January 6th Committee Hearings

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

35 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You continue the foolish attempt to rationalize truth.  Do you understand the concept of truth?

Enlighten me; the witness says Trump tried to take the stirring wheel and assaulted an agent.  The agents say that didn’t happen.  What is the truth here?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Enlighten me; the witness says Trump tried to take the stirring wheel and assaulted an agent.  The agents say that didn’t happen.  What is the truth here?

I don't know.

[AUDynasty 585]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't know.

Hutchinson has reaffirmed that her testimony was nothing but complete truth. If it's true that Hutchinson was lying, they're welcome to take an oath to say so. If the agents decide to go with a public announcement denying the fact instead of going in person to take an oath, I'd take that with grain of salt knowing that Hutchinson would likely be charged with perjury (felony charge) if she lied.

[wcware 1,365]

Republicans stand up there and tell tons of lies. Democrats stand up there and tell tons of lies. It’s crazy that any of us believe that ANY of the current members of either party are capable of doing anything other than keeping us bickering while they all rake in Millions. Everyone in this forum has more in common with each other than a single person in Washington DC. It’s laughable that anyone thinks we have a functional government working for the betterment of the people. It’s about power, ratings, likes, and a big fat bank account. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

Hutchinson has reaffirmed that her testimony was nothing but complete truth. If it's true that Hutchinson was lying, they're welcome to take an oath to say so. If the agents decide to go with a public announcement denying the fact instead of going in person to take an oath, I'd take that with grain of salt knowing that Hutchinson would likely be charged with perjury (felony charge) if she lied.

Seen articles where SS agents are willing to testify that it didn’t happen. So we shall see. 

[TexasTiger 12,949]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Enlighten me; the witness says Trump tried to take the stirring wheel and assaulted an agent.  The agents say that didn’t happen.  What is the truth here?

The witness said she was told that. Supposedly, the folks who allegedly told her (Trump aligned) disagree with the characterization, not the larger gist of the story. She can be telling what they said at the time and they can claim it wasn’t exactly  like she said. Doesn’t mean she’s lying. 

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Did anybody press charges?

No clue, was just educating you that throwing a plate at someone does constitute a criminal offense regardless of whether they are prosecuted for it.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, wcware said:

Republicans stand up there and tell tons of lies. Democrats stand up there and tell tons of lies. It’s crazy that any of us believe that ANY of the current members of either party are capable of doing anything other than keeping us bickering while they all rake in Millions. Everyone in this forum has more in common with each other than a single person in Washington DC. It’s laughable that anyone thinks we have a functional government working for the betterment of the people. It’s about power, ratings, likes, and a big fat bank account. 

Hence why a reform to a multiparty proportional system is needed in this country to allow for more parties which would solve a ton of problems.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The witness said she was told that. Supposedly, the folks who allegedly told her (Trump aligned) disagree with the characterization, not the larger gist of the story. She can be telling what they said at the time and they can claim it wasn’t exactly  like she said. Doesn’t mean she’s lying. 

Probably why we don’t allow hearsay as testimony.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

53 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Probably why we don’t allow hearsay as testimony.

There are actually multiple hearsay exceptions in a court of law. This is not a criminal proceeding. Anyone disputing it can go under oath instead of tweeting.

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

There are actually multiple hearsay exceptions in a court of law. This is not a criminal proceeding. Anyone disputing it can go under oath instead of tweeting.

Bret Baier put that extremely succinctly. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There are actually multiple hearsay exceptions in a court of law. This is not a criminal proceeding. Anyone disputing it can go under oath instead of tweeting.

Sure sounds like the left wants it to be a criminal proceeding. If not then why all the fuss.  Yeah I know there are exceptions but in general judges juries and fact finders want first hand knowledge not second or third. I’m sure you get the gist. It is just typical democrat Adam Schiff rumors and lies trying to railroad his political enemy. 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Probably why we don’t allow hearsay as testimony.

These are congressional hearings which aren't affected by the rule on hearsay. Further, as others have pointed out hearsay is admissible as testimony in both civil and criminal trials for a variety of exceptions and exclusions .

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Yeah I know there are exceptions but in general judges juries and fact finders want first hand knowledge not second or third.

In general fact finders place the same weight on admissible hearsay as any other type of testimony. That is the literal point of the exceptions and exclusions.  The exceptions and exclusions exist because there are reasons why the hearsay is still reliable.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Sure sounds like the left wants it to be a criminal proceeding. If not then why all the fuss.  Yeah I know there are exceptions but in general judges juries and fact finders want first hand knowledge not second or third. I’m sure you get the gist. It is just typical democrat Adam Schiff rumors and lies trying to railroad his political enemy. 

And you’re just bending over backwards and spinning and diminishing to keep your idol from…gasp…any accountability.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The witness said she was told that. Supposedly, the folks who allegedly told her (Trump aligned) disagree with the characterization, not the larger gist of the story. She can be telling what they said at the time and they can claim it wasn’t exactly  like she said. Doesn’t mean she’s lying. 

I didn’t ask who was lying, I asked for the truth.  ICHY doesn’t know; do you?

[AU9377 4,967]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Enlighten me; the witness says Trump tried to take the stirring wheel and assaulted an agent.  The agents say that didn’t happen.  What is the truth here?

She didn't testify that she witnessed Trump do that.  She testified that the secret service agent informed her of that.

I looked at Tony, and he had said, 'Did you f-ing hear what happened in the Beast?'" Hutchinson recalled, using the nickname for the presidential vehicle. "I said, 'No Tony, I just got back, what happened?'

Tony proceeded to tell me ....................

The agent can come forward and testify, under oath, that this is not what occurred.  It was actually one of the least important parts of her testimony, but was one of the most sensational parts for media outlets. 

None of it changes her testimony concerning the meetings that were taking place at which the plans to replace state electors were being discussed.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

In general fact finders place the same weight on admissible hearsay as any other type of testimony. That is the literal point of the exceptions and exclusions.  The exceptions and exclusions exist because there are reasons why the hearsay is still reliable.

Except when it is disputed by the actual participant. Will the committee give the same weight to Engel?  I doubt it. Will they disregard Hutchinson’s hearsay testimony? Also doubtful. Will they find the perp who made it up so they can get to the truth? Nope. That would not be the truth they want.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

She didn't testify that she witnessed Trump do that.  She testified that the secret service agent informed her of that.

I looked at Tony, and he had said, 'Did you f-ing hear what happened in the Beast?'" Hutchinson recalled, using the nickname for the presidential vehicle. "I said, 'No Tony, I just got back, what happened?'

Tony proceeded to tell me ....................

The agent can come forward and testify, under oath, that this is not what occurred.  It was actually one of the least important parts of her testimony, but was one of the most sensational parts for media outlets. 

None of it changes her testimony concerning the meetings that were taking place at which the plans to replace state electors were being discussed.

Again, I asked ICHY for the truth, not if her testimony was truthful or not.  Do you know the truth?

This is the problem with the Jan 6th mini series.  It is only there for public opinion and not finding the truth of the matter.  It is propaganda and a lot of people are buying into it.  Let AG Garland do something or get off the pot.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And you’re just bending over backwards and spinning and diminishing to keep your idol from…gasp…any accountability.

I don’t have an idol in the political world.  I did not vote for Trump in the primary. No way was I ever voting for Hillary. Not my idol.  It is clear what the panel wants. And it is not the truth. Just destroy Trump no matter what. You people must really fear him. If you succeed no worries my friend. DeSantis waiting in the wings. Doesn’t have the negative history of Trump, successful governor of large state, family man, wife has cancer but is a selfless fighter, stays a step ahead of Biden all the time ( okay that’s not all that hard), not afraid to veto legislation even from his party if it isn’t beneficial to all. Have at it. 

[TexasTiger 12,949]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t ask who was lying, I asked for the truth.  ICHY doesn’t know; do you?

If I say you told me something happened and I’m accurately relating what you told me, I’m telling the truth. If you were embellishing when you conveyed the story to me, I may not be offering a complete picture of what happened. On the other hand, if you hear my retelling and think you didn’t want those details shared, you may be inclined to say what I said was inaccurate, even it was. I have no reason at this point to think she wasn’t truthfully telling what she heard. If someone wants to subject themselves to questioning under oath, they can do so and I’ll reevaluate at that time.

Very little of what she said has been disputed, even off the record. The most salient points certainly seem to be true. Trump’s response give no reason to doubt the most salient issues. Whether he lunged for the steering wheel is kinda superfluous and frankly distracting. I wish they hadn’t even gone there. It was unnecessary and just gives pathetic apologists fodder to distract from the appalling, undemocratic, unAmerican and illegal behavior Trump engaged in.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, I asked ICHY for the truth, not if her testimony was truthful or not.  Do you know the truth?

This is the problem with the Jan 6th mini series.  It is only there for public opinion and not finding the truth of the matter.  It is propaganda and a lot of people are buying into it.  Let AG Garland do something or get off the pot.

Wrong.  Congress has an obligation to investigate.  Unfortunately, allegiance to party is stronger than allegiance to the citizens of the United States of America.

Anyone who downplays the events of the attempt to subvert democracy is a traitor.

Fascism is coming.  

[TexasTiger 12,949]

13 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I don’t have an idol in the political world.  I did not vote for Trump in the primary. No way was I ever voting for Hillary. Not my idol.  It is clear what the panel wants. And it is not the truth. Just destroy Trump no matter what. You people must really fear him. If you succeed no worries my friend. DeSantis waiting in the wings. Doesn’t have the negative history of Trump, successful governor of large state, family man, wife has cancer but is a selfless fighter, stays a step ahead of Biden all the time ( okay that’s not all that hard), not afraid to veto legislation even from his party if it isn’t beneficial to all. Have at it. 

“Folks just want to destroy this guy who tried to destroy American democracy! It’s outrageous!” 
 

The fact that you think it’s just partisan reflects just how thoroughly partisan you are. If a Republican wins in a fair election and doesn’t attempt to create further damage to the democratic process, I can live with that. The concept of nonpartisan principle totally eludes you.

[homersapien 11,388]

18 hours ago, Didba said:

Throwing a plate at a person is a criminal offense. Assault and attempted battery.

Nah, it's just a public demonstration of appropriate presidential temperament.

Let's re-elect him!

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

“Folks just want to destroy this guy who tried to destroy American democracy! It’s outrageous!” 
 

The fact that you think it’s just partisan reflects just how thoroughly partisan you are. If a Republican wins in a fair election and doesn’t attempt to create further damage to the democratic process, I can live with that. The concept of nonpartisan principle totally eludes you.

Kettle meet pot.  Destruction of the democracy began before the 2016 election and continued throughout the presidency and after. Did you forget weaponization of the alphabet, special counsel created by the guy who's intent was to create a special counsel to go after Trump, RRR, dossier. Dems have zero credibility on the non partisan principle you espouse. Forgive me for not acknowledging your opening line.