January 6th Committee Hearings

[Didba 5,256]

32 minutes ago, keywest said:

Nice, like that a lot, my anti-vax, MLM, Aunt reposted the same thing last night on facebook

[DKW 86 7,426]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't assume until after I read.  Maybe you need to consider what your posts imply - if not state outright - before posting them. 

The Long-Distance, Drive-by, Pop-Psychology Error:

To assume something is implied that more often than not was not actually implied. homey revels in posting article after article of some long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychologist diagnosis by someone that may not have ever actually practiced psychiatry on an individual that they themselves may have never met, nor even been in the same zip code with, and certainly have never ever had as a patient. 

Apparently, in homey world, he is OBSESSED with long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychology mind-reading. He has posted innumerable pseudo-intellectual articles (IE: BS) where some random pseudo-intellectual pop-psychologist writes a smear piece on a political opponent he knows nothing about that always benefits homey's pet party choice. Rinse and repeat. These screeds are usually found and quoted from on laughable sources like The Alternet, Reddit, etc... You know, the same type of sourcing that the qanon crowd loves to quote. 

Now homey has taken to ASSUMING that he too can READ YOUR MIND from 500-1000 miles away from 1-2 posts on a message board, and therefore personally smear you for something you likely never meant to say, nor imply. Just take it to the bank, it is just his pseudo-intellectual failures glaringly displayed yet again. 

He does this ad nauseum here. He "reads your mind" and then writes a bogus rant about something you probably did not ever say. And then the cherry on top to this pseudo-intellectual sundae, homey cannot even concede that there is even a POSSIBILITY that his amateur long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychology COULD POSSIBLY BE IN ERROR. 

Then a few mindless minions will come along and contribute 2-3 emojis so they can all feel superior for 20 seconds in their otherwise miserable and meaningless lives. 

Welcome to the political forum...

Edited July 2, 2022 by DKW 86

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The Long-Distance, Drive-by, Pop-Psychology Error:

To assume something is implied that more often than not was not actually implied. homey revels in posting article after article of some long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychologist diagnosis by someone that may not have ever actually practiced psychiatry on an individual that they themselves may have never met, nor even been in the same zip code with, and certainly have never ever had as a patient. 

Apparently, in homey world, he is OBSESSED with long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychology mind-reading. He has posted innumerable pseudo-intellectual articles (IE: BS) where some random pseudo-intellectual pop-psychologist writes a smear piece on a political opponent he knows nothing about that always benefits homey's pet party choice. Rinse and repeat. These screeds are usually found and quoted from on laughable sources like The Alternet, Reddit, etc... You know, the same type of sourcing that the qanon crowd loves to quote. 

Now homey has taken to ASSUMING that he too can READ YOUR MIND from 500-1000 miles away from 1-2 posts on a message board, and therefore personally smear you for something you likely never meant to say, nor imply. Just take it to the bank, it is just his pseudo-intellectual failures glaringly displayed yet again. 

He does this ad nauseum here. He "reads your mind" and then writes a bogus rant about something you probably did not ever say. And then the cherry on top to this pseudo-intellectual sundae, homey cannot even concede that there is even a POSSIBILITY that his amateur long-distance, drive-by, pop-psychology COULD POSSIBLY BE IN ERROR. 

Then a few mindless minions will come along and contribute 2-3 emojis so they can all feel superior for 20 seconds in their otherwise miserable and meaningless lives. 

Welcome to the political forum...

86 nails it.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:41 AM, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t need to discredit this hearing, it is doing that all by itself.  Not many people are even watching this mini series, they are worried about inflation and gas prices.

If you believe people are worried about this, you are kidding yourself.

Don’t seem to be overly concerned. Have heard a little conversation on Desantis vs Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-beats-ron-desantis-joe-biden-2024-poll-despite-january-6-hearings-1721141

“Former President Donald Trump still appears to be favored to win the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination and ultimately the general election despite the revelations of the January 6 investigation hearings of the past few weeks, new polling shows.”

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@Didba can you cite one Federal Rule of Evidence that would allow Hutchinson’s hearsay into evidence in a criminal or civil forum?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@Didba can you cite one Federal Rule of Evidence that would allow Hutchinson’s hearsay into evidence in a criminal or civil forum?

I can’t think of one, off hand, but I’m rusty. But if Ornato testified he never said it, it would be admissible to counter his credibility— right?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

48 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Don’t seem to be overly concerned. Have heard a little conversation on Desantis vs Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-beats-ron-desantis-joe-biden-2024-poll-despite-january-6-hearings-1721141

“Former President Donald Trump still appears to be favored to win the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination and ultimately the general election despite the revelations of the January 6 investigation hearings of the past few weeks, new polling shows.”

 

 

So about 44% of Americans no longer believe in democracy. While that’s troubling to be sure, polls are all over the place and not very meaningful at this point.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So about 44% of Americans no longer believe in democracy. While that’s troubling to be sure, polls are all over the place and not very meaningful at this point.

“At this point” polls are all we have to look at now. Appears about 44%  claim the other 44% does not believe in democracy.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

“At this point” polls are all we have to look at now. Appears about 44%  claim the other 44% does not believe in democracy.

Only one has facts on their side because the other supports a narcissistic autocrat who’s clearly demonstrated repeatedly he finds democracy annoying. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Only one has facts on their side because the other supports a narcissistic autocrat who’s clearly demonstrated repeatedly he finds democracy annoying. 

Of course the side with “facts” and the other side have, in large, had their minds made up for months. Difficult for most folks to concentrate on new “facts”, spiraling food prices, energy cost, recession looming.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

53 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course the side with “facts” and the other side have, in large, had their minds made up for months. Difficult for most folks to concentrate on new “facts”, spiraling food prices, energy cost, recession looming.

Folks open to facts and interested in democracy and rule of law don’t need to concentrate much to see the facts. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Folks open to facts and interested in democracy and rule of law don’t need to concentrate much to see the facts. 

Folks probably grew disinterested in “facts” after years of Russia. What do you think?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, SaltyTiger said:

Folks probably grew disinterested in “facts” after years of Russia. What do you think?

If Trump voters had ever been interested in facts, they’d have laughed his ass out of the primary— what do you think?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

24 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If Trump voters had ever been interested in facts, they’d have laughed his ass out of the primary— what do you think?

Not in 2015. Think it was more of a FU Washington status quo thing.
 

Then along comes Russia. 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

42 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not in 2015. Think it was more of a FU Washington status quo thing.
 

Then along comes Russia. 

You keep fooling yourself that he’s not beholden to Putin for some reason.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You keep fooling yourself that he’s not beholden to Putin for some reason.

Not sure that beholden is right. Pretty obvious that he was intimidated by Putin. Embarrassment in Helsinki and not prepared for the world stage.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not sure that beholden is right. Pretty obvious that he was intimidated by Putin. Embarrassment in Helsinki and not prepared for the world stage.

He’s beholden. The “investigations” were no where as thorough as you folks seem to think. His finances remain a murky mystery largely unexplored mystery,  but we know 1) Russians buy his properties above market rate; 2) He’s utterly unprincipled and politically fluid;  3) He’s a grifter whose praise & support is easily bought. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He’s beholden. The “investigations” were no where as thorough as you folks seem to think. His finances remain a murky mystery largely unexplored mystery,  but we know 1) Russians buy his properties above market rate; 2) He’s utterly unprincipled and politically fluid;  3) He’s a grifter whose praise & support is easily bought. 

Did not realize Russians buy his properties above market rate? Understand the rest. He is a developer.

[DKW 86 7,426]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

His finances remain a murky mystery largely unexplored mystery,  but we know 1) Russians buy his properties above market rate; 2) He’s utterly unprincipled and politically fluid;  3) He’s a grifter whose praise & support is easily bought. 

IOW he is a DC Insider, a politician, like everyone else.

[DKW 86 7,426]

trump in office no invading Ukraine.

Biden in office, first thing Putin does is invade Ukraine. 

Those are facts

[TexasTiger 12,947]

33 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

IOW he is a DC Insider, a politician, like everyone else.

Yeah, every politician is laundering over $100M for Putin’s oligarchs. 🙄

[TexasTiger 12,947]

32 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

trump in office no invading Ukraine.

Biden in office, first thing Putin does is invade Ukraine. 

Those are facts

His staunchest defender on the forum using the same inane right wing talking points.

[DKW 86 7,426]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

His staunchest defender on the forum using the same inane right wing talking points.

Simply correctly pointing out the same thing for 6 years now. We have been promised charges of sedition, treason, collusion, fraud, money laundering, banking violations, emoluments charges, tax evasion, etc  for 6 ******* years so far. If he did any of that s***, and he probably did, then for God's sake show us the incontrovertible proof, indict, convict, and imprison his ass. You know what we actually got so far?

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by DKW 86

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:11 AM, TexasTiger said:

I can’t think of one, off hand, but I’m rusty. But if Ornato testified he never said it, it would be admissible to counter his credibility— right?

Yes, as a prior inconsistent statement admissible to impeach for impeachment only, it cannot be offered as substantive evidence unless it the former inconsistent statement was under oath/threat of perjury.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:07 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

@Didba can you cite one Federal Rule of Evidence that would allow Hutchinson’s hearsay into evidence in a criminal or civil forum?

It could fall under hearsay not offered for the truth of the matter asserted ie its not offered to show their effect on the listener or circumstantial evidence of declarant's state of mind like notice or knowledge.  Not certain on this one but its plausible. 

It would definitely fall under statement/admission of party opponent assuming Trump is a party to suit and the statements are offered by his opposing party.

It is is important to note the above are not exceptions to hearsay, they are considered admissible non-hearsay.

It could be considered a statement against interest if Trump was unavailable to testify and not a party to the suit.  The last two are unlikely to occur but if they did, it would get in.

Present state of mind is plausible but unlikely.