I was struck by the choice of photographs. I'm used to the stereotypical witness photo with the hand raised to take the oath, but this side view highlights an extreme color difference between the hand and the face.I don't know if it says anything about a witness's credibility, but you should choose a foundation that matches your skin tone. And choose a photograph that doesn't call attention to a deviation from that rule... unless you want to make a person look unforthcoming.
But I don't think the L.A. Times wants to tear down Cassidy Hutchinson. I think it wants to impugn anybody who attempts to counter the deficiencies of the January 6th Committee by challenging the witness's narrative.
ADDED: Politico also chooses a photo showing a big hand/face discrepancy for "New details of Jan. 6 panel's mystery messages emerge/Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the committee she was contacted by an intermediary for Mark Meadows, according to a person familiar with her final deposition."
And if anyone is thinking of criticizing me for raising this subject, first check to see if you've ever discussed the artificial coloration of Donald Trump's face.
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
MSM is in full damage control mode over the testimony of Cassidy Blaisey Hutchinson.
There is a long piece in Slate about how the old white men on the J6 committee are refusing to call the Secret Service guys who have stated on the record that they are willing to testify (again) under oath that Trump did not try to grab anyone by the pussy steering wheel. No recognition that the J6 committee are all rabidly anti-Trump and would call the Secret Service in a minute if it would help them bag another witch.
Slate says that even if she got a few details wrong and sees this as a career building opportunity after trying and failing to boost herself by latching onto Trump's organization.
Sad.
The left has been pushing that notion for a while when it comes to testimony by left-wing women. It's the whole point of #believeallwomen.
Some campaign. Seems it took mere minutes to prove she committed perjury. Not prove in a court of law, which will, of course, never happen to a Democrat. But proved enough to discredit her.
From the tone of the LA Times article looks more like a campaign to rehabilitate her led by the LA Times.
I thought facing your accuser was a fundamental right enshrined in the US Constitution.
Guess the LA Times didn't get the memo.
Partisan hypocrisy and double standards. Not at all news since 2016 and the arrival of Trump. Some on the left are truly struggling with ethical/moral principles, per the ejections of Weinstein, et al after Trump.
Talking within your own bubble leads to outsiders being seen as "other" and evil, and justifies taking sides to win without any standards. If we had a shared morality this wouldn't a problem. If we had any moral training beyon Marvel Comics movies this may not be a problem. But we don't.
Hail Wolverine! I want a Wolverine crucifix and votive candle.
The Believe Women movement demands full belief. There is absolutely no room for the presumption of innocence or the confrontation clause and its general ban on hearsay.
Believe all women takes an immediate hit from cosmetics.
The LAT is my home paper, one for which I used to write. Its descent into madness, irrelevance, and predictability on every issue is, to my mind, unprecedented.
The billionaire owner's pet project is climate change, so the topic is shoehorned into every story that can reasonably, or often unreasonably, be said to abut anything about weather.
Editorials and opeds all appear to have been composed by AI from a list of 2,000 approved words and concepts.
At present, the paper is supporting the one of the two candidates that will, in no way, improve life in the city that has declined so precipitously in the last dozen years that the current mayor's posting to India, as ambassador, if confirmed, will leave him feeling right at home. Meanwhile, the candidate with the brains and know-how to actually effectuate needed change is dismissed because--and I'm not making this up--he "doesn't have a climate plan." (And he also has the wrong sex and skin color.)
Who the paper's audience is presumed to be is anyone's guess, but I'm reliably informed that circ is about a tenth of what it was 20 years ago.
As for the story at hand, yes, the paper believes its wrong to confront the witnesses against you when the new testimony would undermine the narrative that they're devoted to purveying.
If you want a Cliff's Notes version of the paper, all you have to do is read Robin Abcarian's columns once or twice a week. They reflect the voice of the paper, and all are constructed from a Mad Libs template that allows her to address the topic du jour with about 15 minutes of work.
Isn't her hand, pale and clammy; because she KNOWS that she's LYING??
Well, there's a difference between discrediting, which often takes the form of "ten years ago this person did such and such so we shouldn't listen to them now" and questioning assertions, such as beating up Secret Service agents. Or more importantly, that her sworn testimony is mostly "something to the effect of" statements bereft of direct declarations of facts. After all, CNN, et al, rushed to tell us that Donald Trump said "something to the effect of everyone should drink bleach" when the direct statement was something very different.
Or course, if you have recent credentials from a "better" university, you likely are not able to discern between interpretive gossip and what was actually said.
She's a liar and not a credible witness. Everything she says is based on hearsay. She refused to say WHO told her about Trump's behavior. And the J6 committee REFUSED to call up the so-called Eyewitness. Or call up the SOURCE of the rumor.
Someone told me Joe biden fucks pigs. I guess if I say that under oath to a Committee, then it becomes credible? I don't think so.
But the MSM and their Conservative Inc. friends will continue the propaganda and lies against Republicans. Rod Dreher, is AOK with repeating the slanders, because its Trump, and the NYT's hates Trump.
She's kind of cute in an 'evil bitch, not-so-bright' sort of way...
It's too much to expect conservatives and R's to react to these obvious lies with mockery and insults and counter-attacks. They MUST own the libs by playing Columbo and pointing out Facts and logical arguments. Guess what? They don't care. The D's and the MSM know that all they have to do is throw some slander out and some of it will stick, and by GRANTING that it may be credible and engaging in debate, the R's are playing their game.
Notice when the R's attack the D's on something like this, the D's and the MSM just counterattck and call it bullshit or "Russian propaganda". They don't play columbo and give the rightwing a 10 page memo pointing out the logical fallacies. Biden's sexual harrassment accuser was simply labeled "Not credible" and that was that. Hunter Biden's laptop? SOrry, Russian Propaganda. case closed.
If you are innocent or honest you do not need to wear white.
She's kind of cute in an 'evil bitch, not-so-bright' sort of way...
I guess they learned their lesson after Fiona Hill failed to wow the public.
"rushed to attack"
Trump take the wheel 🤣
(to paraphrase the hit country song)
"The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."
Liz Cheney
Just like trump was always trying to discredit Mueller.
Da noive.
Much of her testimony was not direct knowledge or direct witness. It was "someone told me" or "I heard someone say to me"
also known as - HEARSAY.
corrupt liar lazy press prefer narrative to honest reporting.
I thought facing your accuser was a fundamental right enshrined in the US Constitution.
Now we label that process "disinformation" and reject it for the good of the nation.
Bombshell testimony? It must have been a delayed detonation because it blew up a few hours later.
It would be nice if she got cross examined so that her lies would have been immediately known, instead of the Mainstream media ignoring them, and making her their new Progressive hero.
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter.
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister...
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter...
Evelyn Mulwray: My sister, my daughter.
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister AND my daughter!
cassandra lite @ 10:16
Well put. Sounds like the old LA Free Press.
Rcocean - It is clear that you didn't watch her testimony. She did not "refuse" to answer any questions. As for hearsay, this is not a trial but an investigation. Hearsay is critically important in an investigation. Person X goes to the police and says that Person Y told him that he saw Person Z kill someone. You think the police tell Person X they aren't going to investigate because it is hearsay?
Question - If you are going to lie about what someone told you, why would you put someone else in the room? Instead of she said he said, you have she said, he said, he said. Makes no sense.
Of course Trump and Bannon and lots of other people have non-hearsay evidence on point they could provide under oath. But they refuse to testify or provide an affidavit and instead they attack the credibility of those who do testify under oath. What a joke.
Amber Heard 2.0 was trending after her 'testimony'. Seems a well earned accolade.
I noticed right away that she was fully professionally made up and thought that was a little over the top. Did not watch her testimony , but reading about it I thought right away "this is hearsay" - one of the few legal concepts that I "garnered" from my brief acquaintance with the UCMJ. Subsequently it has become obvious that if there were "opposing counsel" her story would have pretty much been shattered by actual eye-witness or participant testimony. It takes a special kind of Hubris on the part of the congressional panel to conduct this kind of inquisition..... and we all know from Greek tragedy what follows upon hubris!
She appears to have been caught red-handed!
Blogger cassandra lite said...
The LAT is my home paper, one for which I used to write. Its descent into madness, irrelevance, and predictability on every issue is, to my mind, unprecedented.
I was a subscriber for years. At one time, even as it began its decline, the editorial pieces had the email addresses of the writer. I had some interesting email exchanges with some of them. Not all were left wing nuts. Now, "sock puppet" Hiltzik seems to be the brain trust there. It is hysterical every issue.
Is that a shadow above her upper lip or did she neglect to cover up her mustache?
NTTAWW persons of facial hair identifying as women.
On the whole, it's a flattering photo. Maybe they want the semiotics to demonstrate that she comes to the hearing with clean hands.....It's times like this that I miss Rush Limbaugh. I would love to have his take on this. She's the latest Joan of Arc in a long line of brave women that include Chelsea Clinton, Rosa Parks, and Sandra Fluke... Remember Sandra Fluke and her brave efforts to get Georgetown to fund her birth control pills. Limbaugh took her on and nearly lost his career in the process. It's hard to take a flattering photo of her nowadays, but, back in the day, she looked brave and clean and beautiful in published photos.
The Regime is flailing. Their lies are getting caught faster and faster.
But there are always credulous middle aged women out there that want to believe lies.
Remember that Ann said Christine Blasey Ford was a credible witness.
Look at the "news" sources these women consume knowing they have been caught lying repeatedly.
I wouldn't believe "Just the tip" was actually a thing. Now I see why it works.
I have yet to see a flattering photo of Chelsea Clinton or an unflattering one of Ivanka Trump, but that's not for lack of trying. Maybe when Ivanka is a little older, she'll pork out or get some botched repair work. That'll give the photographers something to work with. They just have to be patient.
Due process is a "burden". Abort.
Having a right to confront witnesses is nothing more than systemic injustice to keep the white male power structure in power.
(so the argument goes, before I get accused of being some leftist nutjob)
Discredit? You have to have credibility before anyone can try to remove it.
I would guess someone provided a professional hair and makeup artist for her. This is a television production, after all. So she was duped by the makeup artist, and the person who provided the styling is not to be trusted.
The standard scenario when a woman comes forward with a story detrimental to a Republican is that she is brave and speaks truth to power. She gets a lot of publicity. Some harsh critiques in out of the way places like this, but in the msm the coverage is all positive.....If a woman comes forward with a story damaging to the Dems, the coverage is nowhere near as positive. Linda Tripp and Paula Jones were not celebrated for coming forward. The big story, though, is the lack of the big stories. Who here can remember the name of the woman who came forward with damaging testimony against Biden? Cuomo got handy with a lot of women. What they had in common is that they were all as reluctant as Cosby victims to come forward with their stories....If you take on someone like Al Franken or Andrew Cuomo don't expect the kind of flattering coverage that Stormy Daniels got.
Cassidy Hutchinson is a fabulist, pure and simple.
Just you wait. About a year from now, when the spotlight is off of her, she'll somehow end up with some cushy sinecure position in the Swamp. She did her bit for "The Cause" and they will re-pay her for her efforts.
Editorials and opeds all appear to have been composed by AI from a list of 2,000 approved words and concepts. --cassandra lite
It's gotten so bad that even the Food Section is unreadable.
I didn’t notice the difference in coloration until I read your comment about the photo. And at first I didn’t know what ‘foundation’ you were referring to. Sometimes it really does take a wise (non) Latina to point the way. Brava.
I love that Cheney is a hero to the left.
hahahahaha.
they lost me at the Russian Pee thing. Trump was maybe the first person I ever heard that was a germaphobe. About 1987 I red that.
Since then I certainly dont suffer from Gell Mann Amnesia from our beloved media.
This witness was the Hope Hope of the hearings.
Talk to the hand...
If you read her liberal defenders on Twitter they all say you can't accuse her of lying, because she is only testifying to what OTHERS told her her. Hearsay of course. Which is why she should have never been allowed to testify in the first place, but this is all for show.
But their defense of the crap she spewed for attention and a hug from Liz, is the person who told her the BS is the one lying. She is just innocently repeating it.
She is kinda hot though.
This Hutchison woman is just another iteration of a woman willing to smear a man even if it means destroying yourself in the process. They are Esau willing to throw away the future for some pottage on the table before them. They are attention whores, maybe even classy ones, but whores nonetheless. And they never seem to learn that the answer to the whore’s one honest question — “Will you still love me tomorrow?” — is always a big, fat NO.
Give Christine Blasey Ford my greetings, Cassidy, on your short jaunt to irrevelance.
"The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."
So, Inga, where is the transcript of what they said?
Orange woman bad!
She didn't do her own makeup- the committee surely hired a professional in the business of preparing makeup for television/film appearances. Does Congress keep such a person on staff for all testimony in this televised age, or was this one hired just for this one appearance of the Jan 6 committee?
Why in the world would Trump loyalists be calling for loyalty from Hutchinson before she goes before this partisan committee to spew hearsay with no opportunity for cross examination?
After all, when has Trump ever had a problem with calumnious accusations, disloyal leakers purveying negative hearsay, and sleazy Democrats seeking to capitalize on same?
thou protest too much. The system of checks and balances is grinding away and you people don't like it. I'm now hoping Trump gets sent to Leavenworth Just to see the rending of garments and ululations about the Civil War coming right around the corner.
Comedy Gold
...and we welcome *additional* testimony under oath from both of them...
Notice the key word in the excerpt that Inga quoted: "additional." Both of the actual eyewitness Secret Service agents already testified. None of the dramatic events from Hutchinson's testimony were mentioned. In other words, according to the actual eyewitnesses, Hutchinson's story is completely false.
Thanks for flagging that point, Inga.
"Having a right to confront witnesses is nothing more than systemic injustice to keep the white male power structure in power."
Almost nothing surprises in this Orwellian world, but is anybody really stupid enough to make such an argument?
Is it wrong to confront the witnesses against you?
Absolutely! Bad people (aka Republicans) should just admit their guilt and be done with it!
Question - If you are going to lie about what someone told you, why would you put someone else in the room? Instead of she said he said, you have she said, he said, he said. Makes no sense.
jim 1234 forgets why the secret service guys have not been and will not be called. The "committee" knows she is lying but she is all they have.
I have no doubt that Cassidy got a few things perfectly right: That Trump told his aides to take the magnetometers down and let his armed supporters in to hear his speech. That he said he didn't care if his supporters were armed because they weren't going to hurt him, and that they could join the march to the Capitol after hearing his speech. That Trump said that Pence deserved it when he was told that people in the mob were calling for Pence to be hanged. That Trump wanted to join the march to the Capitol but the Secret Service wouldn't allow him to go because they couldn't assure his safety. In my view, these are damning facts and so far as I can tell, no one is disputing them, although the Trump loyalists are attempting to offer "innocent" explanations for them. They are also arguing about minor points, like whether Trump grabbed at the steering wheel of The Beast or threw some dishes against the wall. Who cares?
Bottom line for me: Trump tried to create chaos. I don't think he had a plan in mind. He tried to create chaos through his campaign of lies about election fraud, with the expectation of seizing such opportunities as might come along to overturn the election. Is that a crime? I don't care whether it is or not. I wouldn't vote for him again under any circumstances.
Inga-
We want public testimony from the Secret Service agents. It’s widely reported that they are willing to testify publicly under oath. What is Liz Cheney afraid of?
Jim5301 said: "As for hearsay, this is not a trial but an investigation."
Good grief Jim, it is not an investigation either.
If her testimony is proven false (and she mostly just said what she heard others say), then she should be discredited as a "witness".
I see this as an example of "Republicans Pouncing" in reaction to the Dems again doing something ridiculous, reprehensible, and gobsmackingly propagandistic, even though the Dems used a Repub this time as their puppet.
She is but a symptom of the fatal disease that United States is inflicted with. This abject corruption is being allowed to occur because we - you and I - allow it. In this same way, Rome fell.
Someone once said the fault is not in the stars.
I wonder if anyone gets that.
The right to confront accusers by cross examination is the very heart of the hearsay exclusion. Unless it is impossible by death, or another rare exception, all testimony requires a live witness who can be cross examined. Recounting the words of another is never allowed. And that is so well known that it makes the Committee into a charade of illegal actors in a play. The plays the thing respond the Hamlet like Dems. Hamlet was insane.
"I thought facing your accuser was a fundamental right enshrined in the US Constitution."
Denying this sure seems like a form of insurrection to me. Which I think will be the long term judgment, that the J6 committee is doing much more to violate the laws and rights of the government and the people than Trump ever did.
Would of it been too much to ask her specifically who told her the hearsay?
jim5301 said...
Rcocean - It is clear that you didn't watch her testimony. She did not "refuse" to answer any questions. As for hearsay, this is not a trial but an investigation. Hearsay is critically important in an investigation. Person X goes to the police and says that Person Y told him that he saw Person Z kill someone. You think the police tell Person X they aren't going to investigate because it is hearsay?
******************
First, that statement to the police was not uttered while under oath.
HUtchinson's was. Big difference.
And no, the police aren't obligated to investigate naked "hearsay" absent actual supporting facts . "..Person Y saw Person Z kill "someone"?" -----who? when? where? Is Person X a crack whore? Is Person Y? If so, how credible would those persons' claims be regarded?
In short, your hypothetical offers no useful parallels.
Sure, the police might send a guy out for a follow-up, but they're not going to empanel a grand jury based on Person X's unsupported claims. The House committee didn't bother to talk to Person(s) Y, the Secret Service Agents in the limo, so they have no basis for claiming Hutchinson's account is true.
It's crystal clear that the nefarious House committee is instead treating the Hutchinson testimony AS TRUTHFUL, without allowing anyone to question the witness further. THAT TOO points to the Committee's operating in Bad Faith---another crucial distinction. It is acting like it's a Grand Jury, which it isn't.
p.s. don't think we've forgotten that just yesterday you accepted Hutchinson's testimony at face value, claiming that it "matches Trump's character" (or "words to that effect").
That's really dopey.
"The Believe Women movement demands full belief."
...that ALL MEN are inherent prevaricators.
When confronted with a lie, isn't discrediting it the proper and right thing to do? Or are we still propping up the Russia Collusion case, too?
Her statements should have been laughed at instead of made into breathless headlines and news reports. "He said something to the effect of..."? Seriously?
Or this beaut: "I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I heard the President say something to the effect of...". Well...that nails it. To the effect of? Well...did he or did he not say it? And what, exactly, did he say? Not...'to the effect of'. What did he say?? Did you or did you not hear it? Anyone ask those questions?
I'm smelling Adam Schiff level lying here. No need to play the discrediting game. Her words mean nothing. She might as well have stated, I was in the room. I heard someone say something. I'm going to tell you what I think the President might have said. And that should be enough.
That's the blockbuster? They've got nothing. Not to mention that Trump was not even in 'The Beast' (the limo), and the Secret Service agent involved is ready and willing to testify that she's lying. Discredit? She opened her mouth and did it herself. This is yet another insult to the entire country. These people are a disgrace. Both the representatives putting on this show and the media playing along, yet again.
I cannot wait until November to send them my reply.
Unfit for even lining the birdcage…
Real investigations are done by grand juries behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, this one is televised.
I haven't actually bothered to watch any of the J6 hearings, but my understanding is that the most sensational details of her testimony are all hearsay. Which is fine, in an investigative context, because if it really matters, you can just track down the source (or potential sources) and ask them directly. But that should all probably have been handled "behind the scenes," as it were.
The purpose here isn't to conduct a robust investigation in public, but to stage manage the presentation of the evidence they've obtained. Presenting a bunch of sensationalist single source hearsay doesn't enhance the credibility of the exercise. If it doesn't actually matter (one excuse J6 committee supporters are now trotting out), don't highlight it. And if it does matter, don't single source it from a hearsay witness.
When you're interviewing a witness for the first time -- particularly junior witnesses, they sometimes say all kinds of sensational, inflammatory things, especially stuff they heard through the rumour mill, impressions about their bosses or senior executives, etc. Sometimes they're true. Sometimes they're false -- not because the witnesses are liars, but because eyewitness memory and testimony are kind of garbage. You need corroboration. As an investigator, you have to learn to leave some of that on the cutting room floor if you can't substantiate it.
Now, the Committee could be managing this cleverly and withholding contemporary corroborating evidence (like a backwards dashcam or something) to make their critics look like fools, but I somehow doubt it. It's the same bozos who ran the two farcical impeachment trials after all. Still, the possibility exists.
I voted for Trump and have no regrets. Jesus ain’t running, so our choices are always imperfect, sometimes more so than others. Trump is equal parts idiot and savant, whereas the current President is undiluted idiot. And yes, the Dems and their media/academic/business allies have treated Trump horribly. Yet, the need of some of his supporters to endorse every single thing he did or does and to assume all criticism is entirely fabricated is pathologically unprincipled. The over the top vilification of Ms. Hutchinson in this thread is a perfect example. And the irony is that her testimony was more embarrassing than damning It is only the breathless media coverage that dresses it up as some sort of smoking gun.
Effinayright -
If it is your understanding that hearsay is not allowed in a grand jury proceeding, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that cross examination is allowed in a federal grand jury, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that police don't routinely investigation hearsay allegations of a crime, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that the committee has not talked to the SS agents in the SUV (not limo) I believe they have said they have talked to them. So again you are wrong.
Not sure why you have a problem that people may choose to believe AS TRUTHFUL the live sworn testimony of a witness. I'm sure every day you decided to believe AS TRUTHFUL the unsworn statements of people you don't even know.
jim5301 said...
Rcocean - It is clear that you didn't watch her testimony. She did not "refuse" to answer any questions. As for hearsay, this is not a trial but an investigation. Hearsay is critically important in an investigation. Person X goes to the police and says that Person Y told him that he saw Person Z kill someone. You think the police tell Person X they aren't going to investigate because it is hearsay?
Jim, I'm glad you brought that up, because there are a couple of things that've been bothering me since the initial coverage & criticism. [Note: I am most emphatically not a lawyer, so will happily accept any and all corrections to my comment.]
A) The criticisms about hearsay testimony and the lack of adversarial questioning have often been waved away (as you did) by a defensive claim that it's not a trial, so the evidence rules relating to hearsay are not material. The assertion is that this hearing is an "investigation" or is analogous to a "grand jury," i.e., a prosecutorial-only procedure.
However, both of those scenarios are typically secret & confidential proceedings, the first perhaps only until an arrest has been made or charges levied, but the latter likely in perpetuity. How often has a police spokesperson declined to respond to a press question, citing "This is an ongoing investigation," or some such? How often have requests for grand jury presentation information been fulfilled?
To the contrary, this House Committee proceeding is conducted in full public view (but only sporadically, which raises other issues), and yet it is singularly one-sided in its performance -- which has great influence in forming the public’s opinion and judgment -- a public that lacks deep understanding of the nuances of the various legal processes. It seems to me that this hearing should be either (1) closed and then issue some kind of final report of its findings that might then be responded to or disputed, or (2) open to public scrutiny and subject to some degree of fairness and balance, including cross-examination.
What the Committee is attempting to do is something that my dear departed mother might have described as “trying to have your cake and eat it, too.” It didn’t work for me as a kid, and it doesn’t work for the Committee today.
B) I believe there is something in civil and criminal law called the “best evidence” principle. It pertains to written evidence primarily, but I’ll apply it to verbal testimony. If the Committee has witnesses who purportedly acted or spoke thus and so, why would it not interrogate those individuals first, and only after that a witness who might corroborate (or not) their first-person testimony? Supposedly, the Committee has already taken testimony from one or more of the acting/speaking individuals. Why would it promote a weaker witness to the public, rather than the “best” witnesses?
ColoComment:
I completely agree that all the evidence should be made available for public consumption, and I believe this will be done when the report is issued. I don't agree that every interview they conduct should immediately be made public. Bad investigative strategy for obvious reasons.
Who exactly do you want to conduct the cross examinations. Most of the witnesses have been Republicans. Most of the questioning has come from Republican members of the committee. Is Jim Jordon - who has first hand knowledge of relevant information and refuses to disclose that information to the committee or to the public -- the one who should be doing that cross examination? Recall that Pelosi didn't reject all of McCarthy's picks, just two - McCarthy then decided to withdraw the others. And this came after the Republicans backed out of an agreement for a joint House/Senate committee.
Of course, a lot of the people with the best, non-hearsay, evidence have refused to testify and/or have taken the Fifth. What is your workaround there?
She had much more important testimony to offer than the steering wheel story. Such as evidence that Trump knew a lot of people were armed and didn't care because he wasn't their target, and wanted them to be able to attend his rally without having to give up their weapons. Nothing but crickets about that testimony in the comments here. But once she was there offering testimony it would have been odd to leave out the steering wheel story. If she wasn't asked about it and it later came to light all the Trumpians would cry foul.
jim5301 writes, "...I believe they have said they have talked to them. So again you are wrong."
The only thing clear about this 2:53 comment is an idiosyncratic understanding of error and what the "Select Committee" constitutes. It is emphatically in no way a grand jury hearing or even a near-analog of same.
It's gotten so bad that even the Food Section is unreadable.
Moving to the other coast, this is literally true at the NYT, where every recipe I actually want to read (this morning, it was best chicken salad) is behind a secondary paywall.
jim5301 said...
Effinayright -
If it is your understanding that hearsay is not allowed in a grand jury proceeding, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that cross examination is allowed in a federal grand jury, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that police don't routinely investigation hearsay allegations of a crime, you are wrong. If it is your understanding that the committee has not talked to the SS agents in the SUV (not limo) I believe they have said they have talked to them. So again you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>I never said any of those "ifs".
>>>>>>>>Whether the committee "talked to" the Secret Service agents is immaterial---they didn't let them testify in public, as Hutchinson did. An unbiased person would wonder why.
>>>>>>>In any case the House hearing **isn't** a Grand Jury being conducted in secret. ColoComment lays out the issues. Go respond to him!!!!
Not sure why you have a problem that people may choose to believe AS TRUTHFUL the live sworn testimony of a witness. I'm sure every day you decided to believe AS TRUTHFUL the unsworn statements of people you don't even know.
>>>>>>>>Completely irrelevant in this context. The "people" you speak of are government officials trying to get Trump charged with a crime, in order to keep him from running in 2024. They have doctored his words, ignored exculpatory statements and messed with the facts of the Jan 6 incident.
>>>>>>>>They are a mob howling for blood, not a "deliberative body".
>>>>>>>> Treating as "truthful" the unsupported and unverified statements of a witness is a hallmark of a show trial---a term I suspect you're unfamiliar with. Pelosi has set things up so that no one is allowed to even cross-examine the witnesses. That's fundamentally unfair, no matter how you look at it.
Keep on flailing!!!
Calling Trump a part idiot and part savant reveals one fell for Much of 4 years of MSM slanders. His only problem was trusting DC insiders too long. Hell, he took their words for things. But his domestic and foreign policy decisions work was the best seen since Eisenhower.
It was a good move of hers not to pick orange.
Levene wrote: "... his campaign of lies about election fraud...."
There is considerable evidence to support election fraud and irregularities and only wishful thinking and media hype to contradict it.
To assert otherwise is patently absurd!
Bottom line for me: Trump tried to create chaos. I don't think he had a plan in mind. He tried to create chaos through his campaign of lies about election fraud, with the expectation of seizing such opportunities as might come along to overturn the election. Is that a crime? I don't care whether it is or not. I wouldn't vote for him again under any circumstances.
You didn't vote for him the first time. Another "Life Long Republican."
Hearsay is not generally admissible as evidence in court because it is deemed inherently unreliable and is not subject to cross examination.
Democrats have never been averse to either unreliable negative evidence or outright lies about people who are not Democrats (e.g., Kavanaugh). Similarly, they are not interested in deadbang reliable evidence of wrongdoing by Democrats (e.g., Hunter's laptop, Hillary's emails).
Re: ColoComment:
It seems to me that this hearing should be either (1) closed and then issue some kind of final report of its findings that might then be responded to or disputed, or (2) open to public scrutiny and subject to some degree of fairness and balance, including cross-examination.
I think you're making a sort of category error -- sure, to be fair maybe they should do X, Y, or Z, but this is literally just a congressional hearing, with no actual legal consequences beyond the risk of contempt of congress for lying or noncooperation. No one is going to be penalised as a direct result of the findings of the committee. Before any actual indictments or convictions or really, any penalties of any sort come into play, some entity that actually has that power and authority has to step in. At that point, procedural concerns make sense. But the immediate downside risk of this show trial is pretty much limited to public embarrassment, which is the point of a lot of public congressional hearings anyway. They try to do it to business executives all the time. This one is unusual only in that they're barely pretending this is part of their legislative or executive oversight functions, and are very obviously just trying to get dirt about Trump onto the evening news.
OK. Now do The Campaign to Discredit Donald Trump. It began when?
If people with arms were attending the rally where are the arms that belonged to the people who entered the Capitol?
So, LA Times, maybe you should try and validate her. You can't, because she's lying. Just like Christine Blasey-Ford and all the other "we got him now!" witnesses and stories.
Bombshell!
Explosive testimony!
Breaking!
The left sure do like overwrought WAR terminology.
Trump was always asking if he could do things and being told he couldn't. That doesn't mean he was seriously pressing for those things to be done.
He could have asked if he could go to the Capitol and been told that wasn't a good idea. That was a far cry from lunging for the steering wheel. He could also have asked if the metal detectors were really needed, and been told that they were and dropped the matter.
It wouldn't have been out of character for Trump to ask all kinds of questions like that, but there is, so far as I know, no proof that he did. Hutchinson could just have been repeating the rumors she heard.
She applied too much check color or blush, and false eyelashes as well, a technique used by Meghan Markle. Here’s another photo of the stark difference between her face and hand coloring. #nofilter
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/29/23188683/hutchinson-trump-republicans-january-6
"Trust but Verify" a wise man once said. Verify? What means this, verify?
"Hearsay is critically important in an investigation."
This isn't an investigation, it's a political show trial. The committee isn't going to bring in the Secret Service agents who say it didn't happen. They aren't going to call witnesses that actually have direct knowledge of what was the events that were testified to. They got their sound bites, that's all they wanted. Stop pretending this is actually a search for something even resembling the truth.
This isn't an investigation, it's a political show trial.
As stated by Cheney early on the only reason she has for participating is to make sure Trump never becomes POTUS again. That's all folks.
This pic of Hutchinson reminded me of a young Margot Kidder, circa “Sisters”. After that realization, my initial lizard-brained reaction was to flee…
Balfegor said...
Re: ColoComment:
I think you're making a sort of category error -- sure, to be fair maybe they should do X, Y, or Z, but this is literally just a congressional hearing, with no actual legal consequences beyond the risk of contempt of congress for lying or noncooperation. No one is going to be penalised as a direct result of the findings of the committee
*********************
Can the Committee recommend that Trump be charged based on its "evidence"?
A bracing tonic to jim69's nonsense:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/07/01/what-a-poor-justification-brit-hume-goes-scorched-earth-on-january-6-committee-hearings-and-their-defenders-and-just-wow/
I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides.
She discredited herself by lying in at least some of her testimony. I know she was only saying she heard that an event happened but just because you want to believe the worst about someone doesn't mean you get to make up obvious untruths about them.
"I haven't actually bothered to watch any of the J6 hearings, but my understanding is that the most sensational details of her testimony are all hearsay."
Hehehehe I didn't hear it but someone told me everything she said was hearsay hehehe classic
In other words, the story is always "Republicans pounce, seize, and weaponize."
The US media are as predictable as Pravda was.
" They are also arguing about minor points, like whether Trump grabbed at the steering wheel of The Beast."
We sure went from what was the BOMBSHELL to "minor points" in record time.
Believe all lying, self-promoters.
Is it wrong to confront the witnesses against you?
If the Democrats dont' like you, then of COURSE it is
See the new Biden Admin "Title IX rules" for sex crime investigations, and taking away the right of the accused to confront his accuser
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा