Jan 6 public hearings Live

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So shift our focus then.  What was the non-hearsay parts of her testimony that would be interesting enough to hold a special session of the committee?

See that's the sad part.  The only thing you know she talked about was the lunging and the ketchup...   

Let's see the points:

1) That Trump knew he lost and knew he was creating a "Big Lie"

2) He knew that some protestors were armed.

3) That Trump directed Meadows to contact Stone and Flynn the day before Jan.6 (Remember Stone's relationship with the Oath Keepers)

Eh, I'm going to cut the list short  because I am seeing multiple replies as I am typing this.

 

 

[Doug1066]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

For me the argument is about they summoning the driver that was assaulted for testimony.  If they do then they are after truth if they don't they are just doing propaganda.  

Ultimately, it will be up to the DOJ whether Trump is prosecuted.  From what the talking head lawyers are saying there is more than enough evidence to send him to prison.  The question is:  do the DOJ and Dems have the balls to do it?

Doug

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Where is that quote from.  I clicked your link and did a search for the phrase "for Trump to lunge" and "Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" " and nothing came up.

Third paragraph from the bottom.  There should be other sources that say it too.  It's not like it's a secret.

[Tiggs]

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued a subpoena Wednesday to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has been linked to meetings in which lawyers debated strategies to overturn former President Donald Trump’s election loss.

The committee said that it required Cipollone’s testimony after obtaining other evidence about which he was “uniquely positioned to testify.”

Cipollone, who was Trump’s top White House lawyer, is said to have raised concerns about the former president’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and at one point threatened to resign. The committee said he could have information about several of efforts by Trump allies to subvert the Electoral College, from organizing so-called “alternate electors” in states Biden won to trying to appoint a loyalist who pushed false theories of voter fraud as attorney general.

Source: AP

[+Link of Hyrule]

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

People are just focusing on the hearsay parts to discredit her overall testimony in the manner which you are describing.

The fact that the hearsay parts were even admitted into evidence for this committee is proof the whole thing is a sham! The purpose of this committee is NOT truth. If it were, these matters of hearsay would not be considered. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Third paragraph from the bottom.  There should be other sources that say it too.  It's not like it's a secret.

A simple photo from the day would suffice.

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Isn’t a 180degree turn in a car a u turn, not a j turn?

I had to look it up too.

In this case i think they means starting off in reverse then rotating the car through 180 degrees and continuing in the same direction in drive.

A bread and butter recovery move in GTAO racing.

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The fact that the hearsay parts were even admitted into evidence for this committee is proof the whole thing is a sham! The purpose of this committee is NOT truth. If it were, these matters of hearsay would not be considered. 

She was one of the aides to the Whitehouse chief of staff for Trump.

Like I assume this lady is a conservative. It strikes me how many conservative from Trump's own administration have felt the need to testify.

Like, am I suppose to believe that this aide has lied about everything she has said because one part of her story is being disputed ?

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

A simple photo from the day would suffice.

Well here is the SUV: 

But having the President's location and picture taken during a riot or insurrection is a bit of a no no.

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The fact that the hearsay parts were even admitted into evidence for this committee is proof the whole thing is a sham! The purpose of this committee is NOT truth. If it were, these matters of hearsay would not be considered. 

Okay, let's just drop the hearsay stuff.  Like I was saying earlier, it's pretty much irrelevant.  The only thing it served to do was act as a foil or focus for Trump defender's to rally behind and ignore all the non-hearsay stuff she said.

[+Link of Hyrule]

12 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Ultimately, it will be up to the DOJ whether Trump is prosecuted.  From what the talking head lawyers are saying there is more than enough evidence to send him to prison.  The question is:  do the DOJ and Dems have the balls to do it?

Doug

Could you perhaps list some of these talking head lawyers to whom you refer? I watch literally hours of lawyers every week breaking down cases and discussing current events. All of them seem to think that the whole J6 Committee is a political witch hunt and nothing is going to come from it. I can list over a dozen lawyers just off the top of my head who I regularly watch who all say this is the nature of the committee and expect absolutely nothing to come from it. 

So forgive me if I suddenly hear a "talking head lawyer" who says the opposite, I would very much like a source to check it up (I'm going to assume if such a lawyer exists it's one of those activist lawyers who gets interviewed by people like MSNBC, but I am open to being wrong).

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

15 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I had to look it up too.

In this case i think they means starting off in reverse then rotating the car through 180 degrees and continuing in the same direction in drive.

A bread and butter recovery move in GTAO racing.

So more of a y shape?

[+Link of Hyrule]

14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

She was one of the aides to the Whitehouse chief of staff for Trump.

Like I assume this lady is a conservative. It strikes me how many conservative from Trump's own administration have felt the need to testify.

Like, am I suppose to believe that this aide has lied about everything she has said because one part of her story is being disputed ?

Hearsay is still inadmissible. The fact that this committee is allowing it demonstrates that they aren't really searching for truth. 

Therefore I will not trust anything coming from this committee unless it exonerates Trump (because if it does, it will be accidental, they really are trying to smear him) OR if it leads to criminal convictions. Otherwise it's mud flinging, pure and simple! 

 

9 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Okay, let's just drop the hearsay stuff.  Like I was saying earlier, it's pretty much irrelevant.  The only thing it served to do was act as a foil or focus for Trump defender's to rally behind and ignore all the non-hearsay stuff she said.

So now that it's inconvenient for your side, "let's just drop it". That does not change my opinion that this whole committee is a witch hunt! 

[Gromdor]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

So now that it's inconvenient for your side, "let's just drop it". That does not change my opinion that this whole committee is a witch hunt! 

Well, if you want to keep the hearsay stuff then we will..

Sheesh, cry if it is in, cry if it is out.  

The Secret Service agents confimed the main elements of the testimony anyways: Trump, Secret Service agent confirmed main elements of bombshell Jan. 6 fight over driving to Capitol (yahoo.com)

The only thing in dispute is the lunging.  Which is unimportant except for maybe the egos of certain supporters of his I guess.

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Well, if you want to keep the hearsay stuff then we will..

Sheesh, cry if it is in, cry if it is out.  

The Secret Service agents confimed the main elements of the testimony anyways: Trump, Secret Service agent confirmed main elements of bombshell Jan. 6 fight over driving to Capitol (yahoo.com)

The only thing in dispute is the lunging.  Which is unimportant except for maybe the egos of certain supporters of his I guess.

I don't want to keep all the hearsay stuff in! I don't trust ANYTHING from the committee. It's YOU who is cherry picking what you like and don't like. My point is that by including hearsay the committee is tipping their hand as to why they are doing what they are doing, and it's nothing but a witch hunt! There will either be a criminal conviction out of this, or this whole thing is a sham because there is no impartiality! 

The media has been claiming that Trump will be charged for literally years. Every single time, there's an excuse why it doesn't happen....

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't want to keep all the hearsay stuff in! I don't trust ANYTHING from the committee. It's YOU who is cherry picking what you like and don't like. My point is that by including hearsay the committee is tipping their hand as to why they are doing what they are doing, and it's nothing but a witch hunt! There will either be a criminal conviction out of this, or this whole thing is a sham because there is no impartiality! 

The media has been claiming that Trump will be charged for literally years. Every single time, there's an excuse why it doesn't happen....

Eh, we can just wait.  But to be honest, I doubt Trump will go to jail either.  When you pick the judges and are in with the people who make the laws, it's pretty hard to be held accountable to them.  Even if he is charged, all it takes is a stooge to become the next president and pardon him.  

[spartan max2]

20 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hearsay is still inadmissible. The fact that this committee is allowing it demonstrates that they aren't really searching for truth. 

Therefore I will not trust anything coming from this committee unless it exonerates Trump (because if it does, it will be accidental, they really are trying to smear him) OR if it leads to criminal convictions. Otherwise it's mud flinging, pure and simple! 

So Trump tried to overturn the election based on literal hearsay (which I think most people understand that Trump himself didn't even believe). And hundreds of Republican politicians voted to not certify the election based on literal hearsay. And all continue to push the big lie. 

But what outrages you is Trump's aide's testimony being hearsay? 

Cool

[Tiggs]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hearsay is still inadmissible.

Inadmissible where, exactly?

There are numerous exceptions where heresay is admissible in an American court, including:

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

Which seems to fit this particular occasion.

[+Link of Hyrule]

30 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Inadmissible where, exactly?

There are numerous exceptions where heresay is admissible in an American court, including:

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

Which seems to fit this particular occasion.

???? I believe the hearsay is revolving around whether the person who made this statement witnessed Trump grab the wheel, or whether she is only reporting that she heard that Trump tried to grab the wheel. My understanding is that it is the latter (literally people who were there have gone on record to say it never happened). She didn't explicitly see President Trump try to grab the wheel. That is hearsay and inadmissible in every court in the United States. That is NOT any kind of "excited utterance". 

[+Link of Hyrule]

40 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So Trump tried to overturn the election based on literal hearsay (which I think most people understand that Trump himself didn't even believe). And hundreds of Republican politicians voted to not certify the election based on literal hearsay. And all continue to push the big lie. 

But what outrages you is Trump's aide's testimony being hearsay? 

Cool

And I've already gone on record as saying I lost a lot of respect for Trump over what he did in the aftermath of the election! That does not justify a witch hunt after the fact! 

[+Link of Hyrule]

43 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, we can just wait.  But to be honest, I doubt Trump will go to jail either.  When you pick the judges and are in with the people who make the laws, it's pretty hard to be held accountable to them.  Even if he is charged, all it takes is a stooge to become the next president and pardon him.  

That reads like an excuse. He's escaping not because there's no evidence, but because he has rigged the system to his side.... and I reject that utterly! 

 

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That reads like an excuse. He's escaping not because there's no evidence, but because he has rigged the system to his side.... and I reject that utterly! 

 

There's an avalanche of evidence.  Enough that 2/3rds of America thinks he should be prosecuted. Two-thirds back prosecuting Trump over effort to overturn election: survey (yahoo.com)

What part leaves you in doubt?  The motive?  The method?  The chain of people involved?  

[Doug1066]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Could you perhaps list some of these talking head lawyers to whom you refer? I watch literally hours of lawyers every week breaking down cases and discussing current events. All of them seem to think that the whole J6 Committee is a political witch hunt and nothing is going to come from it. I can list over a dozen lawyers just off the top of my head who I regularly watch who all say this is the nature of the committee and expect absolutely nothing to come from it. 

So forgive me if I suddenly hear a "talking head lawyer" who says the opposite, I would very much like a source to check it up (I'm going to assume if such a lawyer exists it's one of those activist lawyers who gets interviewed by people like MSNBC, but I am open to being wrong).

Eric Swallwell.

I suspect nothing much will come of it, either.  The Dems will let it slide.

Doug

[spartan max2]

13 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And I've already gone on record as saying I lost a lot of respect for Trump over what he did in the aftermath of the election! That does not justify a witch hunt after the fact! 

Yes I know that. I'm not accusing you of agreeing that their was election fraud. 

My point is that I've seen very little post from you showing concern or criticism over the large amount of Republicans who continue to push the big lie. 

There are a portion of right winged people who are passively okay with the extreme element in the republican party. They didn't go away after Trump lost. 

Do democrat politicians have the most purest intentions with the Jan 6 committee? Probably not. But it seems unreasonable to me that the committee would be the focus on anyone's ire after we all watched live Trump trying to steal the eleciton. That crossed a massive line for me and is unforgivable

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2

[Tiggs]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That is hearsay and inadmissible in every court in the United States. That is NOT any kind of "excited utterance". 

I see it's going to be one of those discussions.

Perhaps we could start by you reading the link in my previous post which details the numerous exceptions where hearsay is admissible in every court in the United States?