Sebastabear said:

---

I guess I'd make three points in this "hearsay" thing.

1. Hutchinson gave testimony under oath about what she was told had happened while Engel was in the room. Is that an exception to the hearsay rules in a court? I have no idea. Not a trial lawyer. But as you know the hearsay rules are riddled with exceptions and there's usually a way this testimony gets in. Plus this isn't a court of law anyway, so that's largely an irrelevant standard.

2. If Engel, etc want to testify about what really happened (again). Great. We can then evaluate that. But Hutchinson's testimony was very specific and credible. To date the "refutations" have been completely non-specific and haven't even come from Engel directly. If I'm a betting man I'm guessing what we would hear from Engel if he did in fact testify (again) was some semantic parsing. "Well he didn't really lunge at the wheel. He more reached for it, etc. etc.". At best it's going to be some shading of the event to try to make his boss look less bad. But no one (including Trump) is denying that Trump tried to get to the Capitol and was stopped by his detail from doing it. Do you really think he just sat there quietly when he was told no? Does anyone?

3. This whole wheel lunging thing is a complete side show. As I said in my first post on this no one (including his most ardent supporters) could be surprised by this behavior. What is highly relevant and what she heard DIRECTLY (not hearsay, or at least the form of hearsay that is 100% admissible in court) was Trump ordering security to remove the magnetometers EXPRESSLY so his armed supporters could march to the Capitol with their weapons. Again he wanted his people armed because "they weren't there to hurt him". She heard him say it. Well they sure as hell were there with weapons to hurt someone and "someone" were the people like Pence trying to conduct the transfer of power.

Those same protestors did of course then march to the Capitol with their weapons and did commit crimes, including trying to overthrow the government. People died. You don't think a prosecutor could make that case and win? I don't think the jury would need an hour to decide that.

Game, set, match. Trump is going down.

---

I agree with a lot of this. I don't pretend to have seen every moment of these hearings, but unless I'm mistaken I don't think the following has been much disputed:

1. A lot of Trump's own legal advisors told him the "stolen election" claim was bunk.

2. Trump knew what was happening at the Capitol and wanted to go join in himself, but his own security detail said no.

3. Trump delayed sending security help to the Capitol and said they should just let the protesters in, even if they were armed.

Thus far in dispute:

4. Trump may not have actually grabbed the steering wheel of the vehicle he was in when he said he wanted to go to the Capitol.

5. Someone else in Trump's office may have written one particular memo, not Hutchinson.

I'll acknowledge that it's possible the other facts are disputed in some credible, documented way. But so far, that's about where we stand, right? If so, the first three points seem rather damning, unless some other evidence or testimony emerges to refute them.

Are grand juries "real proceedings"? Just asking because many of them (all federal) also allow hearsay testimony. Aren't these hearings more akin to a grand jury than a trial anyway? Who's in jeopardy here?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Be Best.

pic.twitter.com/PQXLSsv6IJ

— Stephanie Grisham (@OMGrisham) June 28, 2022

---

Well that destroys that.

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

I'm sorry. Here's what I said yesterday immediately after her testimony. I said that the grabbing the wheel thing was hardly even a mild surprise but the ordering armed insurgents be waved in past metal detectors was the heart of the matter and the thing that would get Trump indicted. What part of that post was unclear?

This narrative that that some of us " pivoted" to saying the wheel grabbing is no big deal, because ALLEGEDLY Engel is going to testify (again) with a different shading of the event (and yeah let's talk about that when it actually happens - the track record of Trump partisans actually coming through with their "soon to be delivered" sworn testimony is decidedly not great) is 100% false. What mattered yesterday, today and tomorrow is we have direct evidence of someone saying she directly heard Trump saying he wanted an armed mob to march to the Capitol and his security agents should facilitate that.

It's horrifying. But more importantly it's criminal.

Quote:

---

Again, this is an ongoing crime. He engaged in sedition and he's continuing to engage in sedition, and witness tampering and obstruction of justice, etc. I've gone from thinking it was unlikely given the political turmoil it would cause for Trump to be charged to thinking it's inevitable. I'm not sure Garland has a choice any more.

I mean the grabbing the wheel stuff is just indicative of who Trump is and seems completely in character - infantile, tempestuous and, frankly, stupid. But the screaming about how the metal detectors should be removed because the armed insurrectionists weren't targeting him personally is as close you'll ever see of smoking gun proof that he brought an armed mob to the capitol to assault his political enemies and illegitimately seize power. He has to go down.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

You don't get to question "hearsay" during sworn testimony in front of the nation and then pretend that anonymous tips constitute debunking. If Engel and/or Ornato offer sworn testimony that contradicts her claim that she was told about the incident in the car, then we will have a literal he said / she said situation where we can try to evaluate the credibility of the testimony. If it ever comes to a court of law, there can be a cross-examination and the trier of fact can make a determination.

Nothing has been debunked yet and no credible person would claim otherwise.

Sebastabear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

I'm sorry. Here's what I said yesterday immediately after her testimony. I said that the grabbing the wheel thing was hardly even a mild surprise but the ordering armed insurgents be waved in past metal detectors was the heart of the matter and the thing that would get Trump indicted. What part of that post was unclear?

This narrative that that some of us " pivoted" to saying the wheel grabbing is no big deal, because ALLEGEDLY Engel is going to testify (again) with a different shading of the event (and yeah let's talk about that when it actually happens - the track record of Trump partisans actually coming through with their "soon to be delivered" sworn testimony is decidedly not great) is 100% false. What mattered yesterday, today and tomorrow is we have direct evidence of someone saying she directly heard Trump saying he wanted an armed mob to march to the Capitol and his security agents should facilitate that.

It's horrifying. But more importantly it's criminal.

Quote:

---

Again, this is an ongoing crime. He engaged in sedition and he's continuing to engage in sedition, and witness tampering and obstruction of justice, etc. I've gone from thinking it was unlikely given the political turmoil it would cause for Trump to be charged to thinking it's inevitable. I'm not sure Garland has a choice any more.

I mean the grabbing the wheel stuff is just indicative of who Trump is and seems completely in character - infantile, tempestuous and, frankly, stupid. But the screaming about how the metal detectors should be removed because the armed insurrectionists weren't targeting him personally is as close you'll ever see of smoking gun proof that he brought an armed mob to the capitol to assault his political enemies and illegitimately seize power. He has to go down.

---

---

Yesterday, this thread was a weird combination of celebration, loving the details of every claimed trump bad act, and spiking the football based on the testimony (some hearsay, some not) of one witness. Literally blindly accepting everything she said as true despite the fact that the entire hearing is a manipulation, where no contrary evidence (or even real questioning) has been allowed. Instead, everything is presented to rile people like you up. And to be clear, I don't mean that to impugn your character or motives. Lots of people viscerally hate trump - I get it.

I would say that people are being manipulated; but honestly many people with TDS are quite happy to have the dems feed them what they want to hear. It is not unique to the dems; in fact it is exactly what Trump did to his MAGA minions, both before (but especially after) the election. Tell the people what they want to hear.

We have a witness making all sorts of claims. The witness was not cross examined, the testimony of other percipient witnesses was not included (despite the fact that many have been interviewed by the committee), and this witness' prior statements to the committee have not been revealed (i.e., her prior descriptions of these same events). Yet you and others here just accept it as truth.

People were similarly blindly accepting anonymous statements of claimed witness tampering as true (the end of the hearing "cliffhanger"). You were one of them, referring to ongoing "sedition" (in your statement above) which is just absurd (legally speaking). Never stopping to ask - why hasn't the 1/6 committee previously shared its "strong evidence" of witness tampering - instead choosing to call a 2 week break? Why hasn't the committee turned that evidence over to the DOJ and, if they have, why is congress interfering in the potential DOJ investigation? Or maybe, just maybe, the evidence is not quite what they want you to think it is.

You are posting in this thread denigrating the anonymous sources contradicting Hutchinson testimony. Yet you're absolutely willing to accept the 1/6 committees anonymous claims of witness tampering which have no sourcing to this point. Why are anonymous sources fine when they support your narrative, but problematic when they don't?

Is Trump awful and unsuitable? Yes - we've know that for a long time. Were his actions after the election abhorrent and contrary to American values (if not laws)? Yes.

Is Hutchinson's version of events accurate? Maybe. Are Trump or his people witness tampering? Maybe. Do we have a fair view of the evidence as to these issues? Not even close.

And in terms of you and others who are claiming a smoking gun or the end of Trump (or more specifically, citing people making those claims), prepare to be disappointed. Even if Hutchinson's testimony is true, making a criminal case against Trump is very difficult.

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

Nothing was debunked. I believe Hutchinson as I think we all should. First, there is no known sworn testimony contradicting hers. Second. Ornato has a history of lying (see tweet).

The Committee has done a great job. To me, letting this Hutchinson hearsay sit out there unresolved for so long is their only blemish. After beargoggles and others spend this time doing what I predicted they would do in their efforts to undermine the committee, we will eventually be left with disagreements about "lunges" and arm grabbing, which is all irrelevant but will be played up to maximum effect by beargoggles and others who want to protect Trump.

Tony Ornato lied about me too. During the protests at Lafayette sq in 2020, I told Mark Meadows & Ornato they needed to warn press staged there before clearing the square. Meadows replied: “we aren’t doing that.” Tony later lied &said the exchange never happened. He knows it did. https://t.co/qeT0pUxGMC

— Alyssa Farah Griffin 🇺🇸 (@Alyssafarah) June 29, 2022

BearGoggles said:

---

Their testimony to the committee has FOR SOME REASON not been released and instead they decided to put Hutchinson's hearsay claims on the TV. Why? If this were a real fact finding committee, we would have heard directly from Engel and Ornato, and perhaps from Hutchinson - but the committee didn't do that. Why? It is almost like the Committee wants people to only see some of the evidence and allow a witness to make hearsay claims of events she has no knowledge of.

---

This may come as "news" to you, but there have been security concerns (threats made) in regards to Cassidy Hutchinson.
It's quite possible that she needed to be moved up in the line of witnesses giving public testimony given concerns regarding her safety.

It's amazing that you cant even begin to wrap your head around this possibility.

BearGoggles said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I tend to agree that Cassidy Hutchinson was overhyped and served up salacious details more than lawbreaker details (with the exception of the weapons comment which I think is highly relevant). The Committee should have never had her get into hearsay. Now we will be subjected to arguments about the non-issue of how upset Trump was in the car, as if it matters. The Committee will go into recess and the right will effectively spend this time destroying the committee's reputation over this non-issue. Huge strategic error to rush this hearing forward to talk about hearsay. Look for the poll numbers to move against the committee in the upcoming weeks as the right now has their narrative. Stupid.

---

This is spot on and not the first time the committee has gone for headlines rather than substance and credibility. One problem you have is that if/when a witness is thought to be unreliable (or lying), it destroys their credibility. And of course, exhibit 1 to that is Trump himself.

Funny how many people on this board (and twitter) were euphoric yesterday over the hearsay tales of Trump grabbing the wheel, etc. Complete acceptance of the hearsay as true, with no skepticism among that crowd. Then when those stories were debunked (or at least questioned), it suddenly became "so what, it was not big deal anyway. The real point was XXXXX"

---

I'm sorry. Here's what I said yesterday immediately after her testimony. I said that the grabbing the wheel thing was hardly even a mild surprise but the ordering armed insurgents be waved in past metal detectors was the heart of the matter and the thing that would get Trump indicted. What part of that post was unclear?

This narrative that that some of us " pivoted" to saying the wheel grabbing is no big deal, because ALLEGEDLY Engel is going to testify (again) with a different shading of the event (and yeah let's talk about that when it actually happens - the track record of Trump partisans actually coming through with their "soon to be delivered" sworn testimony is decidedly not great) is 100% false. What mattered yesterday, today and tomorrow is we have direct evidence of someone saying she directly heard Trump saying he wanted an armed mob to march to the Capitol and his security agents should facilitate that.

It's horrifying. But more importantly it's criminal.

Quote:

---

Again, this is an ongoing crime. He engaged in sedition and he's continuing to engage in sedition, and witness tampering and obstruction of justice, etc. I've gone from thinking it was unlikely given the political turmoil it would cause for Trump to be charged to thinking it's inevitable. I'm not sure Garland has a choice any more.

I mean the grabbing the wheel stuff is just indicative of who Trump is and seems completely in character - infantile, tempestuous and, frankly, stupid. But the screaming about how the metal detectors should be removed because the armed insurrectionists weren't targeting him personally is as close you'll ever see of smoking gun proof that he brought an armed mob to the capitol to assault his political enemies and illegitimately seize power. He has to go down.

---

---

Yesterday, this thread was a weird combination of celebration, loving the details of every claimed trump bad act, and spiking the football based on the testimony (some hearsay, some not) of one witness. Literally blindly accepting everything she said as true despite the fact that the entire hearing is a manipulation, where no contrary evidence (or even real questioning) has been allowed. Instead, everything is presented to rile people like you up. And to be clear, I don't mean that to impugn your character or motives. Lots of people viscerally hate trump - I get it.

I would say that people are being manipulated; but honestly many people with TDS are quite happy to have the dems feed them what they want to hear. It is not unique to the dems; in fact it is exactly what Trump did to his MAGA minions, both before (but especially after) the election. Tell the people what they want to hear.

We have a witness making all sorts of claims. The witness was not cross examined, the testimony of other percipient witnesses was not included (despite the fact that many have been interviewed by the committee), and this witness' prior statements to the committee have not been revealed (i.e., her prior descriptions of these same events). Yet you and others here just accept it as truth.

People were similarly blindly accepting anonymous statements of claimed witness tampering as true (the end of the hearing "cliffhanger"). You were one of them, referring to ongoing "sedition" (in your statement above) which is just absurd (legally speaking). Never stopping to ask - why hasn't the 1/6 committee previously shared its "strong evidence" of witness tampering - instead choosing to call a 2 week break? Why hasn't the committee turned that evidence over to the DOJ and, if they have, why is congress interfering in the potential DOJ investigation? Or maybe, just maybe, the evidence is not quite what they want you to think it is.

You are posting in this thread denigrating the anonymous sources contradicting Hutchinson testimony. Yet you're absolutely willing to accept the 1/6 committees anonymous claims of witness tampering which have no sourcing to this point. Why are anonymous sources fine when they support your narrative, but problematic when they don't?

Is Trump awful and unsuitable? Yes - we've know that for a long time. Were his actions after the election abhorrent and contrary to American values (if not laws)? Yes.

Is Hutchinson's version of events accurate? Maybe. Are Trump or his people witness tampering? Maybe. Do we have a fair view of the evidence as to these issues? Not even close.

And in terms of you and others who are claiming a smoking gun or the end of Trump (or more specifically, citing people making those claims), prepare to be disappointed. Even if Hutchinson's testimony is true, making a criminal case against Trump is very difficult.

---

You have stated above that trump is awful and unsuitable. You have said his actions after the election were abhorrent and contrary to American values (if not laws). You understand that some of us want him ground into dust and launched toward the son.

Yet, you then seek to bash "Dems" for being excited that perhaps, maybe, possibly, perhaps very possibly THIS time, this 100th time, THiS is the thing that will bury trump once and for all. And you then get into questioning Hutchinson by stating that she wasn't cross examined, that other witnesses weren't there, etc etc.

Look, man!
You said it yourself. He's horrible and unlawful. Bury the F'er! Let's be DONE with him so we can move on.
Quit breathing life into Pro Trump agendas.

Or, maybe it's merely that you want to bash anti-Trumpists. You can stand to see us happy about his demise, because you previously stupidly voted for him. Is that it?

Not sure how many people have caught onto this, but it appears that Cassidy Hutchinson had a Trump bought and paid for lawyer from Trump World as her counsel during her private testimony to the Jan. 6th Hearing Committee. Her public testimony this week only came about after she had changed attorney's and retained her own personal attorney.... as she wanted to come forward to offer more of her testimony under oath to the Committee.

"Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol," Hutchinson's counsel Jody Hunt and William Jordan said in the statement.

Pretty courageous young woman for coming back to the Committee and stepping up to the plate again.
Especially given the texts she received "pressuring" her.
Mark Meadows truly looks like a *****.

concordtom said:

---

Or, maybe it's merely that you want to bash anti-Trumpists. You cant stand to see us happy about his demise, because you previously stupidly voted for him. Is that it?

---

Tom, I think it's pretty clear that his posts are disingenuous at best.
He has exhibited much of the same behavior when posting in the Teri McKeever thread in the Growls Forum.

I would strongly suggest that anyone that doubts this take a stroll over to the Growls Forum and check out the McKeever thread. It is there, where you'll not only find BearGoggles getting lost in the "weeds", but WifeisaFurd as well.

Wife literally went from posting "heads should roll" . . . to claiming that McKeever deserves a 6-month investigation with all due respect towards "due-process". But perhaps even more comical was how he asked me "Who do you know and what did they say?" - - - followed by "I'm willing to name names about the Lou matter - how about you?"

I laughed pretty hard at that one.

Imagine bragging about how they can "name names" about a basketball coach that hasnt coached at CAL in 30 years?
Oh please.

OT: Teri McKeever - Page 5 | Bear Insider

DiabloWags said:

---

Not sure how many people have caught onto this, but it appears that Cassidy Hutchinson had a Trump bought and paid for lawyer from Trump World as her counsel during her private testimony to the Jan. 6th Hearing Committee. Her public testimony this week only came about after she had changed attorney's and retained her own personal attorney.... as she wanted to come forward to offer more of her testimony under oath to the Committee.

"Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol," Hutchinson's counsel Jody Hunt and William Jordan said in the statement.

---

Legal witness tampering. I would like to hear her testify about arrangements with Trump's lawyer.

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Not sure how many people have caught onto this, but it appears that Cassidy Hutchinson had a Trump bought and paid for lawyer from Trump World as her counsel during her private testimony to the Jan. 6th Hearing Committee. Her public testimony this week only came about after she had changed attorney's and retained her own personal attorney.... as she wanted to come forward to offer more of her testimony under oath to the Committee.

"Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol," Hutchinson's counsel Jody Hunt and William Jordan said in the statement.

---

Legal witness tampering. I would like to hear her testify about arrangements with Trump's lawyer.

---

Would anyone be surprised if Rudy isn't the last Trump lawyer to be have his or her licenses suspended or be disbarred?

If anyone thinks that Trump isn't using all of the mob tactics he learned working with the mob for decades, please let them speak now.