There's literally a seated grand jury taking testimony over Trump's election interference in Georgia that is on tape, and the person who pressured to change the vote totals has testified against him. This is separate from the Jan 6th hearings - but there we have multiple people getting raided by DOJ for their role in helping the coup. And a new poll shows 2/3rds of Americans believe Trump should be charged with a crime. And that was before yesterday's testimony. Yeah, I think this time we got him. But then, it's not Republicans in charge of prosecuting or removing him this time.
Thank you for the correction along with a good description and reasoning. I obviously do need to note it due to the lack of reasoning and decent citation and argumentation that passes for discourse around here. Oh my, look at that, someone admitted to being wrong on the internet and the universe did not end. Holy shit, they are even making a big deal about it and still there is no earth shattering kaboom. Maybe some of the rest of you could take a fucking hint instead of fleeing the board or doubling down.
The DOJ under Sleepy eye Joe sure is taking their time slow walking any charges if they are even doing so.
But aren't there multiple layers to this? The statements by Trump (which seem like hearsay, but weren't) and then Ornato conveying the story to Hutchison (which is hearsay, but there might be an exception to it)?
I would say that the underlying party-opponent makes it non-hearsay, period. If there is not hearsay in the first place, then you don't have hearsay within hearsay. I freely admit that I could be mistaken about this. But even assuming you had to justify the Ornato-to-Hutchison statement as an exception, I still think it could be done by one of the few at the link to Rule 803.
Now that she's been threatened and publicly called a liar and is no doubt (rightly) concerned about her personal safety, I wonder if she has spent any time contemplating why she took the job in the first place.
Some of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony is disputed in a story by a Washington Post reporter, but not the main thrust that Trump pitched a tantrum when his Secret Service agent wouldn't drive him to the Capital on 1/6. Seems the committee reached the same conclusion that I did: that her testimony was "credible", even though she wasn't there when it happened. I also really don't see any reason for her to lie. Washington Post reporter and Secret Service expert Carol Leonnig told MSNBC on Tuesday night that Trump physically could have reached for Engel and the steering wheel of the Secret Service SUV he was riding in on Jan. 6 — not the presidential limo, or Beast — and that Engel and especially Ornato "were very, very close to President Trump, and some people accused them of at times being enablers and yes men of the president." Leonnig reported that her unidentified sources said the Secret Service agents "dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan. 6" but "agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters." Trump and Engel have also both corroborated the thrust of Hutchinson's testimony.
"Stop getting your information from Matlock and pay attention to the actual law, you nitwit" also works.
I heard an interview with a former prosecutor for SDNY and she said that the scuttlebutt in her circles was that the Committee rushed to get these out to "clear the decks for the DOJ." She said it was the kind of rumor that you didn't know how much weight to put behind it. Too many people were saying it to think that it was just something someone had made up, but nobody who would absolutely know the truth about it has said anything.
Generally you probably do not want to rely on a second hand account of what happened in a car from someone who wasn't there because the people who were actually there might come out and say it did not happen. Like what is happening now with the agents in the car. This would do well in a criminal court. Anyway, I am sure WAB will tell us why we should trust someone who wasn't there to tel;l us what someone who was there saw. Or, STFU you dimwitted twat.
The thing is that we have reached a point (and maybe we were always there) where for many, it makes no difference whether it is a first-hand account or a second-hand account. If/when the agent in question testifies, there's a non-zero number who will automatically disbelieve him if his testimony goes against their preferred belief of did Trump do this or not.
Holy shit! James Carville pointed out on his podcast that this is deliciously Shakespearean. It’s been reported that Cassidy Hutchinson changed lawyers on June 5th. What I didn’t know is that her new lawyer is Jody Hunt. What was Jody’s last job? Assistant AG and before that Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Good interview with the documentary filmmaker who was deposed by the committee last week. ‘There Was No Way to Have a Rational Conversation With Him’ Filmmaker Alex Holder on his interviews with Trump after January 6.
I bet Trump "barely knows who this guy is" once he releases the documentary and/or testifies publicly.
Here is why I find her to be lying in regards to Trump lunging for the wheel. She wasn't there and has clearly rehearsed an explanation she could not have seen. I do not think the agents described the incident in that sort of detail either. That is not credible. This is only applying to the steering wheel incident. Her description onvolves how he was grabbing for it and what the agent did. That would be great if she was witnessing it, but since she was supposedly getting it second hand I find her entire description to be manufactured. That is because it is manufactured. She did not see it. If she had just said she heard the president lunged for the wheel and was flailing around trying to get them to go back I would give her credit because that sounds like something an agent might tell her. She clearly rehearsed her testimony and is describing details she did not see and really only would be described in an actual deposition of an agent. She was not deposing any of the agents, nor was any of that going on at the time. Where is that fucking @We Are Borg bitch ass now? Even as a witness to what the agent said in a comment that was not under oath, she is not credible in the case of the steering wheel grab. Oh, and I actually think he probably tried to manhandle the agent and might have tried to reach for the wheel. I would certainly not convict if that was the charge based on her claims, but yes I am pretty sure he through a fucking fit in the car. Also, I should note that I would convict on him participating in the attempt to overthrow the government at this point. I wondered why he went back to the white house in the first place, but the fact he was dragged back there kicking and screaming is something I believe. I know what he wanted to do.
This is where optics matter. Why did the dems pitch hearsay instead of video? The woman who heard an agent say he did it is not as credible as look at this film of him trying to take the steering wheel, and then you present the account. Then you use her words and that image to fuck with the SS agents who are saying they did not experience him doing what they said he did to others, and what he was recorded doing. In this case the right gets to say she wasn't even there and she is clearly explaining something she admits she did not see. This bullshit is what you get when you start defending the people who are trying to fail @We Are Borg . Now put me back on your ignore again because you are a fucking moron. Go fight with the boy, he is more your speed.
Those slides about the witness tampering? It was Hutchinson herself who was the target of the intimidating calls. The name redacted from the slide that said "X told me you had your deposition tomorrow" was Mark Meadows. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/jan-6-hutchinson-meadows-mystery-messages-00043638
"Lying" is a heavy accusation, when, even assuming for argument's sake that it didn't happen, she could have a) just bought into the lie/exaggeration of the Secret Service agent who told her the story b) inadvertently exaggerated or confused details. The video upthread supports the notion that Trump was in fact reaching for something in the front seat. As to why the committee did not present the video instead of Hutchison, a) they may still and b) they may think that her testimony is more compelling than the video.
Or they're waiting for all involved to lie through their teeth denying it only for it to turn out that Lordy There Are Tapes.