Trump demanded Secret Service let rally attendees in with weapons

Didn't say it was all hearsay, but that part was

 

First off, that is not debunking... that is a challenge to who created evidence presented.

Second, why would a WH lawyer be writing a note on letterhead from the COS office? Much more logical it would come from her than him...

Third.... way to stay focused on the big ticket items....

 

Fair enough... that part was...

 

I am sure that a significant part of what she said was true, however, the followers have to keep their delusion intact and need to rationalize dismissing everything

 

Are you having trouble with simple words like "might have"? If you can't comprehend something as simple as that then any of the ramifications of hearsay testimony might be out your league of comprehension.

 

The limo part was, but I don't the mags/Trump wanting armed people part was. I'd have to go back and listen.

 

Take away all of your word salad and they are still guilty. Why don't you believe in the law?

 

It's not.... she said she personally (over)heard the essence of that conversation...

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

 

No
Do you think that what's it's there for?
It's there to find out how and why the insurrection on Jan. 6th happened.

 

She recounted being told a story. She didn't say :"I heard people saying that...". Legalese is weird, but that's not hearsay.

 

That's a very good point...

 

They need to ramp up their election rigging shenanigans. Next time they will instruct their ballot harvesters to leave their cell phones at home.

 

THIS Thread Is about TRUMP!
If one wants to talk about Unrelated BS "Whataboutism" invloving Waters, feel free to start another thread.
You're Welcome.

Anyway, back onto the actual topic,Trump and Jan. 6th:
I really don't think Trump survives this in terms of being a viable 2024 option for the GOP.

 

The credibility of the witness the OP is based on isn't looking so good.

THESE SHOW TRIALS AREN’T EVEN THAT GOOD A SHOW: Multiple Reporters: Secret Service to Dispute J6 Committee Star Witness.

Maybe you shouldn’t airball uncorroborated hearsay on national television?

​

"The January 6 Committee’s star witness’s testimony went up in flames almost as soon as she finished it. Mark Meadows’ former aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that someone told her “that as then-President Donald Trump was being driven back to the White House after the Jan. 6 rally that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol and tried to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent.”

So, the rational investigator then says "who was this Secret Service Agent? And takes their deposition." But is that what the J6 Clown Show did? Uh, why funny you should ask, there is no indication of that.

"The media and the left went insane with this news. Look at The New York Times."

​

CNN:



MSNBC:



They all knew it was hearsay, gossip, a rumor.

"The media, politicians who supposedly have law degrees, and the left going wild with Hutchinson’s hearsay epitomizes what is wrong with these fake hearings where there is no cross-examination."

 

This isn't a courtroom, and none of you Trumpers (including non-lawyer Gymnasium Jordan) understand the hearsay rule anyway.

There are a great number of exceptions to the hearsay rule---and you don't need to resort to application of the rule and the exceptions if you can assert that the supposed hearsay isn't being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Moreover, it doesn't apply to these proceedings anyway! If you've ever attended an arbitration proceeding, the rules of evidence, including the hearsay rule, are loose guidelines. An arbitrator will hear the evidence and give it the weight they think it deserves. Get over the stupid procedural arguments that don't apply and that you don't understand anyway.

 

Yep the steering wheel story is not the big story. It’s a sideshow.

 

But, you have to admit, it's perfectly in character with his angry mob boss image and it's fun to picture... which is why they included it...

Here's a semi-serious thought... Does T**** even know how to drive? Has anybody ever seen him drive a vehicle on a public road?

It's not a big deal, but it's interesting to contemplate a 76 yo man who's never driven a car...

 

What I understand is that the "proceedings" are political theatre designed to deflect from the piss poor performance of the Dems.and Joe Biden.

The only people that have mentioned a "hearsay rule" or a legal use of the term are the Dems posting in this thread. The word hearsay is part of the English language and can be used as part of the English language. Let me demonstrate. Let's say I claim I heard someone say you were a child molester. Is that hearsay and what "weight" do you suppose that statement should be given?

 

It would be but it has already been corrected by the secret service. It didn't happen.

 

Lying before th3e committee, unpunished; illegal seizure and search of an attorney's phone containing Constitutionally protect attorney client privacy, privelege. That's the totally lawless democrats just this week!

 

Under oath?

Still a great story... I'm sure any issues the SS has with her story are minor or interpretations... Or else the guy completely lied to her, for some reason..

Let me know when you find somebody willing to go under oath to contradict the big story of yesterday...

 

Ridiculous this thread has gone 15 pages ... and I have all but two of the Leftys on ignore! The Left, have is historically shown for desire a totalitarian government (which they always rule at gun point)

 

They agreed to testify under oath. We all know they won't be called to do that. She wasn't in the car. The secret service was. You have garbage testimony in a garbage witch hunt. The longer it goes, the worse it will be for democrats in my opinion.

 

That's a good way to prevent learning something. Good job!

 

Neither was the guy who told her the story... what do you suppose his motive was? Get some??