Jan 6 public hearings Live

[RavenHawk]

23 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

I laugh at your posts because you're delusional and it's hilarious how you constantly twist yourself into knots to justify the unjustifiable.

Between the two of us, I’m the sane one.  I don’t exhibit TDS.  To prove it, why are you so afraid that Trump is going to run again?  Let him.  If your belief is correct, then he doesn’t have a chance.  The populace obviously doesn’t want to him.  Why go to so much trouble wasting taxpayer’s money?  Why worry?  The course of the nation is going so well.

 

[preacherman76]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

Conspiracy to overturn the election is sedition.  Sedition is a crime.     Does anyone believe that trump didn’t try to overturn the election?

case closed.

There are lawful means to overturn an election. Even though justice was denied, it was the only way he tried to overturn the election. Your assertion is ridiculous 

[RavenHawk]

22 hours ago, the13bats said:

I remember you, head down knee bent for your marmalade messiah. You went into total unhinged meltdown and hid when his own staff proved he lost fair and square to biden who only won because America wanted trump the bubbling incompetent life costing total failure out.

No, Trump is no messiah, but he is the only one that can begin to undue the damage that as been caused to this nation.  It’s going to take several Presidents to finish.  The evidence is clear.  Yes, he lost but not fair and square.  Come January, we may begin to see the Left’s conspiracy unravel.  But of course, you are all so right, the prosperity Trump established in this country was too good for us, that’s why you put the little Prick into office and he is making this nation a much better place.  Brilliant choice.  If Trump is the bubbling incompetent, tell me exactly what do we have now?

 

Quote

Right, its out of his character for the known tantrum throwing man child, you worshippers still tossing TDS like anyone cares?

TDS is just another part to Mass Formation Psychosis.  You do realize that the “known” character of this tantrum throwing man child is all a construct made up by the MSM?  And you fell for it.  You can’t acknowledge that you have and double down.  That just allows the hatred to fester.  Especially when someone brings it up.

 

Quote

Free advertisement for trump? Yes, I suppose it is his go fund me is cha ching more than his failed businesses did now he has all the worshippers sending him their money that they would have used on prem beer, 308s and lacys garder on C section scar night at the boobybar.

Trump’s a billionaire.  How ‘bout you?  But he lives rent free in your head even thought he’s not in power.

 

Quote

Remember...trump lost.

Yes he lost in a rigged contest.  Your head is just going to explode when it’s found out that fraud was behind it.

 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said:

It was much more complex and involved than just "donating money to an election office" 

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/

First off  Zuckerberg and his group claimed the grants were for PPE for workers for covid. In Georgia less than 2% of its $31 mil was spent on that. The grants came with conditions including  small armies of partisan activists staffing offices, polling places, going door to door, even getting access to voter rolls. Given keys to ballot storage and permission to alter ballots, conduct audits. This is a public election, allowing private money and people to run it like this outside of established transparant protocol  is insane. Ive heard so often about election officials and local leaders swearing by the security and integrity of this election. Of course they are, just the idea of accepting these grants is a bad look for them, and accounting for the funds was probably pretty loose especially if the results were favorable to Zuckerbergs wishes. Lets say youre a lowly government official and you had $50-250k to use as a slush fund  with minimal accounting. Hire friends and family for menial jobs, free meals for the staff, new laptops and cell phones for you and your staff, outside the normal scritiny of taxpayers?  Is it any surprise Georgias Governor wants to rubber stamp this election and not have to explain how  election officials across his state spent $31 mil while acting as servants of the people administering a free and fair election? 

 

 

But it’s crazy to think this election was stolen. My goodness smh

Edited June 30, 2022 by preacherman76

[RavenHawk]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

Conspiracy to overturn the election is sedition.  Sedition is a crime.     Does anyone believe that trump didn’t try to overturn the election?

case closed.

Does overturning the election also include having other that the state legislatures changing how voting takes place?  Does it include having tabulating machines that have been shown to have the capability to change votes, used in the elections without proper certification?  Does it include the abuses of ballot harvesting, especially in populations that are incapable to vote?  Does it include not purging voter rolls periodically and adding more bogus registrations, and then using polling machines to determine who hasn’t voted and then printing out just enough ballots just to appear at the last minute to be counted?

 

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Most certainly that is testifying under oath.  Also hearsay.  But the only way we're going to know the sox were gray is to call your wife to up to testify, which should be done.

Is the colour of the socks significant?  In the hypothethical we're just testifying that we were told the colour.  Without more context what purpose does the hypothetical serve?

This Hutchinson testimony about tantrums serms a bit rehearsed and for the public.

[+OverSword]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Is the colour of the socks significant?  In the hypothethical we're just testifying that we were told the colour.  Without more context what purpose does the hypothetical serve?

This Hutchinson testimony about tantrums serms a bit rehearsed and for the public.

Since sock color is a metaphor for outrageous behavior and possibly character damaging () hearsay testimony then it should be either confirmed or disproven with a first hand account.  If they fail to call the witnesses to give a first hand account then in my mind this is not about truth it's about creating a narrative meant to damage one side in a two sided political contest which would be an unethical use of a serious procedure such as a senate hearing.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

At the very least it is strong indication that we need campaign finance reform as a private company should not have too much influence over media people are exposed to such as Facebook and then be able to augment their media messaging with huge amounts of money to influence votes.  If a private company can do it then how can we complain about any other entity doing it?  They certainly aren't doing this for the benefit of the USA they do it for the benefit of a private company.

The evidence for this angle on election rigging and election fraud ranks " it's on the internet it must be true."

Quote

Zuckerberg didn’t donate directly to Biden’s 2020 campaign, federal campaign finance records show. He and his wife donated at least $400 million to two nonprofit organizations which distributed grants to state and local governments to help them conduct the 2020 election during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The donations came at a time when election offices were trying to transition to mail voting. The money helped pay for material and services such as equipment to process mail ballots, protective equipment to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and drive-thru voting locations, The Associated Press reported.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-election-donations-188810437774

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

The evidence for this angle on election rigging and election fraud ranks " it's on the internet it must be true."

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-election-donations-188810437774

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Slight of hand campaign funding.

[Golden Duck]

Just now, OverSword said:

Since sock color is a metaphor for outrageous behavior and possibly character damaging () hearsay testimony then it should be either confirmed or disproven with a first hand account.  If they fail to call the witnesses to give a first hand account then in my mind this is not about truth it's about creating a narrative meant to damage one side in a two sided political contest which would be an unethical use of a serious procedure such as a senate hearing.

At least one of the SS agents has been reported to have already given behind-closed-doors testimony.

Cheney didn't ask what Hutchinson was told.

Quote

As we've all just heard, in the days leading up to January 6th, on the day of the speech, both before and during and after the rally speech, President Trump was pushing his staff to arrange for him to come up here to the Capitol during the electoral vote count. Let's turn now to what happened in the president's vehicle when the Secret Service told him he would not be going to the Capitol after his speech. First, here is the president's motorcade leaving the Ellipse after his speech on January 6th. Ms. Hutchinson, when you returned to the White House in the motorcade after the president's speech, where did you go?

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

I tend to agree with you opiniom that Huthinson's testimony was for "the show".

The old adage about government inquiries ...

Only ask questions to which you know the answer

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Slight of hand campaign funding.

Or it isn't.

It sounds like something The Senate might get the GAO to look into, doesn't it?

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Or it isn't.

It sounds like something The Senate might get the GAO to look into, doesn't it?

Or it was all done legally if not ethically, which is what really happened.  Loopholes, we are famous for them 

[lightly]

 

How much money was donated to either or both campaigns?   Are campaign contributions and ‘getting out the vote’ something new?

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

No, Trump is no messiah, but he is the only one that can begin to undue the damage that as been caused to this nation.  It’s going to take several Presidents to finish.  The evidence is clear.  Yes, he lost but not fair and square.  Come January, we may begin to see the Left’s conspiracy unravel.  But of course, you are all so right, the prosperity Trump established in this country was too good for us, that’s why you put the little Prick into office and he is making this nation a much better place.  Brilliant choice.  If Trump is the bubbling incompetent, tell me exactly what do we have now?

 

TDS is just another part to Mass Formation Psychosis.  You do realize that the “known” character of this tantrum throwing man child is all a construct made up by the MSM?  And you fell for it.  You can’t acknowledge that you have and double down.  That just allows the hatred to fester.  Especially when someone brings it up.

 

Trump’s a billionaire.  How ‘bout you?  But he lives rent free in your head even thought he’s not in power.

 

Yes he lost in a rigged contest.  Your head is just going to explode when it’s found out that fraud was behind it.

 

And i see your head is just as bowed knee just as bent to trump and your delusional of him as they ever were.

You got one thing wrong that millionaire who begs go fund me support from worshippers like you doesnt live rent free in my head, but i do see i live rent free in yours and thats rather creepy, get past me please.

Wrong msm didnt give me my impressions of trump i do my own thinking unlike you and his worshippers, i saw and heard trump do the things that formed my opinion of him.

I agree it will take a lot of people and time to undue the damage trump did to this country, even the GOP turned their back to his bumbling incompetence and people like you have to live with the fact your orange god lost to the likes of biden not due to any election fraud that his best never could show evidence of no, your man lost to biden because the American people were done with trump.

And lets hope you dont have one of your unhinged meltdowns when trump is held accountable for things he caused on the 6th and countless other crimes.

Welcome to my ignore list, feel free to rant some more but i will miss out.

[+Link of Hyrule]

12 hours ago, Tiggs said:

So we should generally trust people who give testimony under oath?

The text of Peter Alexander's Tweet: 

A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.

You'll perhaps note that it only mentions testifying about what happened in the car, as opposed to testifying about what Hutchinson was told.

Which, given that at least part of it was conveyed to Hutchinson using hand gestures, isn't entirely surprising that the two don't line up.

Testimony made under oath is a thousand times more reliable than testimony not under oath! And testimony under oath is usually subject to rigorous cross examination, so testimony under oath is only half the story. 

 

12 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Don't particularly believe I need to, after directly linking you to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which A: establishes that such an exception for hearsay exists, and B: lays out the fact that it doesn't matter whether the original claimaint is available to testify at the very beginning of the section.

Which I'm pretty sure covers everything I need to evidence, without having to spend my time as an unpaid Google case law monkey.
 

Crucially, your link didn't provide any examples of what would constitute an "excited utterance". The link that I provided did. There were two examples cited - "Look out, we're going to crash", and "I think he's crazy, he's trying to shoot us". Furthermore, the article then cites 911 emergency calls as specific examples. All three examples are immediate to the events, the testimony is contemporary with the events as they happen, while the stress of the event was still palpable.

It's the difference between saying "Look out, we're going to crash", 2 seconds before a car gets involved in an accident or near-accident, and telling your friend at work the next day around the water cooler, saying "I was in a crash/almost in a crash yesterday...". One of these is an excited utterance, the other is inadmissible hearsay. The difference could be as subtle as comparing "I think he's crazy, he's trying to shoot us" and "I think he's crazy, he tried to shoot us". 

I've provided the difference between them, it's up to you to demonstrate how it is an exception to the hearsay rule! Preferably with case studies where such testimony was in fact allowed into a court of law.   

 

12 hours ago, Tiggs said:

All seems pretty clear to me. Your mileage may vary.

My mileage does vary. Significantly. 

Here is just one of the live streams of the hearings, with commentary from one of those lawyers I mentioned who says the Jan 6 committee is a witch hunt. It's a long live stream and goes into other topics too, but there are many people who are not you who think the entire hearing is a crock.  

 

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, the13bats said:

And i see your head is just as bowed knee just as bent to trump and your delusional of him as they ever were.

And I see that the hatred is dripping off of you.  Why do you hate this country?  Why do you hate yourself so much?  It reeks from your writings.  You need to discern the difference between a bowed knee and agreeing with policies that work.  Most people like good leadership, high wages, low prices, plentiful supply, sense of wellbeing.  We don’t have that now.  The god you bow to is hatred.

 

Quote

You got one thing wrong that millionaire who begs go fund me support from worshippers like you that’s live rent free in my head, but that’s do see that’s live rent free in yours and that’s rather creepy, get past me please.

That was disjointed.  Why are you so upset if Trump uses go fund me?  Isn’t the function of go fund me to raise money?  Trump doing this has more to do with connecting with the people (allowing people to participate) than actually the raising money part.  Here on this forum (or any forum), participants live in each other’s head anyway.  That’s where it is ok.  It’s very unnatural to allow TDS to poison one’s mind.  Trump is out of power.  He’ll never be President again.  Why do you still hate?

 

Quote

Wrong msm I give me my impressions of trump I do my own thinking unlike you and his worshippers, I saw and heard trump do the things that formed my opinion of him.

I really doubt that.  Your hatred is just too great.  You obviously didn’t see or hear enough.  You parrot the talking points too closely.

 

Quote

I agree it will take a lot of people and time to undue the damage trump did to this country, even the GOP turned their back to his bumbling incompetence and people like you have to live with the fact your orange god lost to the likes of biden not due to any election fraud that his best never could show evidence of no, your man lost to biden because the American people were done with trump.

Seriously?  Just give me one thing that Trump did of substance that has harmed this nation?  Likewise, give me just one thing Bidet did of substance that didn’t harm this nation?  Because Trump lost through cheating, we all lost, including the rest of the world.  China is moving to take the world and the US doesn’t have the leadership to check it.

 

Quote

And lets hope you don’t have one of your unhinged meltdowns when trump is held accountable for things he caused on the 6^th and countless other crimes.

One of my unhinged meltdowns?  I don’t think you know me.

 

Quote

Welcome to my ignore list, feel free to rant some more but I will miss out.

Great!  I guess I can really say what I think of you and you’ll never be the wiser.  Of course, I think that is childish.  Have your tantrum and take all your toys and go home.

 

[Tiggs]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I tend to agree with you opiniom that Huthinson's testimony was for "the show".

The old adage about government inquiries ...

Only ask questions to which you know the answer

In a public hearing, which is designed to pass the knowledge that the committee has gained over to the general public in an accessible manner?

Absolutely it was for show.

[Tiggs]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Testimony made under oath is a thousand times more reliable than testimony not under oath!

Then the agents should contact the committee and testify under oath.

Then the committee would be able to compare their testimonies to each other, and to any other evidence of the event they may have, such as video, for example.

Unless, of course, they already have.
 

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And testimony under oath is usually subject to rigorous cross examination, so testimony under oath is only half the story. 

Congressional committee's still aren't court rooms, and this isn't a trial, even if it is unearthing evidence of crimes.

Indictments and trials with rigerous cross examination are the DOJ's job.
 

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Crucially, your link didn't provide any examples of what would constitute an "excited utterance".

That link is literally the rulebook used by the Courts, defining what an excited utterance is.
 

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There were two examples cited - "Look out, we're going to crash", and "I think he's crazy, he's trying to shoot us". Furthermore, the article then cites 911 emergency calls as specific examples. All three examples are immediate to the events, the testimony is contemporary with the events as they happen, while the stress of the event was still palpable.

It's the difference between saying "Look out, we're going to crash", 2 seconds before a car gets involved in an accident or near-accident, and telling your friend at work the next day around the water cooler, saying "I was in a crash/almost in a crash yesterday...". One of these is an excited utterance, the other is inadmissible hearsay. The difference could be as subtle as comparing "I think he's crazy, he's trying to shoot us" and "I think he's crazy, he tried to shoot us". 

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

If the declarant is still discombobulated from the event, then they're still under the stress of excitement that it caused.

So, any statements they make about that event while discombobulated — is an excited utterance.
 

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

My mileage does vary. Significantly.

Opinions often do.

Still not planning to watch any linked youtube videos. Especially not 6 hour long ones.

[+Link of Hyrule]

4 hours ago, Tiggs said:

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

If the declarant is still discombobulated from the event, then they're still under the stress of excitement that it caused.

So, any statements they make about that event while discombobulated — is an excited utterance.
 

Suffice it to say I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes being "under the stress of excitement that it caused". Even if it happened (and there are several witnesses claiming it never happened) no court would ever view someone grabbing a wheel to be so egregiously stressful that someone would be discombobulated even minutes after the event, let alone far enough in the future that the car ride was over and the person had a chance to talk about what happened with others.  

That is my legal opinion, unless you actually show cases that demonstrate the contrary. That means you either need to be a "Google Monkey" (or whatever term it was you used earlier), or we're going to be stuck on this point forever (unless you want to just drop it and agree to disagree - at the end of the day, this is a committee and not a courtroom, though it's fair to say I have not budged in my opinion that this is a sham hearing).  

 

4 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Opinions often do.

Still not planning to watch any linked youtube videos. Especially not 6 hour long ones.

I didn't expect you to. I was just linking an example of a lawyer who argues that the hearings are mud-flinging exercises and nothing of any real substance. 

[lightly]

Sorry.

Edited July 1, 2022 by lightly
Mistake

[WVK]

17 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

At least one of the SS agents has been reported to have already given behind-closed-doors testimony.

Cheney didn't ask what Hutchinson was told.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

I tend to agree with you opiniom that Huthinson's testimony was for "the show".

The old adage about government inquiries ...

Only ask questions to which you know the answer

Secret Service DENIES Key Trump Jan 6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgwvJYEUURQ

 

[Golden Duck]

46 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

no court would ever view someone grabbing a wheel to be so egregiously stressful that someone would be discombobulated

What rubbish. Being a passenger in an out of control vehicle is about as disconcerting situation the average man on the street will face.

Hitchinson's testimony about the events in The Beast might be hearsay because she is testifying about an out-of-court statement.  But, at least Engel has already testified behind closed doors.  Only Trump via Truth Social has said it false.

The salient question is what does it matter if Trump threw tanrums?

 

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Testimony made under oath is a thousand times more reliable than testimony not under oath! And testimony under oath is usually subject to rigorous cross examination, so testimony under oath is only half the story. 

Would signed affidavits also be considered ‘under oath’?  And if you lie under oath, that would be perjury?  I’m considering past hearings too.  Seems that affidavits get ignored.  If you perjure yourself in a hearing, no big deal as long as you’ve rehearsed the scene well and you get a hug afterward.  There is no requirement that due process is observed in a Congressional hearing (as people keep pointing out), but I would think that any hearing that expects to be credible, should follow the Constitutional protections of due process.  Otherwise, it just becomes a show trial and most people are smart enough to tell the difference.  Only those with TDS would accept this Stalinist trail, in their mind.  Ultimately, such a charade only spits on the Constitution.

 

[+OverSword]

24 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Otherwise, it just becomes a show trial and most people are smart enough to tell the difference. 

Are they though?  

Edited July 1, 2022 by OverSword

[RavenHawk]

28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Are they though?  

Yes, I think so.  Those like you and I are on the frontlines, so we see more of the woke than most and it is discouraging.  There are 1/3^rd of the population that are hopelessly woke and will never part from their ideology even when shown to be wrong.  These we can write off.  Then there are the 1/3^rd that are awake and know what’s going on.  We don’t have to worry about this group.  This is the group we seek refuge in.  Then there’s the last 1/3^rd.  Those that are asleep but are slowly waking up.  We’re seeing this group make the needle move.  And by November the majority will have had enough of the current policies and only the most hardcore woke will refuse to change.  The recent Supreme Court decisions have given hope that the cause is not lost.  That the Great Experiment will go on.  We need to have patience and keep the faith and let the Left self-destruct.