ChiGoose

Actually, she heard the magnometer comment herself. So that is not hearsay. She stated under oath that multiple people told her that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. The next step would be to get that testimony from those people, like Mark Meadows. Unfortunately, Meadows won't testify because he is worried about perjuring himself.

Her testimony shows: Trump did not care if there were weapons in the crowd Trump wanted to be with the people marching on the Capitol You're right that neither of those things are a crime. You couldn't indict anyone on that. But you build a case through multiple witnesses and testimony. We had multiple people testifying in a previous hearing that Trump wanted to overturn the election and commit crimes. Hutchinson's testimony might be able to support other evidence and testimony, but I still think incitement is a steep hill for a prosecutor to climb. Everyone is playing the jump to conclusions game, here. Trump wanted the metal detectors at the ellipse removed and he wanted to be with the crowd marching on the Capitol. Those are important details. They are not nothing. But they're also not everything.

The Biden administration spent weeks publicizing intel about Russian movements and warning Ukraine about an imminent invasion even though Ukraine disagreed with the US position. That's a green light?

Personally, I think it's Putin's fault. But that's just me.

The idea that Russia only attacked Ukraine because it wanted to keep it out of NATO is just propaganda. Russia invaded Ukraine and has been occupying parts of it since 2014. Do you honestly believe they would have packed up and gone home if Ukraine and NATO agreed that Ukraine wouldn't join? Or do you think maybe they would have found another pretext?

$87,000,000,000: NATO's monthly budget $5,000,000,000: Monthly cost to grind the Russian army to shreds Sounds good to me.

I would think that the President of the United States trying to overturn an election based on debunked conspiracy theories is something worth wanting to know about. I would also think that seeing an entire political party swallow those lies and now campaign on them to ensure that they can overturn elections when they don’t like the outcome is newsworthy.

Hospital in Missouri no longer providing emergency contraceptives The silver lining here, is that their other hospital is in Kansas. So if you get raped in Kansas City, Missouri, you can still hop the border to get treated.

Even if you had a jury that didn't have Trump supporters on it, incitement to violence is a VERY difficult crime to prove. The overall difficulty with securing a guilty verdict against Trump is that many of the crimes you might charge him with are intent crimes. Juries can decide intent, but unless you have a smoking gun document, you better have a ton of circumstantial evidence of intent. For conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States, we have a mountain of sworn testimony and documentary evidence that Trump should have known that what he was doing was a crime. The evidence that he was intentionally setting the mob against the Capitol is much less overwhelming. There's certainly some evidence to support that claim, but a good defense attorney would be able to introduce enough doubt in the mind of the jury about the intent element that he could skate on that charge.

Incitement of the mob on Jan 6th is probably the hardest to prove and I'm not sure that there was an actionable duty for the president to make a statement to stop the violence once it started. That being said, even if we throw those out, there is ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes. Would love to see the DoJ actually *do* something about it, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

You are correct that, in a judicial proceeding, her testimony about the limo would not be admissible as it is hearsay without an exception. If they wanted that to come in, they would need testimony from someone who was there. The Secret Service has released a statement that they will respond directly to the testimony, so it'll be interesting what they have to say. Her testimony about what Trump said, such as removing the metal detectors, would be admissible in a case against Trump under rule 801(2)(a): Statement by a party opponent. One of the frustrating things for me about the hearings is that what gets picked up and sensationalized in the media isn't always the most important thing. We knew Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and the story about him throwing his food against the wall like a toddler may be funny, but it's hardly dispositive of anything other than his temper. I have not finished watching yesterday's hearing, but so far in these hearings we have had ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes but instead we are talking about this limo thing. It's a distraction.

Liz Cheney is not going to be president and she certainly is not a democrat. She’s doing what she believes is correct. There was an attempt to overthrow the results of an election and, unlike most members of her party, she thinks that’s a bad thing. However, she’s a Cheney, so however this ends up, she’ll be fine. The person we should be talking about is Adam Kinzinger. That guy has probably ended his career for this.

1. The only people who disagree with the direction the committee is going are the people who won’t testify or, if they do, just plead the fifth the entire time. That should tell you something. 2. It’s not hearsay. 3. Almost every witness has been a Republican. The only role Dems have played are opening statements, closing statements, and sometimes they ask questions. I’m actually shocked that anyone would put faith into people who only agree with them when there is no penalty for lying, but immediately change their tune when they could be in trouble if they lie. You and your far right radicals on this board are being hoodwinked by conmen. I feel bad for you.

With apologies to @DRsGhost who I know works very hard at this, but this might be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

I believe that she believes Trump lunged for the steering wheel I am skeptical as to the truth of this as I would assume Trump sits at the back, not next to the driver. Unless he reached past the driver with his tiny little hands. I believe that there were reports of AR-15s and other guns in the crowd. I honestly have no idea as to the truth here. Seems like an AR-15 would be a difficult weapon to hide and they are so prevalent in our minds right now so people might just assume they see one. Could have been the stock of a carbine or not a gun at all but something that looked like one. I haven't watched all of today's hearings but I would like to see a comparison between what was reported and what we have actual documentary evidence of. "Report of a man with a glock" is notable but very different from pictures or videos of someone with a glock or a confiscated glock. In any case, there were multiple reports of people in the crowd with guns, which is the fact she was testifying to. It's not hearsay because this is not a court or a judicial hearing. The rules of criminal procedure do not apply. However, if this were a court case against Trump: They would likely need testimony from someone inside the car to present that story to the jury Any testimony she had about what Trump actually said would be admissible as not hearsay under rule 801(2)(a) If the men in the beast are so sure, they should offer to testify with no strings attached. If the committee refuses, they should be criticized for it. Pretty sure Trump can handle that one all on his own. The purpose is to create a record of what led to the events on January 6th. Despite what many on this board seem to believe, this committee has no ability to indict or prosecute anybody.

When did I say I trusted it? I said that secondhand sworn testimony is more trustworthy than something people say in the media. If you had asked me, I'd say that I believe she believes she heard that, but not that I'd necessarily believe it was 100% accurate. I'd want more info from someone present who would testify under oath. Here is someone testifying under the penalty of perjury that she heard something. Was the thing that she heard actually true is another question. Maybe it happened. Maybe the guy telling her exaggerated. Maybe one person interpreted it one way and another did another way. I do not know. But what I do know is that people shooting their mouths off in the media are very difficult to believe over someone testifying under oath.

This story wasn't even in the testimony I was recapping. Can you actually read? I'm beginning to think you're a bot trying to emulate the dumbest human being alive.

You're so ***** dumb I'm amazed you're actually able to type on a keyboard. "Debate me bro" "I'll put out this bet and if some rando on the internet doesn't accept, that means they're a loser." JFC, get a damn life.

I literally said she heard it secondhand and then you say I missed that she heard it from someone else? Do you have reading comprehension problems? You act like there are all of these people chomping at the bit to testify that the Jan 6th committee is wrong, but actually they all fall into the following categories: Fight subpoenas Plead the 5th Make demands that they know an investigative body would never accept They know that people will eat it up when they talk to the media of the big bad Jan 6th committee but what they will never, ever, ever do, is actually testify under oath that what they are saying is true.

If I had a drink every time @Doc brought up a straw man, I'd have died a couple days after joining this board. If she lied under oath, those that know she lied should come testify to that effect. We are constantly demanding that everyone have an opinion about everything instantly all of the time about everything. She testified to a story under oath, but her testimony was secondhand. It should not be taken as an absolute fact. But because she was under oath, it should be given more weight than something said by someone who has no penalty for lying. I put my marker on "she is more believable than the keyboard warriors and media talking heads, but would be less believable than someone who witnessed it first hand also testifying under oath." Once again, if she lied, someone who was there should testify to that effect.

Serious delay on getting this together due to being very busy. I doubt many people care about this anyway, but I think it helps to document the actual evidence being presented. Will watch today's hearing over the next couple days and try to get notes up quicker. Despite the serious implications of this hearing, I don't have any takeaways other than the sheer scope of Gaetz's pardon request makes me wonder if he had *minor* concerns about legal exposure. RECAP: Eric Herschmann (WH Lawyer): Told Jeffrey Clark that Clark's plan to send a letter to Georgia about election fraud was a felony Matt Gaetz was looking for a very broad pardon: “from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things.” Jeffrey Rosen (Deputy AG and then Acting AG): Between December 23rd and Jan 3rd, Trump called or met with him almost every day to discuss election fraud Rosen told him their reviews did not find that to be the case. Trump asked him to seize voting machines and Rosen said they looked into them and there was nothing wrong. So it was not appropriate Told Trump that he would not meet with the people proposing the theory Italian satellites changed votes. If they had something, they could go to any FBI office if they had evidence Jeffrey Clark told Rosen that Trump had asked him to consider replacing Rosen. Rosen old Clark that he was making a colossal error in judgment and there was no factual basis for the fraud assertions Later, Clark told Rosen that Trump offered him Rosen's job and he accepted Rosen called Mark Meadows and said he needed to see Trump right away. Set uo a meeting in 2 hours Called WH General Counsel Pat Cipollone and told him what was going on. Cipollone would attend meeting and support DoJ position Asked OLC Head Steve Engel to come in to the meeting Asked Acting Deputy AG Richard Donoghue and his CoS to get the department senior leadership on a call and let them know what was going on Eric Herschmann called and said he was going and would support the DoJ position At the Jan 3rd meeting Clark said he would turn down the offer if Rosen signed the letter to Georgia saying the DoJ had concerns. Rosen refused Trump said Rosen wouldn’t do anything Rosen said the reason is that the facts and law are against Trump’s plan Richard Donoghue (Acting Deputy AG) After Barr’s resignation, Trump had an arsenal of allegations. Donoghue made it very clear to the president that based on actual investigations the fraud allegations had no merit Trump was fixated on election fraud claims. Donoghue told him that what people were telling Trump was not true and he could not rely on them Trump said he wanted them to say it was corrupt and leave the rest up to him and the GOP congressmen Clark sent Donoghue a letter he wanted him to sign stating that the DoJ had concerns about Georgia's election. The letter was contrary to the facts and the law. White House lawyer Pat Cipollone was supportive of the DoJ positions Clark and Kash Patel told him about the theory that Italian satellites changed vote tallies. It was "pure insanity." Trump said "You guys may not be following the internet the way I do." Donoghue held a call with the Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) about Clark replacing Rosen All of the AAGs said they would resign Donoghue told John Demers to stay on as he covered National Security and it was too important On Jan 3rd meeting: Clark wanted to conduct investigations that he believed would uncover fraud and send a letter to Georgia stating that the DoJ had concerns about their election Clark was not competent to serve Said to Clark: “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.” Pat Cipollone stated that Clarks’ letter is a mudar-suicide pact and we should have nothing to do with it Trump proposed replacing Jeff Rosen with Jeff Clark Trump said, "What do I have to lose?" Donoghue responded "You have a great deal to lose. You're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, he's never conducted a criminal investigation. He's telling you he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct a nationwide criminal investigation that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible, It's absurd. It's not going to happen and he's going to fail." Trump to Donoghue: "Suppose I replace Rosen with Clark, what would you do?" Donoghue: "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I am not working one minute for this guy." Donoghue told Trump that the AAGs would walk out. The entire leadership would resign within hours. "Mr. President, within 24, 48, 73 hours, you would have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the entire Justice Department leadership... what's that going to say about you?" Nobody in the room supported Clark. Trump asked Donoghue if he would fie Clark. Donoghue told Trump he didn't have the authority Trump asked who did. Donoghue told Trump that only Trump did. Trump said he would not fire Clark Donoghue said: "Ok, well we should all get back to work." Steve Engel (Head of the OLC): No reason to doubt Barr’s conclusion that there was no widespread fraud Trump sent a draft lawsuit for the DoJ to file Engel: There is no legal basis to bring this lawsuit… Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not know the law, much less the Supreme Court. At Jan 3rd meeting: Trump asked if Engel would resign if he replaced Rosen with Clark “I’ve been with you through four AGs but I couldn’t be part of this.” “All anyone is going to think is that you went through two AGs in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. The story is not going to be that the DoJ has found massive corruption that would change the result of the election, it’s going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark.” Cassidy Hutchinson (Mark Meadows' Aide): Matt Gaetz and Mo Brooks both wanted pardons Reps. Biggs, Gohmert, and Perry asked for a pardon Jim Jordan talked about getting a pardon but did not ask for one Jeff Clark video testimony: When asked about the letter and the plan, plead the fifth. Sidney Powell video testimony: Trump asked her to be special counsel for election issues Documents: White House call log on Jan 3rd already referred to Clark as AG

Is your argument that the committee is a sham because all of these Republicans, Trump employees, Trump appointees, and Trump supporters are lying?

How many people on this board keep espousing theories about the 2020 election that have been thoroughly debunked? The Left is not alone in its issues. The most vocal and powerful faction of the Right believes in outright lies.

Yes, but why acknowledge that when you can point to people on Twitter who are enjoying the limo story and make fun of them instead of recognizing that Trump is in serious legal jeopardy?

I never stated that I 100% believed her. She was clear that she heard the story secondhand. It should obviously be taken with a grain of salt. My point was that she was testifying under oath. The sources you are pointing out are not. This is a constant theme here: people who testify under oath are discarded for people who haven't or won't, because it fits the poster's political narrative. In any situation in which one person faces a penalty for lying and the other doesn't, there should be a rebuttable presumption that the first is more likely (though not necessarily) to be telling the truth. If the driver of the limo testifies under oath that it never happened, I would absolutely believe them over someone who heard the incident as a story from someone else. That just makes sense.