Jan 6 public hearings Live

[+Link of Hyrule]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

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

I'm not sure what your intention was in snipping my post at the exact point you did, but by removing the rest of the sentence the quote as you quoted it implies that I provided zero nuance in my reply. Which is simply untrue.  

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

...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. 

It's important to point out that I actually wrote "minutes after the event", which provides a rather significant period of time. A lot happens in a minute, let alone several minutes. And my comment allowed for some stress for several minutes. And a change of location from the car to an office or other such building. That doesn't mean there won't be any recurring emotions or any such. But when referring to hearsay as it applies in a court of law, these feelings aren't enough to justify an "excited utterance" as per the legal requirement.  

Though judges usually have ultimate say as to whether they allow something in their courtrooms, and that means that sometimes different judges may allow different things in. Which is why I asked for cases where a judge has allowed such testimony in under the hearsay exception. It's possible it exists, but exceptions to hearsay are exceptions for a reason, they aren't common.

 

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

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.

 

Re: section in bold: Demonstrably untrue: 

Guardian Source

 

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

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

Complaining about the stolen election was about the biggest tantrum one can make. If he wasn't lunging for a steering wheel, why should it be a question of any kind? 

[Robotic Jew]

22 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

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.

 

I'm not "afraid" of him running again? I don't think he's going to run again, but he's learned that dangling that carrot can keep his grift going and the donations pouring in. My belief? What are you talking about? I've said on here several times that if trump runs in 2024 he will win. Democrats are weak and disjointed and unable to get anything worthwhile done, but to me that's better than the direction the theocratic dictatorship that the GQP is aiming for.

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not sure what your intention was in snipping my post at the exact point you did, but by removing the rest of the sentence the quote as you quoted it implies that I provided zero nuance in my reply. Which is simply untrue.  

It's important to point out that I actually wrote "minutes after the event", which provides a rather significant period of time. A lot happens in a minute, let alone several minutes. And my comment allowed for some stress for several minutes. And a change of location from the car to an office or other such building. That doesn't mean there won't be any recurring emotions or any such. But when referring to hearsay as it applies in a court of law, these feelings aren't enough to justify an "excited utterance" as per the legal requirement.  

Though judges usually have ultimate say as to whether they allow something in their courtrooms, and that means that sometimes different judges may allow different things in. Which is why I asked for cases where a judge has allowed such testimony in under the hearsay exception. It's possible it exists, but exceptions to hearsay are exceptions for a reason, they aren't common.

 

Re: section in bold: Demonstrably untrue: 

Guardian Source

 

Complaining about the stolen election was about the biggest tantrum one can make. If he wasn't lunging for a steering wheel, why should it be a question of any kind? 

"CNN confirms ..."

Haven't you said CNN can't be trusted?

The tweets you've quoted are themselves hearsay.  Furthermore, Tony Ornato was not in The Beast, so any testimony by him about what happened in the beast would also be hearsay.

Engel has already testified before the Committee behind closed doors.

The story of what went on inside The Beast seems far fetched; but, Trump is the only one on record dismissing it as false.

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

"CNN confirms ..."

Haven't you said CNN can't be trusted?

I don't trust any mainstream media. That doesn't mean they're useless. Especially when they report on things that contradict their left wing narrative. To make a comparison that I feel is very fair, when Fox News turned on Trump after the election, heaps of folks who never trust Fox used Fox against conservatives, quoting them and making statements such as "Even your precious Fox News refuses to peddle Orange Man's lies" (paraphrased, naturally, but I've seen that sentiment all over the web, including here on UM). These people who don't trust Fox suddenly cite it constantly, and the reason is obvious - using conservatives sources against them. What I am writing here is fundamentally the same - using progressive propaganda machines like CNN to demonstrate that even they admit the facts in this matter. 

The alternative is quoting non-mainstream sources, which YOU won't accept, so under those conditions there can be no common ground for discussion.

 

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The tweets you've quoted are themselves hearsay.  Furthermore, Tony Ornato was not in The Beast, so any testimony by him about what happened in the beast would also be hearsay.

Engel has already testified before the Committee behind closed doors.

The media is hearsay by nature. However, the media is also not a congressional hearing! There is a perceived legitimacy in congressional hearings that even the most ardent media apologist would never claim for CNN/Fox/etc. Therefore congressional hearings should not be witch hunts or character assassinations, which is what this sham of a hearing has demonstrated. Neither should the media, but the media has already demonstrated they are willing to stoop that low, and there's a reason trust in MSM is waning day by day. 

 

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The story of what went on inside The Beast seems far fetched; but, Trump is the only one on record dismissing it as false.

I just quoted two tweets from news reporters, plus a Guardian article (which links to those tweets anyway) who have people on record dismissing it as false! I don't know what to say except you are objectively wrong on this point! 

[Golden Duck]

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't trust any mainstream media. That doesn't mean they're useless. Especially when they report on things that contradict their left wing narrative. To make a comparison that I feel is very fair, when Fox News turned on Trump after the election, heaps of folks who never trust Fox used Fox against conservatives, quoting them and making statements such as "Even your precious Fox News refuses to peddle Orange Man's lies" (paraphrased, naturally, but I've seen that sentiment all over the web, including here on UM). These people who don't trust Fox suddenly cite it constantly, and the reason is obvious - using conservatives sources against them. What I am writing here is fundamentally the same - using progressive propaganda machines like CNN to demonstrate that even they admit the facts in this matter. 

The alternative is quoting non-mainstream sources, which YOU won't accept, so under those conditions there can be no common ground for discussion.

 

The media is hearsay by nature. However, the media is also not a congressional hearing! There is a perceived legitimacy in congressional hearings that even the most ardent media apologist would never claim for CNN/Fox/etc. Therefore congressional hearings should not be witch hunts or character assassinations, which is what this sham of a hearing has demonstrated. Neither should the media, but the media has already demonstrated they are willing to stoop that low, and there's a reason trust in MSM is waning day by day. 

 

I just quoted two tweets from news reporters, plus a Guardian article (which links to those tweets anyway) who have people on record dismissing it as false! I don't know what to say except you are objectively wrong on this point! 

The Tweets aren't "the record".

It appears what Engel and Ornato are prepared to testify comes from an anonymous source within the SS.

You're welcome to provide the record. Until then your hunch of "demonstrably wrong" is just a hunch.

[Tiggs]

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

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.   

Expect you'll discover that the Elipse to the White House is less of a long drive, and more of a long driveway.

You seem to have entirely dismissed the physical assault aspect.
 

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That is my legal opinion

Where I come from, only Lawyers and Judges have legal opinions. Everyone else just has opinions.
 

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

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).

Since it's not worth my time — sure. Agree to disagree.

[Tiggs]

The story of an altercation between former president Donald Trump and members of his Secret Service detail on the day of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol was widely repeated and discussed by Secret Service agents and other law enforcement officials when it happened, according to multiple reports.

According to CNN, two sources with the Secret Service say they heard about the incident described by ex-Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in bombshell testimony before the House January 6 select committee on Tuesday. During the reported episode, Mr Trump berated the head of his protective detail, Robert Engel, and the driver of his armoured SUV, after he was told he could not go to the US Capitol to join the riotous mob he had summoned to Washington that day

Those sources told the network they heard of an “angry confrontation” between Mr Trump and his bodyguards stemming from their refusal to transport the president to the Capitol. Their accounts reportedly “align” with what Ms Hutchinson told the select committee.

Source: The Independent

Fun times.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

16 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

According to CNN

The only proper thing to do would be for the Jan 6th committee to call those actually present to testify about the days accounts and not to rely on hearsay evidence when there are conflicting accounts as to what transpired that day.

And that will not happen as the desired narrative has been put forth by the committee for the public to digest.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Buzz_Light_Year

[jmccr8]

I think a lot of this investigation is a show cause and there are private sidebars to determine whether to question some witnesses or about some subjects so if the testimony leads to charges is yet to be determined it is an inquiry not a trial.

[+Link of Hyrule]

22 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The Tweets aren't "the record".

It appears what Engel and Ornato are prepared to testify comes from an anonymous source within the SS.

You're welcome to provide the record. Until then your hunch of "demonstrably wrong" is just a hunch.

Enlighten me, what is "the record". Earlier you stated the following: 

On 7/1/2022 at 11:10 PM, Golden Duck said:

Only Trump via Truth Social has said it false.

At present it appears that you are arguing that it is ok to cite Trump's Truth Social posts, but I cannot cite a CNN reporter's tweets (whose literal job is to "report") because for reasons you haven't quite explained, Trump's statement is "the record", while Gabby Orr's is not.

[+Link of Hyrule]

18 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Expect you'll discover that the Elipse to the White House is less of a long drive, and more of a long driveway.

You seem to have entirely dismissed the physical assault aspect.

RIght now I've dismissed all of it, hearsay doesn't hold much value, especially when there are those who were there saying it never happened. This whole committee is a sham and unless it completely exonerates Trump or leads to criminal convictions (it won't do either) then it's just a divisive witch hunt, like I've said several times. 

 

18 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Where I come from, only Lawyers and Judges have legal opinions. Everyone else just has opinions.

In the context I was writing, I thought it was clear that what I meant was  "this is my opinion on a legal matter". If I gave the impression I was trying to claim to be a lawyer or judge, I apologise   

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Enlighten me, what is "the record". Earlier you stated the following: 

At present it appears that you are arguing that it is ok to cite Trump's Truth Social posts, but I cannot cite a CNN reporter's tweets (whose literal job is to "report") because for reasons you haven't quite explained, Trump's statement is "the record", while Gabby Orr's is not.

Do you have doubts that what's on Truth Social is indeed directly from Trump.

The Tweet from CNN is not purported to be a direct quote.  It doesn't even hint at the origin.

The earliest report appears to be from NBC and quote from an anonymous source - that may, or may not, be from within SS - purporting what Ornato and Engel may be prepared to do.

A reasonable apprehension exists that Gabby Orr is relying on another media report.

We have an incredible story that, given Trump's size and age, doesn't even seem possible.  Yet the only denial is from Trump.

The heasay from an anonymous source is not, as you said, "on record."  It doesn't mean anything and doesn't demonstrate anything.

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

RIght now I've dismissed all of it, hearsay doesn't hold much value, especially when there are those who were there saying it never happened. This whole committee is a sham and unless it completely exonerates Trump or leads to criminal convictions (it won't do either) then it's just a divisive witch hunt, like I've said several times. 

You can dismiss it all you want.  Hearsay was that Trump lunged at a steering wheel.  First hand account is that Trump knew the crowd had weapons and he didn't care.  Which one is worse, Mate?

[Agent0range]

11 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Do you have doubts that what's on Truth Social is indeed directly from Trump.

The Tweet from CNN is not purported to be a direct quote.  It doesn't even hint at the origin.

The earliest report appears to be from NBC and quote from an anonymous source - that may, or may not, be from within SS - purporting what Ornato and Engel may be prepared to do.

A reasonable apprehension exists that Gabby Orr is relying on another media report.

We have an incredible story that, given Trump's size and age, doesn't even seem possible.  Yet the only denial is from Trump.

The heasay from an anonymous source is not, as you said, "on record."  It doesn't mean anything and doesn't demonstrate anything.

His mind is already made up.  He doesn't care about evidence, quotes, whatever.  Guarantee Romper Stomper is in his top 5 favorite movies...

[+Link of Hyrule]

18 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

His mind is already made up.  He doesn't care about evidence, quotes, whatever.  Guarantee Romper Stomper is in his top 5 favorite movies...

Romper Stomper is an awesome film. Nowhere near my top 5, but a good film nonetheless. 

Would you like to say what you really mean instead of hiding behind chickens*** movie comments? I'm not a racist,  but you're obviously an idiot!

[Agent0range]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Romper Stomper is an awesome film. Nowhere near my top 5, but a good film nonetheless. 

Would you like to say what you really mean instead of hiding behind chickens*** movie comments? 

I don't hide behind anything.  I will tell you exactly what I think of you.  I definitely amused myself by using an obscure Australian movie reference, and getting a triggered response from a weird Australian obsessed with Donald Trump, though.  I'm here for my own entertainment, and this one was outstanding.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

37 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I don't hide behind anything.  I will tell you exactly what I think of you.  I definitely amused myself by using an obscure Australian movie reference, and getting a triggered response from a weird Australian obsessed with Donald Trump, though.  I'm here for my own entertainment, and this one was outstanding.  

If you call me a racist or imply I'm a racist I will respond,  tell you that you are an idiot and intolerant of different opinions,  and remind you that by calling me a racist your are making it easier for real racists to be racists because they won't care if you call them racist,  you already cheapened it by using it against me!

I will say this every time anyone accuses me of being  racist. Or Nazi. Or any other kind of ist or phobe that the left wants to use. 

Why would you expect acceptance when you call someone about the worst thing your can call a human being? You're disgusting!

[Golden Duck]

It's been a while but I dont remember Romper Stomper being pro-racist or pro Neo-Nazi.

It kind of seemed like a parable that there's no "happily ever after" for that level of hate.

[+Link of Hyrule]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's been a while but I dont remember Romper Stomper being pro-racist or pro Neo-Nazi.

It kind of seemed like a parable that there's no "happily ever after" for that level of hate.

It wasn't pro-Nazi, but when you're in an online discussion and someone randomly says it must be in your top 5 favourite movies,  the implication is obvious! Don't pretend it isn't

[Golden Duck]

9 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It wasn't pro-Nazi, but when you're in an online discussion and someone randomly says it must be in your top 5 favourite movies,  the implication is obvious! Don't pretend it isn't

I genuinely didn't know what he meant by that reference, immediately.  I ignored/dismissed it as nonsense.

[+Link of Hyrule]

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I genuinely didn't know what he meant by that reference, immediately.  I ignored/dismissed it as nonsense.

It was obvious to me, and I daresay obvious to Agent Orange, as well. If you didn't get it, it just confirms that Agent Orange should say what he means and not hide behind movie references to make his point! Hiding behind such movie references is a coward's way of calling me a skin head without actually calling me a skin head. 

[Golden Duck]

Are you a racist, skin-head, neo-nazi?

Which one is the better armour, being offended or knowledge?

Quote

A reformed neo-Nazi whose crimes were dramatised in the Russell Crowe movie Romper Stomper has warned the young men joining the latest crop of neo-Nazi groups that they are wasting their lives following the “frauds” leading the gangs.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/reformed-neonazis-warning-to-current-young-men-joining-groups/news-story/89c335277106c92e35c9ab04bc721338

You're probably right about the intended meaning, and it's your right to choose to be offended.

I'm making the observstion the sentence on it's own is nonsense.

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Are you a racist, skin-head, neo-nazi?

No. 

 

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Which one is the better armour, being offended or knowledge?

I don't understand the question. It's not about "armour", I'm simply standing up for myself (I will NEVER let this type of claim slide, as calling someone a Nazi is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of - just Google "Nazi war crimes" to get an idea of my point). 

 

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/reformed-neonazis-warning-to-current-young-men-joining-groups/news-story/89c335277106c92e35c9ab04bc721338

You're probably right about the intended meaning, and it's your right to choose to be offended.

I'm making the observstion the sentence on it's own is nonsense.

I'm not "offended", he's an anonymous dude on the net. But I am going to point it out when someone makes such ridiculous accusations. 

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

No. 

 

I don't understand the question. It's not about "armour", I'm simply standing up for myself (I will NEVER let this type of claim slide, as calling someone a Nazi is about the worst thing you can accuse someone of - just Google "Nazi war crimes" to get an idea of my point. 

 

I'm not "offended", he's an anonymous dude on the net. But I am going to point it out when someone makes such ridiculous accusations. 

I pointed out the attempted insult doesn't even make sense.  

It's not even a cryptic example of Godwin's Law.

The knowledge of themes in the movie are more powerful than offence.

[Tatetopa]

22 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The only proper thing to do would be for the Jan 6th committee to call those actually present to testify about the days accounts and not to rely on hearsay evidence when there are conflicting accounts as to what transpired that day.

And that will not happen as the desired narrative has been put forth by the committee for the public to digest.

In fact, the two agents have been invited  to come back in and testify under oath.  It would speed things up and Trump would get his equal time if he did the same.