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

[Rawley]

Biden? Maybe - much will depend on whether or not the GOP decides to double down on crazy in their own nominee. Regardless, all that means is that you push the next transfer of power to the Right by another 4 years.

Nope, Trump. I've always predicted Biden wouldn't make it to the end of this term.

 

[Anthony60]

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?

It's not appropriate, shows a lack of impartiality and indicates bias.

 

[Anthony60]

They have a smorgasboard of choices. So many choices.

Yes, six years, and counting, and it's been one fake news story after another. Oh, and zero crimes.

 

[Anthony60]

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?

Exactly who was seeking a pardon and for what?

 

[MTAtech]

Nope, Trump. I've always predicted Biden wouldn't make it to the end of this term.

So far, you're wrong.

 

[Logician Man]

It's not appropriate, shows a lack of impartiality and indicates bias.

How so, specifically? Why is it "not appropriate", and how does it "indicate bias" when the witness had already completed her testimony? Miss Cheney could have been simply thanking and comforting a witness who 'may' have been 'witness tampered' with, who still had the courage to come forth and tell the American People what she heard and saw leading up to, and including the non-American happenings that took place on1/06/2021 during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

 

[Rawley]

So far, you're wrong.

Nah. I predicted he would be an incoherent doddering ****up. I'm batting 1000% so far.

 

[Logician Man]

Exactly who was seeking a pardon and for what?

Mark Meadows ( Trump's Chief of staff ) for one. Actual reason for seeking the pardon is unknown at this time. Also Rudy Giuliani reason YTBD.

 

[Anthony60]

Nope, Trump. I've always predicted Biden wouldn't make it to the end of this term.

They probably want him to go at least half way, so whoever replaces him can still run for two terms. Then again, they may not want Harris to be able to run twice.
But, I doubt they will convince him to leave, I think Biden will stay as long as he can. This is his life long goal, I don't think he'll walk away.

 

[Anthony60]

Mark Meadows ( Trump's Chief of staff ) for one. Actual reason for seeking the pardon is unknown at this time. Also Rudy Giuliani reason YTBD.

Oh, according to Hutchinson, of course. That's really odd that both men would tell her, isn't it? Was she in charge of pardons or something?
Or was it a conversation that she was "in the vicinity of"? Or a statement "to the effect of", so she could fill in the blanks for us? She seems to like doing that. Maybe that's what the hug was for.

 

[csense]

n 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.

I never said I was a lawyer.

In answer to your question however, it is very easy to dismiss your argument.

Here are the “Exceptions to Hearsay” that you posted:

(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.

Quite simply, you misconstrue who the declarant is. It is not Hutchinson. The declarant, is the source of the hearsay, Ornato.

Like cpwill, you can dance around the issue all you want, but it is irrefutable that what Hutchinson testified to, regarding what someone told her about an event she was not witness to, is hearsay.

 

[Logician Man]

Oh, according to Hutchinson, of course. That's really odd that both men would tell her, isn't it? Was she in charge of pardons or something?
Or was it a conversation that she was "in the vicinity of"? Or a statement "to the effect of", so she could fill in the blanks for us? She seems to like doing that. Maybe that's what the hug was for.

Yes. According to the very credible Miss Cassidy Hutchinson. Of course, both/either Meadows and/or Giuliani could come forth before the Committee and dispute the testimony under oath --- but I sense that will not happen. Reason? Because both Meadows and Giuliani did indeed ask insurrectionist Inciter-in-Chief former defeated POTUS Trump for a pardon. I have little, to no doubt, the U.S. Dept. of Justice will have the definitive answers on this matter in due time as juris prudence runs it's course. Your rather odd obsession with a mundane, post testimony "hug" is duly noted, dismissed as CT nonsense.

 

[Rawley]

I never said I was a lawyer.

In answer to your question however, it is very easy to dismiss your argument.

Here are the “Exceptions to Hearsay” that you posted:

(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.

Quite simply, you misconstrue who the declarant is. It is not Hutchinson. The declarant, is the source of the hearsay, Ornato.

Like cpwill, you can dance around the issue all you want, but it is irrefutable that what Hutchinson testified to, regarding what someone told her about an event she was not witness to, is hearsay.

triple hearsay. Ornato was not in the car.

 

[Mika-El]

As I stated, you aren't really conservative. Your rant here just proves the point.

Conservatism is a process of evaluating policy that is built on the central belief that human nature is constrained, and the assumption that most existing policies and cultural norms have an inherent wisdom. That isn't to say that there aren't cultural norms that shouldn't change, but the way those changes happen, and justificatoins for them should be well founded, and not subject to the whims of emotional zeitgeist.

Progressive Conservatism is an unconstrained vision of humanity, and so places the responsibilities of cultural and political norms on the government, rather than the individual or community.

You aren't conservative, you are "progressive conservative", which isn't the same thing. The first clue is the need for a different name...

The words: " process of evaluating policy that is built on the central belief that human nature is constrained, and the assumption that most existing policies and cultural norms have an inherent wisdom." is so ambiguous and general in description that it could be applied to any political ideology. Furthermore you pulled the words. Next time cite where they come from. Engaging in plagiarism and parroting words doesn't make you credible or appear intelligent.

Next you stated: "That isn't to say that there aren't cultural norms that shouldn't change, but the way those changes happen, and justificatoins for them should be well founded, and not subject to the whims of emotional zeitgeist." Now these words you clearly pulled from outside your ass in an attempt to engage in sophistry. You sound like someone who took political science undergrad courses and is trying to relive his days of spewing meaningless bullshit in class to try impress someone. You said nothing.

You then go on and place a definition YOU invented about progressive conservatism. Its what you do. Create simplistic, narrow, rigid, black and white labels to make negative stereotypes about beliefs you have no clue about to try pass yourself off as some intellect making a well reasoned judgement. You name called. You used no logic, no deductive reasoning, no comparative analysis or sources for your subjective opinions.

That is precisely what ranting is.

Then you tell me what I am not and what I am.

Then you top it off " You aren't conservative, you are a progressive conservative which is not the same thing. The first clue is the need for a different name." What that shows is you are in fact clueless and do not understand that conservatism has different sub-types and is not one singular, restricted definition. In fact your denial it has variations simply again reflects your narrow, rigid, inflexible mind incapable of grasping nuance and trying to control what I or anyone else can believe or think or state.

You think you are in the position to pronounce a singular definition of conservatism and declare it as the only one that can exist and your definition was so meaningless as to be able to apply to any ideology.

I have no interest in educating and spoon feeding you and listening to your simplistic, rigid, narrow minded pronouncements. Play your Trumpet to someone else.

I have left this for you though which is written at a level of relative simplicity for you to try start with:

Conservatism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Philosophy: Political Philosophy > Conservatism

www.philosophybasics.com

Progressive Conservatism - Polcompball Wiki

polcompball.miraheze.org

Let me summarize. I do not give a phack about your labels and need to stereotype people who disagree with you into rigid little categories because you can't grasp nuances or variations or balance differing views. You keep your rigid little mind of stand pat definitions,.

In my world, which is pretty much the world of what frightens you and makes you believe we are going to take your privileges from you-are people like me. We want our governments to practice sound fiscal economic policies but balance that with compassion for the vulnerable with a social safety net. We believe in a mixed economy that balances some government regulation with free markets to achieve a balance and harmony and protection for consumers from unfair pricing. We do not fear differences of opinion or individuality. We want people to feel free to make their own choices and if need be with help and guidance of neutral professionals in private.

We are of many views, beliefs, but we have one thing in common-we have no need to label others different than us to justify engaging in all or nothing battles with them. We approach conflict not as all or nothing but win win lose lose.

 

[jmotivator]

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

The ruling upholds that the Governor can not veto federalization of the National Guard in deployment outside the country. Within the country the President can deploy the National guard at the will of congress since the authority to deploy the National Guard in the US is limited by two key provisions

1) In Non-Emergencies the State Governors have veto
2) The Governor Can't veto for an emergecy, but Congress as the power to terminate a Presidential declaration of a National emergcy, which would return the Governor veto power.

Before we get too deep into this parallel debate, understand that you could convince me that the President has absolute and unchecked authority to declare a national emergecy, and therefor absolute power to deploy the National Guard inside the US (neither argument you have made, but would respresent the extreme end of the direction you are arguing), and all you would argue is that Trump had the power and didn't use it... which would be a weird way of proving cpwill's argument that Trump's plan wasto use the National Guard to take over the capitol.

All I'm arguing is that the existence of the unsigned EO is evidence that Trump decided against what cpwill demands he didn't...

 

[MTAtech]

Oh, according to Hutchinson, of course. That's really odd that both men would tell her, isn't it? Was she in charge of pardons or something?
Or was it a conversation that she was "in the vicinity of"? Or a statement "to the effect of", so she could fill in the blanks for us? She seems to like doing that. Maybe that's what the hug was for.

Well yes, according to Hutchinson. Meadows can officially dispute that by testifying under oath, which he isn't doing. Eastman also sought a pardon and that there is an email.
According to an email that Eastman sent to Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani, and obtained by the select committee, Eastman directly sought a pardon from the former president: “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”

 

[JasperL]

The ruling upholds that the Governor can not veto federalization of the National Guard in deployment outside the country. Within the country the President can deploy the National guard at the will of congress since the authority to deploy the National Guard in the US is limited by two key provisions

1) In Non-Emergencies the State Governors have veto
2) The Governor Can't veto for an emergecy, but Congress as the power to terminate a Presidential declaration of a National emergcy, which would return the Governor veto power.

Before we get too deep into this parallel debate, understand that you could convince me that the President has absolute and unchecked authority to declare a national emergecy, and therefor absolute power to deploy the National Guard inside the US (neither argument you have made, but would respresent the extreme end of the direction you are arguing), and all you would argue is that Trump had the power and didn't use it... which would be a weird way of proving cpwill's argument that Trump's plan wasto use the National Guard to take over the capitol.

All I'm arguing is that the existence of the unsigned EO is evidence that Trump decided against what cpwill demands he didn't...

First of all, you said, "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."

So you moved the goal posts on us. Bottom line is the NG serves two roles, one federal, one state, and if/when they conflict the feds win. There's no record that I can find of a governor refusing the demand of POTUS. Your fallback is Congress can then reign in POTUS, but I highly doubt that.... and even if true, the governor still has no authority to defy a Presidential order - Congress would be the effectively nullifying the Presidential order, not the governor.

And all cp argued is the existence of the EO evidenced the kind of extreme, whackadoodle, illegal, and unconstitutional means on the table at that time to steal an election. And those promoting it were not randos but people high enough in the government to have access to classified information, people very close to Trump.

Those same radicals then went with the Eastman memo plan, which is just as radical, just as illegal, and would have at the least created a constitutional crisis if not ended our experiment in voting and the peaceful transfer of power through elections had Pence not stood his ground. I don't know why you're defending this effort, such as by claiming, incorrectly, that Trump didn't go with that Eastman plan. We know he did - we can read the memo and know exactly WHY Pence was pressured by Trump and others through the EC vote certification, in public, including on Twitter, to unilaterally reject votes he simply decided on his own not to count.

 

[csense]

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.

I never claimed that federal rules of evidence applied to a congressional hearing. It is, after all, a political process. My point is that it is beneath the dignity of Congress to accept hearsay evidence, given the supposed gravity and seriousness of what they are investigating, and the power that they have to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

The behavior of the committee in this fashion does nothing to instill confidence that they are seeking the truth of the events regarding January 6th and likely is seen, for good reason, that it is nothing more than a political show trial for partisan purposes.

 

[upsideguy]

Don't know. Here's an idea. Let's form a committee to investigate the catastrophic breakdown of security surrounding 1/6 and how to prevent it in the future. Oh, that's right ... As I said to soapbox, do you have any idea how ridiculous this looks to anyone but a TDS'er?

Right after we form a committee to investigate how in the world the Pentagon could be hit by an airliner. It can be a permanent committee that investigates the irrelevant, let's call it the "House Deflection Committee". Oh wait, the Committee already investigated Benghazzi.

 

[JasperL]

I never said I was a lawyer.

In answer to your question however, it is very easy to dismiss your argument.

Here are the “Exceptions to Hearsay” that you posted:

(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.

Quite simply, you misconstrue who the declarant is. It is not Hutchinson. The declarant, is the source of the hearsay, Ornato.

Like cpwill, you can dance around the issue all you want, but it is irrefutable that what Hutchinson testified to, regarding what someone told her about an event she was not witness to, is hearsay.

Neither of us has denied as to proof Trump grabbed the wheel, etc. Hutchinson is testifying to hearsay.

What it represents is what Trump's director of operations and his head of security were saying in the immediate aftermath of the admitted heated disagreement between Trump and the SS, and Meadows, about joining the mob at the Capitol. I don't give a damn whether he only screamed at his security detail, or screamed at them, AND lunged over the seat towards the steering wheel.

And FWIW, Tony Ornato was telling this story as the person who was there, Engel, was standing with Tony and Hutchinson as the story was told. He didn't object to any part of that story. I don't have any idea if that testimony would be allowed in court, and neither do you, if the alleged crime was lunging toward the steering wheel, which it is not. That's a minor detail.... That Trump was livid is now well established.

 

[JasperL]

I never claimed that federal rules of evidence applied to a congressional hearing. It is, after all, a political process. My point is that it is beneath the dignity of Congress to accept hearsay evidence, given the supposed gravity and seriousness of what they are investigating, and the power that they have to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

The behavior of the committee in this fashion does nothing to instill confidence that they are seeking the truth of the events regarding January 6th and likely is seen, for good reason, that it is nothing more than a political show trial for partisan purposes.

That's just nonsense. It's not beneath the dignity of the Congress to hear testimony about what Ornato, head of operations/security, and Engle, head of SS detail, were saying about Trump's behavior right after the event happened.

 

[csense]

That's just nonsense.

Hearsay is inherently prejudicial.
That’s why it’s not allowed in courtrooms.

That alone is reason enough for a congressional committee to avoid it.

Additionally, given the fact that it is being unofficially refuted, it makes the committee members look like fools and the committee itself look entirely partisan.

That’s not a good look, but if you say it’s ok, then have at it...

 

[year2late]

Hearsay is inherently prejudicial.
That’s why it’s not allowed in courtrooms.

That alone is reason enough for a congressional committee to avoid it.

Additionally, given the fact that it is being unofficially refuted, it makes the committee members look like fools and the committee itself look entirely partisan.

That’s not a good look, but if you say it’s ok, then have at it...

But it may be important in an investigation. especially you have so many that will not speak under oath.

It may point the investigators in a direction where actual first hand evidence can be obtained. She clearly indicated what was not first hand information. So I did take that with a huge ass grain of salt.

Many in the Trump camp treated it like an "a ha" moment - like she was trying to pass off the info as first hand and got caught.

 

[csense]

It may point the investigators in a direction where actual first hand evidence can be obtained

Funny you should mention that since the secret service has made it known that they are willing to cooperate.

"The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today's testimony," Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement to CBS News.

You would think, if this committee is interested in the truth, rather than hearsay sensationalized throughout the press corps for days, they would have the agents appear post haste regarding Hutchinson’s testimony.

Again, this is not a good look for a supposedly distinguished congressional body.

 

[jmotivator]

First of all, you said, "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."

So you moved the goal posts on us. Bottom line is the NG serves two roles, one federal, one state, and if/when they conflict the feds win. There's no record that I can find of a governor refusing the demand of POTUS. Your fallback is Congress can then reign in POTUS, but I highly doubt that.... and even if true, the governor still has no authority to defy a Presidential order - Congress would be the effectively nullifying the Presidential order, not the governor.

Because we are talking about a specific situation, we aren't arguing all possible scenarios wherein the National GUard can be federalized. cpwill's assertion was that Trump thought could call up the National Guard in the fashion stated in the memo without the Governor's authorization. The president is limited in declaring a national emergency as well, which would be step 1 before potentially bypassing the Governor.

And either way the assertion from cpwill is that Trump didn't know the limitations, and used the memo as proof when the memo shows that his team knew what would be necessary to call up the National Guard, and also chose not to try, since he didn't submit it as an EO.

I'm arguing that Trump knew the limits for a few reasons: 1) He had been denied National Guard support by Governors a few times, including cases where a national emergency was declared 2) He never signed the EO in question and 3) The National Guard was never part of the Eastman legal plan.

And all cp argued is the existence of the EO evidenced the kind of extreme, whackadoodle, illegal, and unconstitutional means on the table at that time to steal an election. And those promoting it were not randos but people high enough in the government to have access to classified information, people very close to Trump.

No he wasn't, he was arguing that the memo was evidence of Trump's intent when Trump never issued the memo as an EO.

Those same radicals then went with the Eastman memo plan, which is just as radical, just as illegal, and would have at the least created a constitutional crisis if not ended our experiment in voting and the peaceful transfer of power through elections had Pence not stood his ground. I don't know why you're defending this effort, such as by claiming, incorrectly, that Trump didn't go with that Eastman plan. We know he did - we can read the memo and know exactly WHY Pence was pressured by Trump and others through the EC vote certification, in public, including on Twitter, to unilaterally reject votes he simply decided on his own not to count.

YOu and cpwill are trying to argue that Trump's intent was to use the National Guard to storm the Capitol. THAT is whackadoodle. Your evidence is non-existent. The Eastman plan wasn't illegal, you are confusing a bad legal argument for illegality.