If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The entire story about what happened in the motorcade was relayed to her by someone else. That is hearsay. She properly testified about other things she directly heard or saw, which is fine. But they kept weaving hearsay in and out of that stuff.

Hearsay is when the truth of the matter is asserted. This would not be hearsay. This is also not a court of law.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hearsay is when the truth of the matter is asserted. This would not be hearsay. This is also not a court of law.

You don't think she was relaying the information she got from someone else who hasn't testified to assert it as the truth of the matter?

I don't care if this isn't a court. It goes to what we should consider concrete evidence. And of course, the ultimate goal here is to lay out a case for charging certain people with crimes. To the extent some of the information she testified to secondhand would be relevant to those crimes, she would not be able to testify about them when it matters.

And generally, allowing her to testify to secondhand information so freely weakens the committee and makes it easier for opponents to criticize.

[Ksyrup]

I will say, it's amazing how many people who have been charged with crimes or who have turned on Trump, he barely knew. It's almost unbelievable!

[Swaggs]

I know that everything Trump related is unpredictable and chaotic, but, along with this testimony, it feels like the committee now just needs to prove that Trump knew that he did not win and still ordered against a peaceful transition of power. Maybe that filmmaker has that on video somewhere.

I have been sitting back wondering why Biden has not been more vocal in blaming some of the problems his presidency has encountered on the Trump administration not allowing for a peaceful transition. I hope that is something that the democrats start hammering on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You don't think she was relaying the information she got from someone else who hasn't testified to assert it as the truth of the matter?

I don't care if this isn't a court. It goes to what we should consider concrete evidence. And of course, the ultimate goal here is to lay out a case for charging certain people with crimes. To the extent some of the information she testified to secondhand would be relevant to those crimes, she would not be able to testify about them when it matters.

And generally, allowing her to testify to secondhand information so freely weakens the committee and makes it easier for opponents to criticize.

She is discussing conversations she was actually a participant in. Party admissions are exception to hearsay. Effect on listener statements are also not hearsay.

I'm sure there will be a million lawyers explaining this in much more detail when this is over since it appears that's the defense the GOP is going with. I would say they are lying, but seeing how bad Giuliani and Eastman were at their jobs, there is a good chance the party just doesn't have any competent lawyers.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

She is discussing conversations she was actually a participant in. Party admissions are exception to hearsay. Effect on listener statements are also not hearsay..

She testified to a conversation with someone who relayed a story with the intent to prove that what occurred in that story (the motorcade altercation) is true. That's hearsay.

[PilotMan]

"he thinks Mike deserves it and they aren't doing anything wrong."

[Ksyrup]

I'm not saying I don't believe that it occurred, and I want to see Trump prosecuted.

All I'm saying is that floating unsubstantiated "this guy told me about this terrible thing Trump did that I didn't personally witness" weakens the committee's effectiveness and provides ammo to the GOP to discount her as a witness because there's nothing to corroborate that story.

[Ksyrup]

If Engel testifies, then you've got something.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not saying I don't believe that it occurred, and I want to see Trump prosecuted.

All I'm saying is that floating unsubstantiated "this guy told me about this terrible thing Trump did that I didn't personally witness" weakens the committee's effectiveness and provides ammo to the GOP to discount her as a witness because there's nothing to corroborate that story.

I don't know why she would risk her life and freedom to lie about this stuff.

Anyway, if the people who were there want to repudiate it, I am certain the committee would be open to hearing from them.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I will say, it's amazing how many people who have been charged with crimes or who have turned on Trump, he barely knew. It's almost unbelievable!

Eastman appears to be the guy they want to be the scapegoat for this and Trump has already pulled the "I barely knew him" card on the attorney he worked with on a daily basis to try to overturn the election.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know why she would risk her life and freedom to lie about this stuff.

Anyway, if the people who were there want to repudiate it, I am certain the committee would be open to hearing from them.

Christine Blasey Ford tried this and you saw how far it got her. Remember when she was going to make millions? Anyway, what you said sounds just like it could have applied to another woman who risked her life and freedom to report something important. Point being I guess that opposition will do everything they can do to tear her down and render her as the problem not the other way around.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know why she would risk her life and freedom to lie about this stuff.

This is the point about hearsay - she doesn't need to be lying for it not to be true! That might very well have been the conversation she had with Engel or whoever the other guy was. But that story may not have been true. And it was offered here as evidence that the altercation actually happened. That's the whole point of the hearsay rule.

[Ksyrup]

All I'm saying is, her testimony on that particular issue should have been paired with corroborating testimony. And I'm guessing that to date, they don't have that, so they had her testify about hearsay which, if that's all there ever will be, would be inadmissible in a court.

[RainMaker]

It's not hearsay. You don't know what hearsay is.

[Galaril]

Hearsay or not the American people should here it all and make their own assumptions. I doubt Garland and Biden have the balls to have the DOJ doing anything criminally.

[RainMaker]

They subpoenaed all those other people. They decided to ignore it and the DoJ decided laws don't apply to certain people like them.

You can only present the testimony and evidence you have and let people decide.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not hearsay. You don't know what hearsay is.

It is hearsay.

I'm not saying they can't present it here, I'm talking about how it limits the effectiveness of the testimony when there's nothing else to corroborate it.

Even in a court, hearsay can be admissible. That doesn't change it from being hearsay, it just becomes admissible hearsay.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not hearsay. You don't know what hearsay is.

You realize he’s an attorney?

[PilotMan]

Do you think he cares?

[Ksyrup]

I think RainMaker and I actually agree, we're just explaining it from different angles.

I disagree with the blanket statement that it's not hearsay, but I agree that it may be admissible in court. It still goes to credibility if there's no corroboration. That's my point. Especially here, when the committee is already providing testimony with no cross-examination, relying on hearsay testimony can be dangerous and "under oath" only means so much.

If there's one thing I learned from my evidence professor in law school, it's that our system's hands are tied by people who are willing to perjure themselves.

And again, I'm not calling Hutchinson's testimony into question so much as I am the willingness to throw it out there without something more attached to it.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The one thing I don't like here is they are mixing in way too much hearsay and it weakens the testimony, IMO. She was privvy to direct conversations or overheard/saw certain things, but then she relays the story of Trump going after someone in the motorcade for refusing to let him go to the Capitol and she's relaying 100% hearsay. I don't doubt it's true, but there should be some corroboration (which I hope is coming) if they are going to have her testify about stuff like that.

Yeah I'm hoping the Committee has that testimony or now that they've seen her give it, people will come forward to testify. It would have made her testimony today more effective if the people in his car in the motorcade after his speech agreed with what she said happened.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You realize he’s an attorney?

So are they. It seems like the only thing that would be hearsay is the Secret Service car stuff.










[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So are they. It seems like the only thing that would be hearsay is the Secret Service car stuff.

And that's exactly the part I have been talking about.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Yeah I'm hoping the Committee has that testimony or now that they've seen her give it, people will come forward to testify. It would have made her testimony today more effective if the people in his car in the motorcade after his speech agreed with what she said happened.

Will they make Secret Service agents go on the record about their principles?

[Ksyrup]

As my boss said, "Trump claims he hardly knew who this woman was, but I've seen her. He definitely knew who she was."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And that's exactly the part I have been talking about.

Ok sorry, maybe my feed was behind.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I disagree with the blanket statement that it's not hearsay, but I agree that it may be admissible in court. It still goes to credibility if there's no corroboration. That's my point. Especially here, when the committee is already providing testimony with no cross-examination, relying on hearsay testimony can be dangerous and "under oath" only means so much.

I think the issue is that this is a unique case in that normally you would subpoena a witness and they would testify. Sure they could just take the 5th, but you would at least have them on the record.

It doesn't seem fair to hold them to the standards of a traditional court case when the justice system has decided certain individuals do not have to abide by the same laws as others in that system. Just feels like a weird space we're in.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Will they make Secret Service agents go on the record about their principles?

I think that is the issue here-as far as I know none of the people mentioned today have testified. They may think they have some kind of executive privilege not to do so, but not sure how that work with the Secret Service.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I think that is the issue here-as far as I know none of the people mentioned today have testified. They may think they have some kind of executive privilege not to do so, but not sure how that work with the Secret Service.

I don't know why Biden would block it under executive privilege. Seems like the next logical step is to question the secret service agents involved about what happened.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I think that is the issue here-as far as I know none of the people mentioned today have testified. They may think they have some kind of executive privilege not to do so, but not sure how that work with the Secret Service.

Well, there’s precedent. In 1998, three agents protecting President Bill Clinton were compelled to testify before a grand jury about the president’s affair with a young intern as he was being investigated by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

The Clinton administration fought the move for months — a fight that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Just four minutes before the scheduled testimony, then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist declined to stop it.

Who knows with this "Supreme Court"

[GrantDawg]

Basically, here is my answer. Agents were called to testify against Clinton. So, they can be compelled and there is precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...rvice-clinton/

[Thomkal]

Jake Tapper interviewed Senator Raskin after the hearing and said no one gave contradictory evidence to what Hutchinson testified happened in the motorcade, and that they interviewed the men involved, so there may be more testimony to come there

[GrantDawg]

(i think i did this correctly) pic.twitter.com/ZzTSlTNhMm

— Monica Lewinsky (she/her) (@MonicaLewinsky) June 28, 2022

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think RainMaker and I actually agree, we're just explaining it from different angles.

I disagree with the blanket statement that it's not hearsay, but I agree that it may be admissible in court. It still goes to credibility if there's no corroboration. That's my point. Especially here, when the committee is already providing testimony with no cross-examination, relying on hearsay testimony can be dangerous and "under oath" only means so much.

If there's one thing I learned from my evidence professor in law school, it's that our system's hands are tied by people who are willing to perjure themselves.

And again, I'm not calling Hutchinson's testimony into question so much as I am the willingness to throw it out there without something more attached to it.

If they haven't been able to get anything more attached to it, should they keep a lid on it?

Whether it's admissible in court is a decision to make when a criminal case is brought. Right now, it's important to get information out to the public.

[Ksyrup]

If they didn't have statements from Engel and the other guy locked down before they put her on live TV, they really screwed up. If they had corroboration before today, at least some of it should have been presented today. So either way, IMO, they didn't really handle that part of the testimony well.

[GrantDawg]

It would destroy Hutchinson's credibility. It would destroy the comitee credibility. It would basically really make this whole thing look like a political farce. You can't present one of the most damning allegation being made from a hearsay conversion without collaboration. I hope that report is wrong. It came from a NBC reporter.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

They did testify months ago. So I would hope the committee asked them about it.

Not sure why it would hurt Hutchinson's credibility. She is relaying a conversation and has no reason to lie. Maybe it would hurt Ornato who told her the story.

Either way, it would be a he said she said. She worked in that administration so is already suspect. But the secret service lie a lot so who knows what is credible.

[Ksyrup]

Presumably he/they would testify that the conversation never happened. Unless the story is, "Yeah I told her that but it was a lie."

[RainMaker]

Well they can do that under oath and help bring clarity to the situation.

[GrantDawg]

It hurts Hitchimson's credibility because she said it on a national stage. Sceptical people aren't going to accept "well technically she said HE said".... It will paint her whole testimony as deceptive. And it definitely destroys the credibility and the professionalism of the committee. How do they present this testimony when they haven't verified it?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

I think it adds to her credibility that she is willing to say this on a national stage and under oath. This is a person receiving death threats who just threw any future in that party away. I don't think she's any kind of hero or anything, but she was at least willing to speak while under oath.

On the other side, you have an anonymous source saying "nuh uh" to a reporter.

I think if her story is false, the people who know the truth should speak up and do so under oath for the country to hear. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping them from doing that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it adds to her credibility that she is willing to say this on a national stage and under oath. This is a person receiving death threats who just threw any future in that party away. I don't think she's any kind of hero or anything, but she was at least willing to speak while under oath.

On the other side, you have an anonymous source saying "nuh uh" to a reporter.

I think if her story is false, the people who know the truth should speak up and do so under oath for the country to hear. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping them from doing that.

We all hate Trump here but this is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately it looks like the committee screwed this part up and it will be used to detract from all the other damning parts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

We all hate Trump here but this is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately it looks like the committee screwed this part up and it will be used to detract from all the other damning parts.

What did they screw up? They sent subpoenas to people and those who chose to abide by the law followed them and those who didn't didn't.

They can only work with the people who are willing to talk to them.

[GrantDawg]

Personaly, I think it does as well Rainmaker. It was amazingly brave for her to come forward and face what is to come. I also have no doubt she believed what she said. That still doesn't take away how most people react to things like this. It will come down to the simplest translation: She said this happened. The people actually there say this didn't happened. Her testimony is then false. It doesn't matter that some else was the one that told her it happened. She should have never been asked to testify on something that she couldn't verify.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Who said it didn't happen under oath? I feel like I'm missing something here.

[GrantDawg]

Rainmaker, the agents are willing to testify, and Engel already has. Either the commitee didn't ask him about this, or he contradicted it and they had her testify anyway. I think the commitee hasn't asked him because the Reps I have seen comment on this have said they haven't seen any direct collaboration, and I don't believe they would have asked her to testify to this if he had already denied it.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Utlimately, she could be vindicated. But if they really didn't ask these 2 people about this incident (likely because they didn't know about it months ago) and they deny it happened, that is a huge unforced error by the committee. And it's not even the most relevant information/evidence of a crime. The other stuff is far more damning. But if her story about the motorcade or the ketchup on the wall are denied under oath, her credibility is shot. And for nothing other than great Twitter fodder for a couple days.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Rainmaker, the agents are willing to testify, and Engel already has. Either the commitee didn't ask him about this, or he contradicted it and they had her testify anyway. I think the commitee hasn't asked him because the Reps I have seen comment on this have said they haven't seen any direct collaboration, and I don't believe they would have asked her to testify to this if he had already denied it.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Did they say they are willing to testify? Where are you seeing this? I'm sure Engel, Ornato, or anyone else involved has the means to put out a statement saying this.

[GrantDawg]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...jan-6-hearings

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk