reason and likely...". That sounds like her interpretation, and nothing more.

She heard "something to the effect of"...while "in the vicinity of"...again, not very solid.

Like I said, could all be true...but sounds like gossip more than hard facts without something to bolster her account. Maybe she will get a book deal, though. It's all got a "juicy" ring to it.

I can see why some may not find her testimony convincing.

Your "I'm not a Trump supporter" schtick got old a long time ago. We know pee from rain when we see it.