Hearsay is when the truth of the matter is asserted. This would not be hearsay. This is also not a court of law.

You don't think she was relaying the information she got from someone else who hasn't testified to assert it as the truth of the matter?

I don't care if this isn't a court. It goes to what we should consider concrete evidence. And of course, the ultimate goal here is to lay out a case for charging certain people with crimes. To the extent some of the information she testified to secondhand would be relevant to those crimes, she would not be able to testify about them when it matters.

And generally, allowing her to testify to secondhand information so freely weakens the committee and makes it easier for opponents to criticize.

I will say, it's amazing how many people who have been charged with crimes or who have turned on Trump, he barely knew. It's almost unbelievable!

I know that everything Trump related is unpredictable and chaotic, but, along with this testimony, it feels like the committee now just needs to prove that Trump knew that he did not win and still ordered against a peaceful transition of power. Maybe that filmmaker has that on video somewhere.

I have been sitting back wondering why Biden has not been more vocal in blaming some of the problems his presidency has encountered on the Trump administration not allowing for a peaceful transition. I hope that is something that the democrats start hammering on.

She is discussing conversations she was actually a participant in. Party admissions are exception to hearsay. Effect on listener statements are also not hearsay.

I'm sure there will be a million lawyers explaining this in much more detail when this is over since it appears that's the defense the GOP is going with. I would say they are lying, but seeing how bad Giuliani and Eastman were at their jobs, there is a good chance the party just doesn't have any competent lawyers.

She testified to a conversation with someone who relayed a story with the intent to prove that what occurred in that story (the motorcade altercation) is true. That's hearsay.

"he thinks Mike deserves it and they aren't doing anything wrong."

I'm not saying I don't believe that it occurred, and I want to see Trump prosecuted.

All I'm saying is that floating unsubstantiated "this guy told me about this terrible thing Trump did that I didn't personally witness" weakens the committee's effectiveness and provides ammo to the GOP to discount her as a witness because there's nothing to corroborate that story.

If Engel testifies, then you've got something.

I don't know why she would risk her life and freedom to lie about this stuff.

Anyway, if the people who were there want to repudiate it, I am certain the committee would be open to hearing from them.

Eastman appears to be the guy they want to be the scapegoat for this and Trump has already pulled the "I barely knew him" card on the attorney he worked with on a daily basis to try to overturn the election.

Christine Blasey Ford tried this and you saw how far it got her. Remember when she was going to make millions? Anyway, what you said sounds just like it could have applied to another woman who risked her life and freedom to report something important. Point being I guess that opposition will do everything they can do to tear her down and render her as the problem not the other way around.

This is the point about hearsay - she doesn't need to be lying for it not to be true! That might very well have been the conversation she had with Engel or whoever the other guy was. But that story may not have been true. And it was offered here as evidence that the altercation actually happened. That's the whole point of the hearsay rule.

All I'm saying is, her testimony on that particular issue should have been paired with corroborating testimony. And I'm guessing that to date, they don't have that, so they had her testify about hearsay which, if that's all there ever will be, would be inadmissible in a court.

It's not hearsay. You don't know what hearsay is.

Hearsay or not the American people should here it all and make their own assumptions. I doubt Garland and Biden have the balls to have the DOJ doing anything criminally.

They subpoenaed all those other people. They decided to ignore it and the DoJ decided laws don't apply to certain people like them.

You can only present the testimony and evidence you have and let people decide.

It is hearsay.

I'm not saying they can't present it here, I'm talking about how it limits the effectiveness of the testimony when there's nothing else to corroborate it.

Even in a court, hearsay can be admissible. That doesn't change it from being hearsay, it just becomes admissible hearsay.

You realize he’s an attorney?

Do you think he cares?

I think RainMaker and I actually agree, we're just explaining it from different angles.

I disagree with the blanket statement that it's not hearsay, but I agree that it may be admissible in court. It still goes to credibility if there's no corroboration. That's my point. Especially here, when the committee is already providing testimony with no cross-examination, relying on hearsay testimony can be dangerous and "under oath" only means so much.

If there's one thing I learned from my evidence professor in law school, it's that our system's hands are tied by people who are willing to perjure themselves.

And again, I'm not calling Hutchinson's testimony into question so much as I am the willingness to throw it out there without something more attached to it.

Yeah I'm hoping the Committee has that testimony or now that they've seen her give it, people will come forward to testify. It would have made her testimony today more effective if the people in his car in the motorcade after his speech agreed with what she said happened.

So are they. It seems like the only thing that would be hearsay is the Secret Service car stuff.










And that's exactly the part I have been talking about.

Will they make Secret Service agents go on the record about their principles?

As my boss said, "Trump claims he hardly knew who this woman was, but I've seen her. He definitely knew who she was."

Ok sorry, maybe my feed was behind.

I think the issue is that this is a unique case in that normally you would subpoena a witness and they would testify. Sure they could just take the 5th, but you would at least have them on the record.

It doesn't seem fair to hold them to the standards of a traditional court case when the justice system has decided certain individuals do not have to abide by the same laws as others in that system. Just feels like a weird space we're in.

I think that is the issue here-as far as I know none of the people mentioned today have testified. They may think they have some kind of executive privilege not to do so, but not sure how that work with the Secret Service.

I don't know why Biden would block it under executive privilege. Seems like the next logical step is to question the secret service agents involved about what happened.

Who knows with this "Supreme Court"

Basically, here is my answer. Agents were called to testify against Clinton. So, they can be compelled and there is precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...rvice-clinton/

Jake Tapper interviewed Senator Raskin after the hearing and said no one gave contradictory evidence to what Hutchinson testified happened in the motorcade, and that they interviewed the men involved, so there may be more testimony to come there

If they haven't been able to get anything more attached to it, should they keep a lid on it?

Whether it's admissible in court is a decision to make when a criminal case is brought. Right now, it's important to get information out to the public.

If they didn't have statements from Engel and the other guy locked down before they put her on live TV, they really screwed up. If they had corroboration before today, at least some of it should have been presented today. So either way, IMO, they didn't really handle that part of the testimony well.

It would destroy Hutchinson's credibility. It would destroy the comitee credibility. It would basically really make this whole thing look like a political farce. You can't present one of the most damning allegation being made from a hearsay conversion without collaboration. I hope that report is wrong. It came from a NBC reporter.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

They did testify months ago. So I would hope the committee asked them about it.

Not sure why it would hurt Hutchinson's credibility. She is relaying a conversation and has no reason to lie. Maybe it would hurt Ornato who told her the story.

Either way, it would be a he said she said. She worked in that administration so is already suspect. But the secret service lie a lot so who knows what is credible.

Presumably he/they would testify that the conversation never happened. Unless the story is, "Yeah I told her that but it was a lie."

Well they can do that under oath and help bring clarity to the situation.

It hurts Hitchimson's credibility because she said it on a national stage. Sceptical people aren't going to accept "well technically she said HE said".... It will paint her whole testimony as deceptive. And it definitely destroys the credibility and the professionalism of the committee. How do they present this testimony when they haven't verified it?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I think it adds to her credibility that she is willing to say this on a national stage and under oath. This is a person receiving death threats who just threw any future in that party away. I don't think she's any kind of hero or anything, but she was at least willing to speak while under oath.

On the other side, you have an anonymous source saying "nuh uh" to a reporter.

I think if her story is false, the people who know the truth should speak up and do so under oath for the country to hear. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping them from doing that.

We all hate Trump here but this is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately it looks like the committee screwed this part up and it will be used to detract from all the other damning parts.

What did they screw up? They sent subpoenas to people and those who chose to abide by the law followed them and those who didn't didn't.

They can only work with the people who are willing to talk to them.

Personaly, I think it does as well Rainmaker. It was amazingly brave for her to come forward and face what is to come. I also have no doubt she believed what she said. That still doesn't take away how most people react to things like this. It will come down to the simplest translation: She said this happened. The people actually there say this didn't happened. Her testimony is then false. It doesn't matter that some else was the one that told her it happened. She should have never been asked to testify on something that she couldn't verify.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Who said it didn't happen under oath? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Rainmaker, the agents are willing to testify, and Engel already has. Either the commitee didn't ask him about this, or he contradicted it and they had her testify anyway. I think the commitee hasn't asked him because the Reps I have seen comment on this have said they haven't seen any direct collaboration, and I don't believe they would have asked her to testify to this if he had already denied it.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Utlimately, she could be vindicated. But if they really didn't ask these 2 people about this incident (likely because they didn't know about it months ago) and they deny it happened, that is a huge unforced error by the committee. And it's not even the most relevant information/evidence of a crime. The other stuff is far more damning. But if her story about the motorcade or the ketchup on the wall are denied under oath, her credibility is shot. And for nothing other than great Twitter fodder for a couple days.

Did they say they are willing to testify? Where are you seeing this? I'm sure Engel, Ornato, or anyone else involved has the means to put out a statement saying this.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...jan-6-hearings

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Engel testified already. He was avaible to ask his side of this if the committee cared to ask.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

What does that say about the Hutchinson testimony today? That was from almost a week ago.

I love how one thing is enough to nullify everything (regarding testimony) yet we've had to deal with this mfer and his family, who speak out of both sides of their mouths all day long, and we're supposed to take ALL of it as the honest truth (whichever narrative fits).

Yeah they screwed up by not trying to corroborate it with other witnesses who have already testified and would presumably be willing to answer follow up questions.
They suck more, and I don't think anyone in any place I engage in discussion actually believes that side, but it looks like the committee made an unnecessary unforced error here. Like others said these parts weren't even the most damaging parts, they were just the most sensationalistic, but if you're going to put that out there corroborate it first or stick to the non-hearsay parts.

We don't know any of that though. We don't even know when they found out what Hutchinson had to say. We don't know if they were or weren't asked to corroborate. Remember that she switched lawyers just a few weeks ago. This could be very new.

Like I don't trust anyone in this situation, but until we know what was asked of people and when, it's all speculation. I would hope the committee will be putting together a full report at the end that has everyone's testimony.

The part that really matters, Trump wanting to go to the Capitol and the Secret Service refusing to let him, has been corroborated by Trump himself.

We certainly don't know. The problem is, whether the committee knows has been called into question. But time will tell. These aren't just anonymous sources denying her testimony. Supposedly they are willing to testify so we'll have both sides eventually. Again, the issue is the committee likely not having both sides before they put her up there.

And the Secret Service sources from what I just saw on Twitter.

They are literally anonymous sources that are not even part of the Secret Service. Unless I missed someone going on the record and saying her testimony is false.

Diversionary tactic which people are (happily) gobbling up.

My emphasis was on the fact that they weren't just denying it, they are saying the two people involved in the story will testify to the contrary. That's different than someone just reporting that she's lying.

The committee put out a statement when those reports surfaced that they would love to have anyone testify under oath to clarify. We'll see if they are willing to back up their anonymous words.

FWIW, nothing about it is on the front page of Fox News

SI

I mean the timing of the roe vs wade ruling was a whole diversionary tactic to make people forget about the jan 6 comittee

I dunno - Supreme Court schedules are done months in advance and usually they release the first set of opinions for a year in June.

SI

SCOTUS is saving evisceration of the administrative state for tomorrow, the last day of the term.

Yup - it's all just a matter of who is going to deliver the killing blow. Roberts or someone else. God forbid we have working governmental agencies that don't have to run every regulation through a dysfunctional Congress anytime they want to make a new rule.

SI

Jan 6 Committee subpoenas top white house lawyer under Trump, Pat Cippolini

I keep hearing a lot of people talking about the secret service driver allegedly refuting the assault claim. Lots of people saying he should testify under oath that it didn't happen, as if no one has ever lied under oath.

You mean like the last 3 Supreme Court nominees? :D

Exactly, the SCOTUS appointees pretty much made it clear that the oath is meaningless, pretty sure a ruling will follow that protects people that do.

Yes you had Gohmert complaining in an interview recently that Republicans couldn't even lie to the FBI and Congress anymore. And that's the point, people in public trust need to be held accountable when they lie under oath like the supreme court justices.



Reports are that the secret service driver is pretty loyal to Trump, the king of lying. So get him under oath about it so its on the record. The Jan 6 committee is under oath, so they too should be held accountable if they lie about what they found or try to hide some of it.

Pretty loyal is an understatement. Some of the SS with Trump on J6 were reportedly cheering on the insurrection.

We are learning that letting a bunch of Anti-Americans into high level military and law enforcement was a really bad idea.

We were so worried about foreign agents infiltrating that we dropped the ball on watching out for domestic terrorists.

Don't you realize they are the true patriots?

After the attempted coup, this cannot happen.

Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections - POLITICO https://t.co/YL1xOZ1zzf

— Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ (@AdamKinzinger) June 30, 2022

Of course a couple of replies bring up his previous glowing recommendations of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch...

This is the guy Ben likes to quote, yes?

All y'all bitching about the Supreme Court can go to hell. We've spent fifty years watching them give you every damn thing you wanted and repeatedly stopping us even though we operated democratically. Now you don't have them and let your persuasion skills atrophy. Screw you.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2022

What someone posted on a friends facebook page after my friend posted if you are okay having jewish, hindu, muslin kids sit through christian prayer, you better be pkay with having christian kids sit through hindu, muslim, jewish prayer.



The fucking hypocrisy, and my very tame, direct response below

One thing we assume is that they know what the weird hypocrisy is and that that really is a thing. Perhaps we’re missing the foundation that they actually know these things.

Or maybe it’s all faux outrage hiding a long plan of creating a theocracy but can’t use that word so you just get rid of the words or project them on your opponents ask the whole executing the long plan of creating a Christian theocracy and once we’re there they’ll say,” jeez, how did we get here!? But…. Since we’re here either join us or leave.” Muwahahahahah Bible. Sin. Gays. Guns. Love. You’re forgiven!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is apparent video evidence that shows that at the very least, he lunged over the driver's shoulder to keep the car from leaving, rather than steer it while it was moving.

I hear a lot of voices on the right claiming the committee is biased and they aren’t allowing other points of view or counter arguments. What could the other view possible be? All I hear from them is it wasn’t “as bad” as the left claims. It was mostly peaceful. Conspiracy theories about Antifa. Despite all the evidence to the contrary. Countless hours of video showing angry white men bearinf cops and trashing the capitol. They claim it was peaceful despite a gallows being erected and then chanting hang Mike pence.

I just can’t fathom what the counter point of view is that could possibly refute the video evidence. Audio recordings. Cell phone evidence. Text messages.

There isn't any. That's the real answer. The reason they believe that is because it's easier to believe that than it is to believe that their beliefs are wrong. That's the power of faith in its truest form.

Imagine the shame they think they’ll feel if they realize that they’ve been swept up in a cult all along

That’s tough to face

Easier to start the course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Almost a year ago, Pelosi blocked two of his picks, Banks and Jordan from the committee, and so McCarthy pulled all Republicans from it, and said at the time maybe we will have our own hearing. Anybody hear about that again? That's who the Trumpsters who have been complaining about bias. should be complaining to. Demand that they produce evidence that Antifa, BLM, or the FBI were behind it all. But no the Democrats are the corrupts one here because Trump clearly won the election.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-m...dan-jim-banks/


I hope at the end of the hearing if they don't state it themselves, reporters ask them about any evidence of those groups either being involved or that any of the loudest shouters like Gaetz came to the Committee with actual evidence. Like to see Liz Cheney address that.

Even if Jim Jordan was on the committee, which I agree his whole purpose would be to muck everything up, what would his argument be for the "other side?"

Who could we possibly hear testimony from refuting what happened when we see it all with our own eyes? I just don't see how having a Jordan or MTG on this committee alters the actual facts and evidence that clearly backs them up.

I think if the right extremists took a play from trump's playbook and just tossed him under the bus, and if the person who called for it and made it happen, had similar credentials as him, like DeSantis or Abbot, they could get rid of their albatross, and double down on their methods in one fell swoop and get momentum before fall.

This was only after the original version of a bipartisan committee was rejected by McCarthy. Presumably, with more sane people on a committee, the GOP would have had a chance to do something more than tweet emojis during testimony. The current committee only happened because the original agreed committee was rejected by McCarthy under pressure.

Have you ever watched what these committees are usually like? They wouldn't put up counter evidence on the subject. They would stall, they would character attack, they would constantly bring up anything they could not about the subject. The committee would bring in some like Hutchinson, and one nut-job Republican would ask her if she had an abortion. The next one would ask her about her sexual relationships. The next would ask her about the time her dad worked for some company that is in a negative light. That's what Gym Jordan brings to the table. Anything to give Right-wing media a clip to play ten thousand times an hour.

They would never let that happen, because Trump always showed loyalty to his inner circle, and he would in turn get it back from them.

/s

This is 100% not safe for work, so be cautious. This is what doing your job in Washington gets you now.

Threats of violence over politics has increased heavily in the last few years. But the darkness has reached new lows. My new interns made this compilation of recent calls they’ve received while serving in my DC office.

WARNING: this video contains foul & graphic language. pic.twitter.com/yQJvvAHBVV

— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) July 5, 2022

A whole bunch of Trump lawyers, Rudy, Lindsay Graham just got subpoenaed in GA election fraud probe:


https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/polit...ham/index.html

These guys just aren't creative in their insults. They also have a real oral fixation.

SI

Jan 6 committee got who they wanted to testify at last-don't know the details yet, but Pat Cippolini has agreed to testify.


In other news Lindsay Graham refuses to testify to the GA Grand jury using the same argument that Trump was never successful with it, "its all political"

Nothingburger? Gonna invoke privilege?

Or has he decided to jump ship and flip while there's still value in doing it?

He has already testified before the Committee, "informally" which they have shown bits of before and with the recent testimony of Hutchinson about what he said, find it hard he will invoke privilege at this point in things.

I would think that if he's on the record, and he was on the record from other witnesses saying that what trump was cooking up was illegal, that he's prepared to testify to a very thin line of things that directly involved him.

He was WH counsel, not trump counsel, meaning he was repping the title and position and protecting the office, not specifically 45.

Looks like he will not be testifying "live" in one of the hearings, but rather on tape with a transcript available at some point.

There's apparently more documentary footage from a crew that was following Roger Stone and possibly other Stop the Steal leaders.

These fuckers were convinced they were going to win and needed propaganda films to help establish their right to rule.

And, having never suffered a real consequence for anything that they'd ever done ever in their lives, they probably weren't worried about any downside risk (and, depending on how this shakes out, they might have been right about that).

If trump or some trump lite candidate wins in 24 you can pretty much guarantee (based on previous actions) that any and all penalties will be wiped clean, and those that sought those punishments will be sent to the salt mines of Kessel or Utah. One or the other.