dajo9 said:

---

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

---

To your point, I think it's important to recall what Liz Cheney presented to the Committee earlier this week.

"Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's Administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony. Without identifying any of the individuals involved, let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question.

First, here is how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness' testimony.

Quote, "What they said to me is as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team. I'm doing the right thing. I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World." "And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts. And just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee."

Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses.

Quote, "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow." "He wants me to let you know he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition."

I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.

We will be discussing these issues as a committee, carefully considering our next steps. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I yield back."

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.

---

You're waiting for the evidence that justifies your underlying wish that trump won, aren't you?

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.

---

Let's recap. You said "people" (I guess including me) were crowing about Grabgate 2 (because who could forget Trump's Grabgate 1) as the "proof" (of something) but when anonymous sources came out to question that we pivoted to "it's not that important and xyz was what was actually important." I then showed you my post showing this was not true and in fact I (and I think most people) had always felt the opposite: Grabgate 2 is just a side show. Ordering security to let the mob take their weapons to the Capitol was what was most horrifying and consequential. You then make a long post ignoring that altogether where now you're onto the witness tampering thing being "unconfirmed". So I guess we can agree what you said mischaracterized (and in fact was the opposite) of what some of us were saying when this story broke?

Ok, so then let's talk witness tampering. Cheney in the hearing said SIX different witnesses had independently given sworn testimony about witness tampering. So you claim it's inconsistent for us to question the anonymous sources questioning Grabgate 2 but give credence to currently anonymous claims of witness tampering. You say if this is true why wasn't it revealed until now? Why isn't the DOJ involved? What about inconsistent statements?

To all of which is say: Wait, what?

Why do you think this hasn't been given to the DOJ? Even if that's true, do you not see how this entire hearing is teeing things up for the DOJ? The Committee is practically begging for the DOJ's involvement. Why not revealed until now? Well if I'm spit balling I don't know. How about: To aggregate them for maximum effect? To allow the witness tamperers to keep digging themselves in deeper? To get maximum news coverage? Any of those sound likely? I'm guessing they are all true. And how is any of this "inconsistent"? Cheney read exact quotes. Not some "a source close to Engel said he may come in and refute . . . " bs. Do you think Cheney made those quotes up? If this happened there will be phone and written records to back it up. I don't see anyone "contradicting" this happened at all.

As to the rest, why in the world do you think there are previous inconsistent statements here? There's literally zero reason to think that. That's just made up. Not subject to cross examination? This isn't a trial. Hopefully there will be one, but there's been no cross examination of one word spoken during these hearings. McCarthy made sure of that.

And bottom line, does this witness tampering thing not seem wholly and completely plausible to you? To recap, Trump was impeached (twice) for basically this exact kind of behavior. Both his DOUMENTED "Do us a favor" call to Zelensky and his DOCUMENTED (and recorded) call to "find" 11,800 votes in Georgia. Does that sound to you like someone who would try to strong arm people to lie? It sure does to me.

Have to save sedition discussion for another day. But yeah, I think this testimony shows Trump engaged in seditious conspiracy, I hope he burns for it.

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

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?

---

I can't help you if you don't understand the difference between an open political/congressional hearing (which by law must be non-criminal in nature) and grand jury proceedings, which are non-public, most typically criminal investigations, and where testimony (and the proceedings in general) remains secret. If a grand jury indicts, then there's an actual trial subject to the rules of evidence. The comparison is odd.

---

This is a hilariously circuitous way to admit I'm 100% correct about hearsay in grand jury proceedings, which are also 100% "real."

oski003 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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

---

Ive seen this "movie" before with Bear Goggles in the Teri McKeever thread.

He doesnt care about the actual quotes from named Cal student/athletes. Doesnt care about the abuse that was inflicted upon them in their own words. Isnt bothered by one of the swimmers having her federal privacy law violated when McKeever disclosed her Crohn's Disease to the team without her permission. Isnt bothered by one of the swimmers going "5150".

The only thing that bothered Bear Goggles was how a reporter went about his investigative reporting about how AD Knowlton was never interviewed. You know, the typical chants of FAKE NEWS that you hear from a Trump supporter.

Oh wait.

Reporter Scott Reid stated that Knowlton refused to comment in the very first paragraph of his first article.

Some people need to take off their blinders.
Errrr, I mean Goggles.

---

You have a weird habit of bringing in your version of events from debates in totally unrelated threads that have nothing to do with the current topic. Putting aside the fact that you have completely mischaracterized what I posted in that thread, its just bizarre ad hominem and non sequitur. And it showcases your inability to fashion actual arguments.

---

+ 1 billion, but if he repeats it 5 times, then it must be true!

---

The best part was his response to your and my post was to continue doing the exact same thing, thereby making our point

More hearsay for republicans who totally don't support Trump to attack. Not intending to help Trump, of course, that's just the outcome of their virtuous rigor which somehow ignores true wrongdoing.

JUST NOW: "Cassidy said there's more I want to share with the committee a couple months ago, I put her in touch with Cong. Cheney, she got a new lawyer and that's how this testimony came about."

NEW info from @Alyssafarah on Cassidy Hutchinson timelinepic.twitter.com/xFkZVbvMX1

— John Berman (@JohnBerman) June 30, 2022

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

BearGoggles said:

---

Curious how her testimony yesterday helped address her security concerns? Seems to me that they could have taken her video deposition to avoid exposing her to the spotlight, like they reportedly did 4 times previously. Or better yet, they could have called Engel and Ornato (who both are cooperating) to testify about these things without involving her.

And for the record, it is awful that Hutchinson is reportedly being threatened. Totally unacceptable and I hope anyone making such threats is arrested.

---

Because now she is a public figure. No one knew who she was before this hearing. Her notoriety for speaking out is a form of protection in of itself. She switched from counsel being paid by trump to her own; when that happened team trump knew she was a liability that they could not control anymore, and that is dangerous.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

Did you hear about the lawyer that had a dog named Say?

When he would call him for dinner he would yell, "Here Say! Here Say!"

So tRump likes the YMCA song and show tunes?

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

---

That's fair. Candidly, I thought 801(d)(2) worked differently. My understanding is that Hutchinson could offer testimony that she heard Engel quote Trump and that it would be admissible against Trump because Trump would have an opportunity to counter or defend the statement. If you are saying that 801(d)(2) only covers statements by Trump that Hutchinson heard, then her statements about the discussion with Ornato/Engel about the car ride would likely be inadmissible.

---

Mariotti had it wrong.

But to clarify, the argument has been made by others that there are hearsay exceptions that apply to the second level of hearsay. As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, one that might apply is if Ornato told Hutchinson what happened in the car and Engel was there and said nothing (thereby implicitly endorsing Ornato's testimony). But that is highly fact dependent and, in any event, there is no reason to go there since the committee has already interviewed Engel and could interview him again and ask him directly what happened in the car (if they haven't already).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

---

Isn't the bolded exactly what Hutchinson testified to?

Quote:

---

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

---

I would also note that the select comm has lawyers on staff and obviously knows what they were told by Engel and Ornato. What makes you think the comm is so dumb that they would have Hutchinson perjure herself over something both salacious and ultimately inconsequential?

Your attacks sound pretty desperate and you seem to be avoiding the obvious implications of her broader testimony. I don't think that's an accident.

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

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.

---

You're waiting for the evidence that justifies your underlying wish that trump won, aren't you?

---

You really nailed it. I'm secretly hoping that that the guy I refused to vote for won.

There will never be evidence that Trump won - because he lost. And it is 100% his fault he lost, because Biden was an awful candidate and Trump has always been his own worst enemy.

---

I think you've told me that before. Apologies for forgetting, but are you SUUURRREE you didn't vote for him in 2016?

At any rate, I don't understand why you are arguing in line with Trumpism, trying to question her credibility, pointing out legal technical points that would discredit her testimony, etc.

I mean, Jesus Christ, friend - the man and his mob are beasts! Crush this evil NOW!!!

Call it what it is (you have), and then snuff it out for good!!! He deserves every punishment coming to him. So did OJ, but he got off for the same BS you are using. Stop it! The glove fits!!! Get real!

BG - I know you totally don't like Trump, but can you tell us all why this witness tampering either probably (maybe) didn't happen or if it did it's no big deal or why democrats are even worse?

Hutchinson told the committee during her deposition this month that the message, which the committee redacted to remove identifying details, was delivered the night before her second interview on March 7. https://t.co/wqtWJSxNDy

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 30, 2022

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

---

That's fair. Candidly, I thought 801(d)(2) worked differently. My understanding is that Hutchinson could offer testimony that she heard Engel quote Trump and that it would be admissible against Trump because Trump would have an opportunity to counter or defend the statement. If you are saying that 801(d)(2) only covers statements by Trump that Hutchinson heard, then her statements about the discussion with Ornato/Engel about the car ride would likely be inadmissible.

---

Mariotti had it wrong.

But to clarify, the argument has been made by others that there are hearsay exceptions that apply to the second level of hearsay. As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, one that might apply is if Ornato told Hutchinson what happened in the car and Engel was there and said nothing (thereby implicitly endorsing Ornato's testimony). But that is highly fact dependent and, in any event, there is no reason to go there since the committee has already interviewed Engel and could interview him again and ask him directly what happened in the car (if they haven't already).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

---

Isn't the bolded exactly what Hutchinson testified to?

Quote:

---

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

---

I would also note that the select comm has lawyers on staff and obviously knows what they were told by Engel and Ornato. What makes you think the comm is so dumb that they would have Hutchinson perjure herself over something both salacious and ultimately inconsequential?

Your attacks sound pretty desperate and you seem to be avoiding the obvious implications of her broader testimony. I don't think that's an accident.

---

The select committee and its lawyers absolutely would mislead and deceive. They have done so many times and they don't care two poops about anyone perjuring themselves if it would harm Trump. And to be clear, I'm not saying she perjured herself - I'm saying her testimony is not reliable as to what actually happened in the hearsay events (including the car). The best evidence is the testimony of the person who was in the car - Engel. But we don't have that? Can you explain why the committee is not producing Engel and Ornato's prior testimony or asking them to testify? If this were a trial, even with hearsay exceptions, the evidence almost certainly would not come in for that very reason.

You never explain one simple and obvious fact - why don't we have Engel's and Ornato's prior testimony and why havn't Engel or Ornato testified at the hearing? Do you think the committee would withhold that information if it helped there case?

---

Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.

I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

---

That's fair. Candidly, I thought 801(d)(2) worked differently. My understanding is that Hutchinson could offer testimony that she heard Engel quote Trump and that it would be admissible against Trump because Trump would have an opportunity to counter or defend the statement. If you are saying that 801(d)(2) only covers statements by Trump that Hutchinson heard, then her statements about the discussion with Ornato/Engel about the car ride would likely be inadmissible.

---

Mariotti had it wrong.

But to clarify, the argument has been made by others that there are hearsay exceptions that apply to the second level of hearsay. As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, one that might apply is if Ornato told Hutchinson what happened in the car and Engel was there and said nothing (thereby implicitly endorsing Ornato's testimony). But that is highly fact dependent and, in any event, there is no reason to go there since the committee has already interviewed Engel and could interview him again and ask him directly what happened in the car (if they haven't already).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

---

Isn't the bolded exactly what Hutchinson testified to?

Quote:

---

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

---

I would also note that the select comm has lawyers on staff and obviously knows what they were told by Engel and Ornato. What makes you think the comm is so dumb that they would have Hutchinson perjure herself over something both salacious and ultimately inconsequential?

Your attacks sound pretty desperate and you seem to be avoiding the obvious implications of her broader testimony. I don't think that's an accident.

---

The select committee and its lawyers absolutely would mislead and deceive. They have done so many times and they don't care two poops about anyone perjuring themselves if it would harm Trump. And to be clear, I'm not saying she perjured herself - I'm saying her testimony is not reliable as to what actually happened in the hearsay events (including the car). The best evidence is the testimony of the person who was in the car - Engel. But we don't have that? Can you explain why the committee is not producing Engel and Ornato's prior testimony or asking them to testify? If this were a trial, even with hearsay exceptions, the evidence almost certainly would not come in for that very reason.

You never explain one simple and obvious fact - why don't we have Engel's and Ornato's prior testimony and why havn't Engel or Ornato testified at the hearing? Do you think the committee would withhold that information if it helped there case?

---

Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.

I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.

---

Occams razor. My "conspiracy theory" is wanting to see the evidence that the committee has but won't share. As you probably know, in a legal proceeding "If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence." So my "conspiracy theory" is black letter law.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/203/

And why am I not shocked that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as defending trump. So lazy and silly .

Curiously, you've never responded to my overriding point. Do you think its good for the country for one political party to hold show trial hearings where the opposing party's chosen members are excluded and the rules are designed to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting its own evidence? Will you be ok with that when the Republican's do it in January 2023?

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BG - I know you totally don't like Trump, but can you tell us all why this witness tampering either probably (maybe) didn't happen or if it did it's no big deal or why democrats are even worse?

Hutchinson told the committee during her deposition this month that the message, which the committee redacted to remove identifying details, was delivered the night before her second interview on March 7. https://t.co/wqtWJSxNDy

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 30, 2022

---

As I've already said, if this happened as described in the politico article, it represents the most serious possibility that someone is going to jail (as they should).

Let's see how this plays out - just yesterday I was being told by you and others that anonymous reports not given under oath are not worth much. I have no confidence that the committee is an honest broker of the evidence - they don't even pretend to be. Its a little like the parable about the boy who cried wolf (and Trump for that matter), they lie and mislead so often you have no idea when they might actually be telling the truth. To assume they are is foolhardy.

And that's the overriding problem. People like you will believe its true without question - because you want it to be. People who support Trump (not me), believe it to be false without question because they want it to be.

And personally, I want to see all the evidence because I know for a fact that what is being presented by the committee makes no pretense of being complete, fair, or honest. I reject this process as being partisan and incredibly damaging to the country. In terms of criminal charges, I'll be fine either way with the proviso that anyone shown to be witness tampering - after all the evidence is reviewed in an adversarial setting - should go to jail.

And until all the evidence is released (or at least the opposing evidence and argument), people are foolish to believe what they are being shoveled by the likes of Adam Schiff and Cheney, both of whom are proven prevaricators. If you think I'm overly skeptical - that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll wear that quite proudly and suggest that we'd be better off if everyone demanded all evidence before making conclusions.

---

First - calling this process partisan is in itself extremely misleading. Pretending like bipartisanship was an option is frankly ridiculous. Your republican party, including every single person you vote for, rejected the very notion that there should be an investigation. So this select committee, with Cheney as vice-chair, was the most bipartisan option available.

Second - you continue to say that the committee "lie and mislead so often". Can you point us to some proof of their lies? Can you point me to evidence that supports your assertion without relying on unsourced speculation?

Third - the notion that they would have released all of their evidence publicly by this point is fanciful and you are smart enough to know that. I readily acknowledge they've taken lots of criticism (from the DOJ and others) for not sharing the information they've gathered with the DOJ and unless there is something I'm missing I will join that chorus if they don't eventually release everything to law enforcement, but it would be absolutely ludicrous for them to release thousands of hours of testimony right now.

As for your bizarre conspiracy that they've heard sworn testimony from Engel and Ornato that they believe is reliable and that contradicts what Hutchinson testified to this week is frankly bonkers. You really think they would do that? For something so inconsequential? It would be an epic blunder if they didn't have ultimate confidence that Hutchinson's statements were either corroborated by trustworthy third parties or some other evidence or that they can impeach the contrary testimony of Ornato/Engel. It's entirely possible, for example, that Ornato and Engel told the same story to more than just Hutchinson.

Ultimately, as is always the story with you, you try to take the high road by saying you don't support Trump, but you come back 10x as hard at anyone who says anything to point out his misconduct or the misconduct of Republicans in service of Trump. Everyone here sees you for who you are and you are fooling exactly no one.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.

I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.

---

Occams razor. My "conspiracy theory" is wanting to see the evidence that the committee has but won't share. As you probably know, in a legal proceeding "If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence." So my "conspiracy theory" is black letter law.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/203/

And why am I not shocked that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as defending trump. So lazy and silly .

Curiously, you've never responded to my overriding point. Do you think its good for the country for one political party to hold show trial hearings where the opposing party's chosen members are excluded and the rules are designed to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting its own evidence? Will you be ok with that when the Republican's do it in January 2023?

---

LOL, you really think citing the evidence code is relevant to this proceeding? Give me a break.

As for your "overriding point" that has been addressed time and time again. The "opposing party" has no interest in a fair process. Just so we are all clear, the "opposing party" is your Republican Party and is 100% in allegiance to the guy you have said you oppose - Trump. Stop pretending like the GOP is some reasonable group who wants to have an open and honest discussion about what happened on Jan 6. We know you are disingenuous but no one believes that you are that naive.

I'll ask just to be sure: what do you think a reasonable bipartisan investigation would look like into Jan 6 and what evidence do you have that the GOP genuinely had an interest in engaging in such a process?

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

---

That's fair. Candidly, I thought 801(d)(2) worked differently. My understanding is that Hutchinson could offer testimony that she heard Engel quote Trump and that it would be admissible against Trump because Trump would have an opportunity to counter or defend the statement. If you are saying that 801(d)(2) only covers statements by Trump that Hutchinson heard, then her statements about the discussion with Ornato/Engel about the car ride would likely be inadmissible.

---

Mariotti had it wrong.

But to clarify, the argument has been made by others that there are hearsay exceptions that apply to the second level of hearsay. As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, one that might apply is if Ornato told Hutchinson what happened in the car and Engel was there and said nothing (thereby implicitly endorsing Ornato's testimony). But that is highly fact dependent and, in any event, there is no reason to go there since the committee has already interviewed Engel and could interview him again and ask him directly what happened in the car (if they haven't already).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

---

Isn't the bolded exactly what Hutchinson testified to?

Quote:

---

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

---

I would also note that the select comm has lawyers on staff and obviously knows what they were told by Engel and Ornato. What makes you think the comm is so dumb that they would have Hutchinson perjure herself over something both salacious and ultimately inconsequential?

Your attacks sound pretty desperate and you seem to be avoiding the obvious implications of her broader testimony. I don't think that's an accident.

---

The select committee and its lawyers absolutely would mislead and deceive. They have done so many times and they don't care two poops about anyone perjuring themselves if it would harm Trump. And to be clear, I'm not saying she perjured herself - I'm saying her testimony is not reliable as to what actually happened in the hearsay events (including the car). The best evidence is the testimony of the person who was in the car - Engel. But we don't have that? Can you explain why the committee is not producing Engel and Ornato's prior testimony or asking them to testify? If this were a trial, even with hearsay exceptions, the evidence almost certainly would not come in for that very reason.

You never explain one simple and obvious fact - why don't we have Engel's and Ornato's prior testimony and why havn't Engel or Ornato testified at the hearing? Do you think the committee would withhold that information if it helped there case?

---

Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.

I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.

---

Occams razor. My "conspiracy theory" is wanting to see the evidence that the committee has but won't share. As you probably know, in a legal proceeding "If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence." So my "conspiracy theory" is black letter law.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/203/

And why am I not shocked that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as defending trump. So lazy and silly .

Curiously, you've never responded to my overriding point. Do you think its good for the country for one political party to hold show trial hearings where the opposing party's chosen members are excluded and the rules are designed to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting its own evidence? Will you be ok with that when the Republican's do it in January 2023?

---

Please provide a specific example of the committee lying

Based on two Secret Service sources, CNN reports that the story of an irate Trump demanding to be taken to the Capitol and even attempting to lunge for the steering wheel spread around the agency weeks after Jan. 6.

One source said they heard it directly from the driver. pic.twitter.com/1dezTlkvvk

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 1, 2022

This thread got real quiet all of the sudden

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Vandalus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks 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"

---

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.

---

First of all I said "debunked (or at least questioned)."

And yes, I do get to question hearsay that would not be admitted in any legitimate trial or legal proceeding. And, per the link below, Engel and Ornato have both given sworn testimony to the committee .

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4ebcebe99d3bf8841463a55fe7efaa5a

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.

---

Let's get down to brass tacks - she relayed a version of events from within the car on the way back to the white house. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged for the wheel, grabbed his arm, and motioned that he would grab his collarbone/neck. The anonymous source says that he would testify that the wheel was not grabbed, nor his neck. ... okay fine; but that's not what she said she was told. Did he embellish the events when telling her what happened? Maybe, maybe not. Was her interpretation of what he said exactly what he said? Maybe, maybe not.

she testified as to what she was told. Was it hearsay - yes. Is there an exception? Perhaps, could have been an excited utterance, it could come in to prove his state of mind (and not the actual content) with an instruction to a jury to disregard the content (and we all know that jurors cannot make these distinctions). BUT - this isn't a court of law, so the refrain that anything that is hearsay is automatically untrustworthy is jumping the shark. I ask questions that elicit hearsay answers all the time in depositions, because the answers are relevant and are likely to lead to the discovery of additional evidence that otherwise would be blunted by a hearsay objection. If hearsay was SOOO verboten, we wouldn't allow that form of testimony in any scenario, and we wouldn't have as many exceptions to the rule that we have.

---

Sounds like you are the only litigator here. Do you agree with BearGoggles that former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti doesn't understand the federal rules of evidence and is wrong when he says that the DOJ can offer up testimony as to Trump's statements for use against Trump in court?

Quote:

---

And to be clear, Hutchinson's testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a "party opponent" are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ's "party opponent" in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump's statements could be used against him in court.

---

---

I agree that Mariotti is only talking about the first level of hearsay - her testifying as to what she overheard trump say is hearsay, but its admissible due to the party opponent. When she testifies to something that Ornato told her trump said, it's double hearsay and would need to have exceptions for each level. the first level (something trump said that is against his (pecuniary or legal) interests is the easy one; but the second level - that what Ornato told her is an accurate recitation is a more difficult exception to overcome, and if this were a trial I don't see a judge allowing it in - absent some explication concerning the manner of the statement itself from Ornato (or anyone else).

Admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread on what he said - but from what I read it looked to me that he was taking one statement and hearsay exception and then implicitly extended it to the other hearsay statements she made without providing a real analysis that a judge would actually make for each individual statement.

---

That's fair. Candidly, I thought 801(d)(2) worked differently. My understanding is that Hutchinson could offer testimony that she heard Engel quote Trump and that it would be admissible against Trump because Trump would have an opportunity to counter or defend the statement. If you are saying that 801(d)(2) only covers statements by Trump that Hutchinson heard, then her statements about the discussion with Ornato/Engel about the car ride would likely be inadmissible.

---

Mariotti had it wrong.

But to clarify, the argument has been made by others that there are hearsay exceptions that apply to the second level of hearsay. As pointed out by Andrew McCarthy, one that might apply is if Ornato told Hutchinson what happened in the car and Engel was there and said nothing (thereby implicitly endorsing Ornato's testimony). But that is highly fact dependent and, in any event, there is no reason to go there since the committee has already interviewed Engel and could interview him again and ask him directly what happened in the car (if they haven't already).

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-closer-look-at-the-hearsay-claims-surrounding-hutchinsons-trump-testimony/

---

Isn't the bolded exactly what Hutchinson testified to?

Quote:

---

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.
So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.
We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.
LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.
LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

---

I would also note that the select comm has lawyers on staff and obviously knows what they were told by Engel and Ornato. What makes you think the comm is so dumb that they would have Hutchinson perjure herself over something both salacious and ultimately inconsequential?

Your attacks sound pretty desperate and you seem to be avoiding the obvious implications of her broader testimony. I don't think that's an accident.

---

The select committee and its lawyers absolutely would mislead and deceive. They have done so many times and they don't care two poops about anyone perjuring themselves if it would harm Trump. And to be clear, I'm not saying she perjured herself - I'm saying her testimony is not reliable as to what actually happened in the hearsay events (including the car). The best evidence is the testimony of the person who was in the car - Engel. But we don't have that? Can you explain why the committee is not producing Engel and Ornato's prior testimony or asking them to testify? If this were a trial, even with hearsay exceptions, the evidence almost certainly would not come in for that very reason.

You never explain one simple and obvious fact - why don't we have Engel's and Ornato's prior testimony and why havn't Engel or Ornato testified at the hearing? Do you think the committee would withhold that information if it helped there case?

---

Right on cue, BG shows up, starts namecalling and defending Trump, but is totally not defending Trump.

I'm not going to speculate on exactly why the comm. chose to have Hutchinson publicly testify but I find your conspiracy theory quite improbable.

---

Occams razor. My "conspiracy theory" is wanting to see the evidence that the committee has but won't share. As you probably know, in a legal proceeding "If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence." So my "conspiracy theory" is black letter law.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/203/

And why am I not shocked that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as defending trump. So lazy and silly .

Curiously, you've never responded to my overriding point. Do you think its good for the country for one political party to hold show trial hearings where the opposing party's chosen members are excluded and the rules are designed to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting its own evidence? Will you be ok with that when the Republican's do it in January 2023?

---

Please provide a specific example of the committee lying

---

Some examples, by no means an exhaustive list.

The committee and its members have repeated the lie that 5 policemen died from 1/6. It is patently false - one policeman died the following day from a stroke that was deemed natural causes and without evidence that he suffered any physical injuries in the riots. The other 4 claimed deaths were suicides, the cause of which is inherently unclear and complicate (and subject to claims motivate by a variety of motivations, including the desire for the families to get line of duty benefits).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#:~:text=The%20District%20of%20Columbia%20chief,2021%2C%20before%20they%20were%20buried

Cheney and others have repeatedly taken evidence and presented it out of context or presented only part of what was said. Here is on example where they repeated edited Trump's statements (omitting "peacefully and patriotically").

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-peacefully-and-patriotically/

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-say-peacefully-patriotically-march-capitol-1561718

Here is another.

Liz Cheney reads a Trump tweet from 1/6, but neglects to finish reading the tweet which reads "Go home with love & in peace." pic.twitter.com/zdfW8gNGba

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 10, 2022

This is not an accident - they did the same thing at his impeachment hearing.

https://www.ibtimes.sg/trumps-impeachment-video-edited-omit-line-telling-supporters-peacefully-patriotically-protest-55525

And then there are statements of innuendo like this by Adam Schiff, the one human being who might be as big a liar as Trump;

This man lied FOR YEARS and said he had evidence Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with Russia. Instead of media banning him from their shows on account of his many damaging lies, they bring him on to tell more. Because they’re propaganda. https://t.co/ttD8u5kGQK

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 19, 2022

The committee has continue to make and pursue false claims against Barry Loudermilk after he was exonerated of any wrong doing by . . . the Capital Police that dems claim to love.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/jan-6-committee-wont-drop-loudermilk-tour

A lot of the lying is by omission (e.g., omitting evidence that the dem leadership and capital policy had ample prior warnings and offers of security which they refused), which is my larger point about seeing all evidence.

And just to be clear before Unit2 responds with the defending trump trope. All of this is offered as the basis for why the committee is running a show trial rather than a true fact finding endeavor and lacks all credibility. What happened on 1/6 is unacceptable and wrong. Unfortunately, the committee is going about this in a purely partisan and political way which does not serve the goal of finding all facts, hopefully convincing some people of those facts, and, more importantly, ensuring that this never happens again.

Just to be clear, BearGoggles is "bothsidesing" the insurrection. When he says bipartisan, he means that the Republicans should be able to mount a defense for the Republican support for an insurrection and attempted assassination of Pence fomented by their leader Trump.

But BG totally doesn't support Trump at all.

BG is really saying that a "bipartisan" Jan 6 committee is not one where sane conservatives like Cheney and Kinzinger are helping to uncover what really happened on Jan 6 and what led up to it. Instead, I suppose he would want bat**** crazy GOPers to defend what happened on that day and blame it on Democrats is the real bipartisan committee that our country needs. Because both sides!