AIDE DETAILS TRUMP’S RAGE ON JAN. 6He Knew Crowd Was Armed, but Tried to Loosen Security, Testimony Recounts

[PoliSciXtina]

If he chooses to run again, he will be re-elected.

LMAO..same way he was re-elected in 2020, right? Bahahahaha

 

[PoliSciXtina]

No worse then the bar for democrats failing to condemn the burning and looting of our cities by ANTIFA and BLM and encouraging illegal protests at the homes of SCOTUS justices.

ANTIFA and BLM protests were fairly peaceful. I am truly sorry you spent so many hours gobbling up garbage from Faux News, which clearly portrayed things a different way for you. Such is Faux News - mostly propaganda and spin to keep their viewers locked in and hating on anyone they don't like. Keep watching and stay uninformed.

93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds

 

[csense]

Hutchinson's sworn testimony to conversations she took part in are direct evidence only of the conversations she took part in...

You’re not saying much here, but the little that you are saying, doesn’t support your position. Hearsay usually does have the element of a third party conversation in which an assertion is made about a given event. That is exactly what Hutchinson testified to, and it is exactly why it is hearsay. That point is indisputable. You can dance around it all you want.

Such testimony about an event she didn’t witness, is prejudicial. It’s not allowed in courtrooms and it shouldn’t be allowed at a congressional hearing.

In addition, nothing that you posted from Cornell Law disputes the fact that what she testified to, is anything other than hearsay.

 

[cpwill]

You’re not saying much here, but the little that you are saying, doesn’t support your position. Hearsay usually does have the element of a third party conversation in which an assertion is made about a given event. That is exactly what Hutchinson testified to, and it is exactly why it is hearsay. That point is indisputable. You can dance around it all you want.

Such testimony about an event she didn’t witness, is prejudicial. It’s not allowed in courtrooms and it shouldn’t be allowed at a congressional hearing.

In addition, nothing that you posted from Cornell Law disputes the fact that what she testified to, is anything other than hearsay.

Hutchinson testified to events she directly witnessed and conversations she took part in sorry-not-sorry that it's awkward for The Donald - but, if you'll read the links above, they don't support the contention that somehow this is obviated.

 

[Anthony60]

Do you think a worthy request is asking for a pardon when you have not even been charged with a crime?

Sounds more like asking for permission to do illegal stuff.

Well, we have a DOJ that is desperate to find any crime it can against Trump, while ignoring all of the Biden family's criminal activity.

 

[Anthony60]

Well, all of us not deeply emotionally invested in sticking our head in the sand and pretending that Jan 6th Didn't Happen generally care.

That's interesting. Can you cite Engels doing so, or, are you dependent on unnamed sources with unvalidated access claiming anonymously that he does so?

Put him on the stand then. Or, maybe they'll get someone else to tell a story that they heard from someone else about Trump turning into the Hulk. Hey, how about that big hug she got from Liz Cheney? That's fine, right?

 

[BitterPill]

Airtight partition between driver and President? Where did you hear this?

My guess is OAN or Newsmax

More liberal malfeasance.

I looked, and neither OAN nor Newsmax produce airtight partitions of any sort, but if either did, I'd have one installed tomorrow.

MAGA.

 

[Logician Man]

<<< Hey, how about that big hug she got from Liz Cheney? That's fine, right?

Do you have a 'personal'/'you' problem with Miss Cheney hugging young Miss Hutchinson? If Yes, what 'you' problem is it, 'specifically'? Would you have the same 'you' problem if former POTUS Trump were to testify before the 1/06/2021 Investigative Committee, and Miss Cheney were to give Trump a "big hug" also?

 

[snakestretcher]

Soviet style political show trials are likely coming, I wouldn’t be shocked if the Democrats declare a state of martial law and cancel the midterm elections. That’s about 30% chance now. 1/3 chance the Democrats launch a coup because they have been spreading false misinformation of their enemies as being fascists subverting America for a foreign power for years and they can’t let it happen that they lose an election now

 

[snakestretcher]

How about Trump himself?

He'll ignore it, just like he told any of his former staff to if called to testify.

 

[MAGAnificent]

ANTIFA and BLM protests were fairly peaceful.

When you start which such an utter falsehood, I'll not waste any time reading the rest.

 

[year2late]

Well, we have a DOJ that is desperate to find any crime it can against Trump, while ignoring all of the Biden family's criminal activity.

Thank you for the non answer.

It makes it seem like you think asking for a pardon before committing a crime is appropriate. I mean, unless they are suggesting they already knew they committed crimes.

 

[jmotivator]

Not exactly. It authorized the Secretary of Defense to Federalize the members or units of the National Guard as he saw necessary in order to seize the nation's voting apparatus. That task can be done either with the governor's concurrance, or against it.

No, it can not. The Governors have ultimate control over their state militias for the same reason we have the right to bear arms. The National Guards acts at the behest of the state Governors who can choose whether or not to turn control of some or all to the Federal Government. As the law states, the authorization for federalization of the NG runs through the governors.

What, you think that the existence of the Governors or the normal means of doing business involving working through their offices means..... what, exactly? That this was a stupid cockanamy plan? Sure, of course it was. But, as we have learned from this, from the Eastman Memos, from the KRACKEN, and from everything else we have learned since Jan 6, Cockanamy Stupid was pretty much where the President was at this point.

Here's a question nobody ever seems to be able to answer: If what the Trump administration believed happened actually happened, what would the country need to do to stop it?

Let me know when you can answer that in a way that it would look any different.

Also, the Eastman memos? You folks can't seem to agree on whether Pence's role is essential or ornamental. If it is essential, and a presidential election can't be resolved without him then I refer you back to the question above.

I'd also point out that the Eastman memo appears to have never mentioned the armed insurrection that you folks conjured in a fever dream

That is incorrect. What I said was:

Have you noticed how many of your arguments rely on tilting against strawmen on this topic?

Soooo... your argument is that when we are having a discussion specifically about the NG, and you said that Trump believes he has full control of the military, you didn't mean that statement to reference the NG... the subject we were discussing?

Apparently they decided to go with a version of the Eastman plan instead.

.. So someone drafted a proposed EO, they decided is was not viable, Trump didn't sign it, and the fact that they chose to essentially delete the draft EO, you assert, is proof that they thought the memo they didn't make into an EO was viable?

Oh, also, if they chose to go with the Eatman plan, show me in the Eatman plan where the armed insurrection and calling up the National GUard to take over the capitol is?

The Eastmen memos were laying out the Presidents potential legal recourse to challenging the election... as have been written by legal counsel in all election challenges.

For the same reason any branch plan, working paper, or planning document is indicative.

And that reason is that they really aren't. Have you ever written a letter, email or forum post that, on review, you chose not to send? If you did, is the message you didn't send, or your choice not to send it a more accurate depiction of you?

It speaks directly to his view of his ability to utilize the military as part of his coup planning. Apparently he thought that was fine - though, it's not exactly like a President is going to decide to steal an election, end the peaceful transfer of power, and then balk at using the full scope of his authority over the military to do so.

Your use of circular logic here is bonkers, cpwill. YOu are actually trying to argue that the fact that Trump didn't use the National GUard to seize the Capitol is proof that Trump was going to use the National Guard to seize the capitol. And your reason why it didn't happen? Well, because they went with Eastman's legal argument instead... but didn't.

And you KNOW that he thought the National GUard was his private army because of all the times in his presidency when it wasn't... except that one time that the Capitol Police were used to police which shows he'd call up the NG to seize the capitol...

Your argument is Chemtrails levels of delusional. I have only so much time in the day to try and reason with your level of nonsense on this subject...

 

[Logician Man]

<<< I have only so much time in the day to try and reason with your level of nonsense on this subject...

Not to worry. The 1/06/2021 Investigative Committee has plenty of time and resources. And when the Committee is done with their investigation, we have this thing called the United States Department of Justice which has even more time, more resources, more subpoena powers, which people can't run from, as well as the power and capacity to indict, prosecute, convict, and imprison the guilty. That is all.

 

[TomFitz]

ANTIFA and BLM protests were fairly peaceful. I am truly sorry you spent so many hours gobbling up garbage from Faux News, which clearly portrayed things a different way for you. Such is Faux News - mostly propaganda and spin to keep their viewers locked in and hating on anyone they don't like. Keep watching and stay uninformed.

93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds

Because they feed him the constant fear that many right wingers and all bigots thrive on.

Fox has half these people actually believing that BLM and ANTIFA are still out every night starting “riots” in “inner cities”/

Fox seldom hesistates to rerun the lengthly b roll of protests in 2020, over slanted dog whistle commentary.

After all, it’s primary purpose is to use current events (or if none are useful, make some up), and present it in such a way that it is a mirror of the fears and prejudices of the audience. Not to inform.


Bigotry, white resentment, and fear are the pillars on which trump built into their core mission.

 

[TomFitz]

Well, we have a DOJ that is desperate to find any crime it can against Trump, while ignoring all of the Biden family's criminal activity.

They have a smorgasboard of choices. So many choices.

 

[Logician Man]

Well, we have a DOJ that is desperate to find any crime it can against Trump, while ignoring all of the Biden family's criminal activity.

More like Trump and his cronies are the "desperate" ones. The "DOJ" isn't under investigation for anything. Why do you think so many Trump insiders were seeking pardons, when they realized the attempted coup had failed, and the 'Justice Train' was in their rearview mirror?

 

[TomFitz]

You’re not saying much here, but the little that you are saying, doesn’t support your position. Hearsay usually does have the element of a third party conversation in which an assertion is made about a given event. That is exactly what Hutchinson testified to, and it is exactly why it is hearsay. That point is indisputable. You can dance around it all you want.

Such testimony about an event she didn’t witness, is prejudicial. It’s not allowed in courtrooms and it shouldn’t be allowed at a congressional hearing.

In addition, nothing that you posted from Cornell Law disputes the fact that what she testified to, is anything other than hearsay.

There are no rules of evidence in Congressional hearings, contrary to your claim.

And most of what she said was direct eyewitness testimony. Only small parts of it were hearsay.

 

[TomFitz]

You are getting a bit ridiculous. You are listing criminal codes having nothing to do with anything Trump did. The first code you listed does not apply to anyone involved in the 1/6 riot or White House. Same with the third on your list. The second may apply to the rioters.

Trump was clearly the leader of a seditious conspiracy.

Everyone in the White House leadership knew about the mob he assembled and most participated in the right wing political marketing campaign that produced it.

That the (permitted) rally at the Ellipse was going to turn into a march on the Capitol (not permitted, not even asked for) was also well known among Trump’s henchmen. Most of the GOP political leadership had advanced knowledge as well.

 

[TomFitz]

It appears as though the lastest right wing excuse seems to be the credibility of Ms. Hutchinson.

Specifically the testimony she gave regarding trump’s real desire to go lead his mob, and the infantile behavior he often displayed.

As to the infantile behavior, it was a trump trade mark. He is well known for his explosive tantrums, as well as for throwing things and ripping things up.

If anyone had actually followed his past before 2016, they would have seen it.

As for his desire to lead the mob he conjured;

Does anyone actually believe that witnesses will appear in public or in the committee to actually refute what she said. So far, we have exactly one SS agent. And he was the first and only SS agent to be appointed directly by a President, the president being Trump.

I doubt this excuse will hold up for long.

It replaces the excuse that trump nation has been trying to sell for months. The one that suggested that the mob wasn’t part of the White House coup plot.

Last week’s testimony put pay to that one.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Trump was clearly the leader of a seditious conspiracy.

Everyone in the White House leadership knew about the mob he assembled and most participated in the right wing political marketing campaign that produced it.

That the (permitted) rally at the Ellipse was going to turn into a march on the Capitol (not permitted, not even asked for) was also well known among Trump’s henchmen. Most of the GOP political leadership had advanced knowledge as well.

Wild eyed projection.

 

[j brown's body]

Wild eyed projection.

I gather you didn't watch the hearing.

Trump's chief of staff was warned that a Jan. 6 rally could turn violent but did nothing about it, report says. Then the Capitol riot happened.

Two pro-Trump rally organizers told Rolling Stone that they told Mark Meadows they were concerned that the "Save America" protest could turn violent.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[JasperL]

You’re not saying much here, but the little that you are saying, doesn’t support your position. Hearsay usually does have the element of a third party conversation in which an assertion is made about a given event. That is exactly what Hutchinson testified to, and it is exactly why it is hearsay. That point is indisputable. You can dance around it all you want.

Such testimony about an event she didn’t witness, is prejudicial. It’s not allowed in courtrooms and it shouldn’t be allowed at a congressional hearing.

OK, since you're making legal claims, you have legal training and surely know there are at least 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule. Here's the first two listed at Rule 803:

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay​

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

In your legal opinion, as an expert, why do those exceptions not apply to the testimony? Ornato told this story to Hutchinson immediately after it happened, and it was apparently "startling" to them, which is why they told the story at that time.

In addition, nothing that you posted from Cornell Law disputes the fact that what she testified to, is anything other than hearsay.

Lots of what she testified to was not hearsay in any way. It consisted of "this person said this at this time" during the events. She was there, heard the conversations, and recounted them as heard by her.

 

[JasperL]

No, it can not. The Governors have ultimate control over their state militias for the same reason we have the right to bear arms. The National Guards acts at the behest of the state Governors who can choose whether or not to turn control of some or all to the Federal Government. As the law states, the authorization for federalization of the NG runs through the governors.

That's just not true. See, e.g., https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep496/usrep496334/usrep496334.pdf

Here's a question nobody ever seems to be able to answer: If what the Trump administration believed happened actually happened, what would the country need to do to stop it?

Let me know when you can answer that in a way that it would look any different.

In a nation of laws, if you believe the laws were broken, you go to court, present the evidence, and let the courts decide if the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the alleged crimes.

Also, the Eastman memos? You folks can't seem to agree on whether Pence's role is essential or ornamental. If it is essential, and a presidential election can't be resolved without him then I refer you back to the question above.

You present a false choice. The question is whether the VP's act of counting the EC votes is discretionary or ministerial. In other words, does Pence have the discretionary authority to decide, on his own initiative, with no finding from any court or the Congress, to reject or accept whatever EC ballots he feels like counting that day. Or, is his role although necessary a ministerial role, that he must do without exercising discretion over which votes to count and which to reject. There are many necessary acts that are ministerial. Counting votes is one of them.

The Eastmen memos were laying out the Presidents potential legal recourse to challenging the election... as have been written by legal counsel in all election challenges.

The slight problem with the memos is they required the VP to break the law, and the memo acknowledges this....

Your use of circular logic here is bonkers, cpwill. YOu are actually trying to argue that the fact that Trump didn't use the National GUard to seize the Capitol is proof that Trump was going to use the National Guard to seize the capitol. And your reason why it didn't happen? Well, because they went with Eastman's legal argument instead... but didn't.

They clearly "went with" the plan in the Eastman memo. Trump told us this on January 6th, repeatedly, by publicly pressuring Pence to exercise an imagined authority to reject some EC votes based on nothing.

 

[element94]

Well, we have a DOJ that is desperate to find any crime it can against Trump, while ignoring all of the Biden family's criminal activity.

Desperate!? Sounds like your fantasy rather than reality, which seems to be a recurring theme with you. The DOJ has been criticized for its silence on the matter.