Jan 6 public hearings Live

[+Link of Hyrule]

Seems like a few people have quoted me all at once, so rather than a new post for every reply, I'm just going to compile them all into a single post as best as I can. Thanks to @Gromdor, @Doug1066, @spartan max2, and @Tiggs

  

23 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

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?  

There's plenty of accusations. Not much evidence. A public poll is not evidence. By the same metrics, over 70% of black Americans support more stringent voter ID laws, but you guys will NEVER make that happen, according to many on the left, asking for ID is actually racist!  

 

21 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Eric Swallwell.

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

Doug

So a democrat, and a politician to boot... about what I expected, he's as close to being a lawyer activist as you can possibly get. Meanwhile, Nick Rekeita from Rekeita Law, David Freiheit and Robert Barnes from Viva Frei, plus a dozen or so others I couldn't be bothered linking have all weighed in to say that it's a load of bunk!

 

16 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

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

 

They are within their rights to believe it was a lie. Democrats for years claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president! Therefore I have no problem with the Republicans doing the same. They are silly, but they are free to do it. It's their right. Believing that there was a stolen election is very different to holding an official committee which is, for all intents and purposes, a witch hunt! During an official committee that is designed to get to the truth of a situation, allowing prejudicial hearsay is all manner of wrong, it's genuinely perplexing that you are ok with it! 

 

7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

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?
 

I read the section you quoted. I didn't see how this fell under the descriptor of an "excited utterance". The witness was describing events to which she did not see and was not privy to. There is no place in America where that is admissible, pure and simple! If there is a specific exemption to hearsay, please demonstrate how this was an exception. If your reasoning is because there is an "excited utterance" you may need to explain yourself further and detail exactly why this was an "excited utterance" and why it qualifies as an exception in this circumstance. 

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Why don't we wait until we have a reliable statement presented?

Doug

Yeah, why don't we...  It usually only takes from 24 to 72 hours to wait for some narrative released by the Left to totally collapse.  Even though it looks like it has already exploded, let's wait a bit longer.

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said:

Feel free to disagree and be wrong. 

Hi Phin

2 wrongs don't make a right so can I have 3?

[Tiggs]

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I read the section you quoted. I didn't see how this fell under the descriptor of an "excited utterance". The witness was describing events to which she did not see and was not privy to.

A man comes into an office and describes a suprising event where they just saw X doing Y.

That telling is an "excited utterance".

Relaying that story of the man coming into the office talking about seeing X doing Y is both hearsay and absolutely admissible in every court in America.

What I suspect you're struggling with is the concept the the man could be exaggerating or lying about X doing Y.

Doesn't matter. What it is is a contemporary record of what was stated at the time, which may go on to influence future interactions with X among anyone who heard it.

It may potentially be used to cast doubt on that mans statement, if it were to change later.

What it isn't, is a guarantee that X did Y.

But it's still admissible evidence, all the same.

[+Link of Hyrule]

24 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

A man comes into an office and describes a suprising event where they just saw X doing Y.

Is that what this situation was? I haven't actually heard the testimony yet. If she said "Someone came in and said that they saw X doing Y", I wonder why the person who said they saw X doing Y wasn't being interviewed instead. As far as I'm aware that's what a court would do too - getting it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. 

 

24 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

That telling is an "excited utterance".

Is it? Is there a case law example you could provide to clarify that? Citing a legal case where such an excited utterance was allowed into court would go a long way to making your point. Until then I do not think this is what is meant by the term. 

 

24 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Relaying that story of the man coming into the office talking about seeing X doing Y is both hearsay and absolutely admissible in every court in America.

What I suspect you're struggling with is the concept the the man could be exaggerating or lying about X doing Y.

Doesn't matter. What it is is a contemporary record of what was stated at the time, which may go on to influence future interactions with X among anyone who heard it.

It may potentially be used to cast doubt on that mans statement, if it were to change later.

What it isn't, is a guarantee that X did Y.

But it's still admissible evidence, all the same.

I've never seen it admitted into evidence, and I've engaged with a lot of lawyers and cases, you could say it's a hobby of mine (I listen to a dozen different lawyers throughout the week - Rekeita Law, Viva Frei, Nate the Lawyer, LegalBytes, Legal Mindset, Uncivil Law, Harvard Lawyer Lee, Hoeg Law, Black Belt Barrister, and several more - it's not like I am unversed in legal matters). If you could cite cases as examples of when this exception was used in the manner you describe, that would be much appreciated  

[+Razman]

I got a feeling it wont be long before X and Y are in there testifying too.

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Except he didn't ride in the "Beast" that day....  He rode in an SUV.:  January 6 hearing: MSNBC downplays NBC scoop on Secret Service denying Trump-SUV story from Cassidy Hutchinson

Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" for Trump to lunge towards the steering wheel since the car he was actually riding in on Jan. 6 was a Suburban and not "The Beast," which she said would have been difficult for the president to do. - from the article

But hey!!  Now the Secret Service agents can testify under oath that Trump didn't lunge for the steering wheel of the limo...(if they were inclined to be decietful)

Cassidy Hutchinson, while recounting the story told to her by Tony Ornato, mentions things happened in The Beast multiple times.

[Tiggs]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Is that what this situation was? I haven't actually heard the testimony yet. If she said "Someone came in and said that they saw X doing Y", I wonder why the person who said they saw X doing Y wasn't being interviewed instead. 

Probably because they only had one witness at that hearing.
 

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Is it? Is there a case law example you could provide to clarify that? Citing a legal case where such an excited utterance was allowed into court would go a long way to making your point. Until then I do not think this is what is meant by the term. 

Oh? What do you believe the term means, and do you have case law to back up your opinion?

[Arbenol]

4 hours 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. 

Hearsay is usually inadmissible in a criminal court (with some specific exceptions)

This isn't a criminal trial. As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) federal rules of evidence don't apply to congressional hearings.

As evidence goes, it's weak. But not necessarily inadmissible.

[+Link of Hyrule]

47 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Probably because they only had one witness at that hearing.
 

Not including the ones who have come out to say that the President never tried to grab the wheel and are willing to testify to that in court. 

 

47 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Oh? What do you believe the term means, and do you have case law to back up your opinion?

I'm not the one citing this as an exception to hearsay, you are. The onus should be on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it. 

However, based on the text, an "excited utterance" is made when the declarant is "still under stress from the startling event".That would presumably refer to things said in the heat of the moment. This is only wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth, but the article cites two examples of excited utterances within the opening paragraph: 1- "Look out, we're going to crash", and 2- "I think he's crazy, he's shooting at us". It then goes on to say that while it doesn't have to happen immediately, the declaration must still be made "while the delcarant is still in a state of surprise or shock from the incident". 911 emergency calls would be a prime example of "excited utterances". Standing around a water cooler after the event and saying "geez, I saw xyz happen" would not be an excited utterance, and I've never seen it treated as such in court.

In contrast, I can cite several examples from the top of my head whereby that sort of testimony was directly excluded from trials because it. Several witnesses in the Depp-Heard defamation trial were excluded for that very reason.

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Hearsay is usually inadmissible in a criminal court (with some specific exceptions)

This isn't a criminal trial. As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) federal rules of evidence don't apply to congressional hearings.

As evidence goes, it's weak. But not necessarily inadmissible.

Which is why I said this is a witch hunt, and I am not going to be impressed with anything that comes out of it, this is a mud flinging exercise by the democrats trying to keep this political! Unless it leads to a conviction, it's a useless hearing to me. 

[Arbenol]

9 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Which is why I said this is a witch hunt, and I am not going to be impressed with anything that comes out of it, this is a mud flinging exercise by the democrats trying to keep this political! Unless it leads to a conviction, it's a useless hearing to me. 

I'm not addressing your opinion that it's a witch hunt (a much over-used phrase of the past few years), only your claim that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not including the ones who have come out to say that the President never tried to grab the wheel and are willing to testify to that in court.

Which court would that be?
 

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not the one citing this as an exception to hearsay, you are. The onus should be on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it. 

However, based on the text, an "excited utterance" is made when the declarant is "still under stress from the startling event".That would presumably refer to things said in the heat of the moment. This is only wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth, but the article cites two examples of excited utterances within the opening paragraph: 1- "Look out, we're going to crash", and 2- "I think he's crazy, he's shooting at us". It then goes on to say that while it doesn't have to happen immediately, the declarant must still be made "while the delcarant is still in a state of surprise or shock from the incident". 911 emergency calls would be a prime example of "excited utterances". Standing around a water cooler after the event and saying "geez, I saw xyz happen" would not be an excited utterance, and I've never seen it treated as such in court.

Good to see you've conceded that there are exceptions where hearsay is allowed in court. That's progress, at least.

Would being in a vehicle where the President of the United States attacked someone count as a stressful event?

Because I expect any decent lawyer could probably make the case it was.

[+Link of Hyrule]

7 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I'm not addressing your opinion that it's a witch hunt (a much over-used phrase of the past few years), only your claim that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

I meant that it was inadmissible in a court of law. As the courts is where guilt or innocence is decided, having a committee such as this which allows different standards of evidence isn't going to be helpful. It's a witch hunt (over-used the phrase may be, it's still accurate). 

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I meant that it was inadmissible in a court of law. As the courts is where guilt or innocence is decided, having a committee such as this which allows different standards of evidence isn't going to be helpful. It's a witch hunt (over-used the phrase may be, it's still accurate). 

So every congressional committee is a witch hunt by definition, as it doesn't adhere to criminal standards of evidence?

[+Link of Hyrule]

 

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Which court would that be?

Whichever you like! They said they were WILLING to testify in court, they haven't been called yet. Will the J6 committee call them? 

 

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Good to see you've conceded that there are exceptions where hearsay is allowed in court. That's progress, at least.

I have never said there weren't any exceptions to hearsay! I said that this type of hearsay being discussed is inadmissible in a court of law, and I've yet to see anything to contradict that! 

 

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Would being in a vehicle where the President of the United States attacked someone count as a stressful event?

How long after the event allegedly happened was this lady who was not there informed about it? Keep in mind that "excited utterances" become less valuable the longer after the event it happens. Water cooler talk in the office isn't an "excited utterance" even if the person was actually recounting events that they were privy to. 

 

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Because I expect any decent lawyer could probably make the case it was.

I've never seen it happen in any of the trials I have either watched or followed... 

 

Just now, Tiggs said:

So every congressional committee is a witch hunt by definition, as it doesn't adhere to criminal standards of evidence?

Not necessarily, but it certainly has the potential to be so, especially when it's headed by people with an agenda to push. The J6 committee exists purely to vilify Trump, it's not actually there to get to the bottom of facts. If it were we wouldn't have this type of hearsay.  

 

 

[Golden Duck]

31 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Which court would that be?

Bobby Engel has apparently testified in a closed door hearing before Cassidy Hutchison.

Why ask Cassidy Hutchinson what went on inside The Beast after Engel?  It seems like it was done for the public.

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Whichever you like! They said they were WILLING to testify in court, they haven't been called yet. Will the J6 committee call them? 

How would you know if they did?

And given the broad witness tampering, and the Secret Service's dedication to the Presidency — how would you know who was telling the truth?
 

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I have never said there weren't any exceptions to hearsay! I said that this type of hearsay being discussed is inadmissible in a court of law, and I've yet to see anything to contradict that! 

Perhaps see the post Arbenol quoted to see why people might think otherwise.
 

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

How long after the event allegedly happened was this lady who was not there informed about it? Keep in mind that "excited utterances" become less valuable the longer after the event it happens. Water cooler talk in the office isn't an "excited utterance" even if the person was actually recounting events that they were privy to. 

Pretty quick. Ornado pulled her into his room to talk to her when she returned from the speech on the 6th, and Engel was still visibly shaken.
 

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I've never seen it happen in any of the trials I have either watched or followed... 

There were over 100 million court cases in the US last year alone. Guessing there's quite a few there you haven't seen.
 

11 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The J6 committee exists purely to vilify Trump, it's not actually there to get to the bottom of facts. If it were we wouldn't have this type of hearsay.  

Seems to have got to the bottom of plenty of facts, so far.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I meant that it was inadmissible in a court of law. As the courts is where guilt or innocence is decided, having a committee such as this which allows different standards of evidence isn't going to be helpful. It's a witch hunt (over-used the phrase may be, it's still accurate). 

Hi PA

Just to note that justice is not about truth/innocence it is about the best presented argument with the best supported/contested evidence.

[Tiggs]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Bobby Engel has apparently testified in a closed door hearing before Cassidy Hutchison.

Ornato, too, I believe.
 

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Why ask Cassidy Hutchinson what went on inside The Beast after Engel?  It seems like it was done for the public.

Given that the response from the agents was to say they're willing to testify about it under oath, and not that they'd already spoken about it under oath to the committee prior — what does that imply?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

I'm not addressing your opinion that it's a witch hunt (a much over-used phrase of the past few years), only your claim that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

Besides, it’s not a witch hunt, it’s a witch trial whereby “evidence” is presented in order to justify a pre-reached conclusion. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

And given the broad witness tampering, and the Secret Service's dedication to the Presidency — how would you know who was telling the truth?

So basically, we can't know anything. Boiling it down, what it sounds like you're writing here is "well, we can't really trust them, so let's ignore anything they say and cite only those who support my dislike of Donald Trump". How is any discussion going to meaningful under these conditions? 

 

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Perhaps see the post Arbenol quoted to see why people might think otherwise.
 

I've clarified my position, then, let's move on  

 

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Pretty quick. Ornado pulled her into his room to talk to her when she returned from the speech on the 6th, and Engel was still visibly shaken.
 

And yet others are willing to say it never happened. Oh right, that's just secret service agents being loyal to former President Trump, they must be lying  

 

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

There were over 100 million court cases in the US last year alone. Guessing there's quite a few there you haven't seen.
 

I've seen more than most, I daresay more than you. And I still haven't seen any examples from you in which "Excited Utterances" were used in context to allow someone to enter a courtroom and say "I saw X do Y". Especially when the people who actually saw X do Y are a much more trustworthy source than a hearsay second or third hand account. 

 

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

Seems to have got to the bottom of plenty of facts, so far.

And muddied a whole lot more while doing so! 

[preacherman76]

18 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

7 Democrats house members voted to not certify in 2016. And 0 senators. 

That is not comparable to the over 130 Republicans in the house and dozen or so Republican senators in 2020 who voted not to certify.

Those two elections weren’t comparable. 

[Phinneas J. Whoopie]

This is all insane. We have seen the Beast, the limo. Can anyone explain how Trump could grab the wheel from where the president sits? He would have to have 8-10 ft long rubber arms. 

Why are we giving this political witch hunt any attention? 

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Ornato, too, I believe.
 

Given that the response from the agents was to say they're willing to testify about it under oath, and not that they'd already spoken about it under oath to the committee prior — what does that imply?

Given that the response from the agents is more second hand information, I don't know that it implies much at all.

What are you inferring?