Russia, Russia, Russia
It is called the Fifth Amendment.
For TV circus actually televise them telling the American people what actually happened in the limo? I just hope the dark night of 6/16 gets this kind of attention.
believable.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
okay, I actually won't look there.
CBS not there. PBS not there - CNN not there
So far it sound fictional.
Do you have a link -?
Also, where will this testimony be given?
I can't believe this committee didn't reach out to the agents before today.
Not spending more time on it than that this evening.
an hour.
Says Engel and Ornato have appeared before the Committee on the record behind closed doors already.
WaPo apparently identifying Secret Service agents as "yes men"?
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agents-denying-trump-freakout-053030345.html
Link: Secret Service plans to respond to Jan. 6 committee regarding Trump's actions, after Cassidy Hutchin
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But no, I don't read the Huff and occasionally the Daily Beast.
(no message)
the 1/6 committee will only present witnesses that advance their cause - in this case, it's complete hearsay and not even admissible in any legitimate court. the only first hand account is that of the ss driver and the other agent in the vehicle. they will not be allowed to enter the room. the msm will be happy accomplices.
this is another circus of tds idiots who will do anything to discredit facts. they do not want trump to run again and are willing to lie, cheat, and perjure themselves to make that happen.
they're not very smart. desantis will win in a walk.
all that created that day and the outcome of later debate.
involvement with Monica Lewinsky...
If the DOJ decides to indict Trump and his co-conspirators, that SS driver will testify...along with the senior SS official who told the story to Ms. Hutchinson, Rob Engel.
Trump is a 'domestic terrorist'...he "ordered" a coup against the United States...he needs to be put in jail.
nothing happened.
perjury is a punishable felony.
anybody else would still be making small rocks out of big rocks.
this "committee" is a leftist conspiracy that is worse than the prevarications they're trying to shove down everyone's throat. the minority whip did not get to choose one single member. if that's not a kangaroo zoo, what is?
into a tizzy about his activities and paramours.
He was a black mark on the presidency as he crushed democracy - oh, wait, his family values sucked so he
couldn't possibly be POTUS - now for the whataboutism you might guess is #45 and his issues of family values.
I guess they only matter when it's the other guy's, guy in office.
I mean that makes sense.
You really have your value stream up the wrong canal.
the secret service does not speak about their activities as it's against their oath of service.
as anybody of importance. Yr my potato jimbo
and Tony Ornato said while she was in Ornato's office...if she misspoke then those two persons can provide their account...I'm guessing that all the Committee's lawyers/prosecutors know how to present a witness...this isn't going the other way.
Link: https://youtu.be/LX6Qx_CvBs4?t=4591
Not to mention she was not cross-examined by Trump's lawyers. The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
An important corollary to the right to confront accusers, is the right to test the reliability and credibility of those witnesses through the process of cross-examination.
Rule 803 – Exceptions to 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.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and
(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
(C) the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out:
(i) the office’s activities;
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and
(B) the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.
(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:
(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that
(i) the record or statement does not exist; or
(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and
(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.
(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:
(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;
(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and
(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.
(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.
(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:
(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;
(B) the record is kept in a public office; and
(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998 and whose authenticity is established.
(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.
(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.
(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.
(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.
(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and
(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.
The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:
(A) was essential to the judgment; and
(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.
(Pub.L. 93-595, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1939; Pub.L. 94-149, § 1(11), Dec. 12, 1975, 89 Stat. 805; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011; Apr. 13, 2013, eff. Dec. 1, 2013; Apr. 25, 2014, eff. Dec. 1, 2014; Apr. 27, 2017, eff. Dec. 1, 2017.)
Link: https://www.strengthenthesixth.org/focus/Confrontation-Cross-Examination#:~:text=An%20important%20corollary%20to%20the%20right%20to%20confront,more%20than%20a%20desirable%20rule%20of%20trial%20procedure.
it's very easy to verify the accuracy of what she said...just ask Rob Engel...i.e. the source.
As I've said this morning, this 'debate' over Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony obscures the fact that Trump knew many of the Jan. 6th crowd was armed with AR-15s, Glock pistols and other weapons and...not only was that "OK" with him (amazing)...he wanted to lead those riled up followers in a pre-planned assault on the Capitol...why do I say "Pre-Planned"?...because the hearings and documented reports have revealed...
>Proud Boys and/or Oath Takers have pleaded guilty to sedition...have been found to have "Battle Plans" for 'Taking Over' the Capitol and Congressional Office buildings
>Those same cadres occupied a "War Room" in the Willard Hotel, before and during the Jan. 6th insurrection...and...Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows was in communication with them...along with a Mr. Roger Stone...close confidant of Donald Trump.
>Donald Trump...in spite of numerous entreaties/demands that he call for a stop to the violence...watched the attack and said nothing until the Capitol Police had been reinforced.
That's the key takeaway...not whether Trump actually got to the car's steering wheel.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
had she not been well vetted (at least I hope she has been - ).
The assumption is she has.
Anyway, there will be those who say she's lying and it will be up to them to disprove her testimony.
She paints a realistic picture of Trump - the Trump who is the known sociopath - the one who is not a bright
man and a man who has no knowledge of American/world history and no sense of America in general.
He has no sense of the moment he is in.
Adulation and ego are his best friends where luck has carried him through life. A grifter's grifter.
Sorry, but this is the picture she has painted and it's as accurate as many of us have been saying
for the last 6 years. Another example is, Guiliani - He's been shown to be exactly who I said he was
for the last several decades - It's just now more clear than ever.
But you're right, if someone can disprove her testimony - just one thing in her testimony (not just say
she's lying) her complete day today will be gone forever and so will the 1/6 hearings. Likely to be
unsalvageable if so.
A lot is riding on what she said today - that's why I think she has been vetted well and that there is more
there, there from other sources. Again, if not, 1/6 will be gone.
In normal times, I'd agree with your vetting premise. It's rational.. But I believe there are zero consequences for anyone lying in this show, and I believe everyone knows it.
the bit about a couple of S Service agents will dispute her claim.
Not that I doubt they're there, I just can't find an article yet on this.
I was hoping someone would link or post one.
Here is her testimony. It's a she said, he said what happened.
So maybe the 1/6 wouldn't be done, but it would lose a lot of cred.
(no message)
are liars for years.
Good on you to agree with me that R's are all liars - oh, and by the way, you're a republican too. Guess what?
a shitty music video for cover
to "peel your potato." You'll feel much better when you're done.
(no message)
There is only going to be he said/she said. And everyone will have their opinion confirmed in some fashion.
And I hate that we're not addressing important issues (both sides).
he knew were falsehoods. He created a cabal to force from many directions a coup of the election process despite
all the knowledge there was no election fraud (on a massive and defining scale). He pressured States election officials
with threats, and with honey to falsify records, ballots and outcomes in his favor. This as we know is antithetical to the
smooth and unobstructed exchange of a democratically elected government.
The former president did this. His last resort was for violence and the storming of a Federal building, the Capitol
at the time his VP would validate the electoral process.
A very many of those who were there that day had weapons - guns like side-arms, AR15 assault rifles, knives, brass knuckles,
spears and so on.
The very fact that this hearing isn't a shit show where people from either side shouts out questions, admonishes the witnesses,
speaks over-top of the witnesses to make some far off point doesn't make this set of hearings less in-depth or less honest.
In fact, it makes them clearer, unobstructed. Though somewhat staged and scripted (let's call it better vetted) with serious people asking
asking difficult questions even if leading. There are two very intelligent Republicans on the committee who are very interested
in finding the truth but more importantly, in displaying what is the truth without the chaos in bites the American public can hear
without the usual misdirection of competing parties.
These 1/6 hearings have been sober and intelligent treating the American people who take the time to listen as adults who should
and will think about what did happen on 1/6 and how it got to that point - and without the usual distractions.
What makes me sad in all this is the willingness of a side to discredit what's being said with dismissive rhetoric started by the GOP
and the former president. Most of it is obvious and much is salacious.
The GOP had an opportunity to add a few more R's to the committee but Murphy decided to be a moron and call this a witch hunt.
Instead, he could have saturated the panel with smart and forward thinking members instead of people like Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert
and the likes. (PS: those who he put forward to be on the committee asked for presidential pardons and have a terrible record of
panel voices seeking facts and corroborating witnesses.) Had he done so, the panel might have taken a different path or sought
other witnesses. But in the end, Murphy wanted obstruction in any way he could manage it. He clearly has something to hide.
By the by, most of the witnesses thus far are republicans, so this is not a one-sided story.
(no message)
(no message)
It up and keep repeating it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It's an outrageous claim from her and I do believe Secret Service have an oath not to discuss anything about their detail.
Not that I doubt you, I just don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong - do you have a link?
shit, as usual. Two SS guys told NBC it never
happened and will swear to it under oath, but a jack off like you doubts what their saying?
(no message)
Oh wait, this is the last thing you were all fired up about that turned out to be complete bullshit and you sucked it up. Can we wait to see if someone refutes this broads testimony before you suckers run on here to post it.
Link: https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/cnns-daniel-dale-debunks-dem-super-pac-claims-about-lauren-boebert/
(no message)
(no message)
Of jumping on shit like this, especially when it comes to Trump, and being totally wrong. Stop embarrassing yourselves and wait.
(no message)
(no message)