January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[jd7171]

I feel that this is a smear tactic against Hutchinson. These sources came out hours after she testified and not right away, then they say they're "prepared" to testify under oath. I have a hard time believing the committee would have her say this without verifying it. If it's not true, then they have to come forward and testify, until they do her word is to be believed.  Until otherwise proven.

[LBJer]

I feel that this is a smear tactic against Hutchinson. These sources came out hours after she testified and not right away, then they say they're "prepared" to testify under oath. I have a hard time believing the committee would have her say this without verifying it. If it's not true, then they have to come forward and testify, until they do her word is to be believed.  Until otherwise proven.

And even if they do testify it didn't happen, why does that mean they're the ones telling the truth? Particularly because, as you said, it's extremely hard to believe the committee wouldn't have verified this.  And what exactly does a "Secret Service official" (as the person telling the media these people are "prepared" to testify is being called) even mean?  Is this person the Secret Service's version of Jeffrey Clark?  

According to CNN, this supposed "official" says that the agents weren't even asked about the limo incident.  Utterly impossible to believe.

Maybe if they do testify, the committee will then release testimony they've already given that contradicts their new testimony.

[Inmate Trump]

The Secret Service will refute her testimony.  #Liar

One side is lying, the other is not.

One side is under oath, the other is not.

How are you deciding the side NOT under oath is the one telling the truth?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The stunt man Trump stuff was some of the most entertaining hearsay stuff ever. Of course her entire testimony was mostly hearsay.

[BlueSwan]

What incentive would this young woman have to lie under oath?

What incentive would this Trump appointee have to lie while not under oath?

Well, I know which of the two I am more inclined to believe.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The stunt man Trump stuff was some of the most entertaining hearsay stuff ever. Of course her entire testimony was mostly hearsay.

Learn what hearsay actually is and then come back.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1541904855295483917

[Hindsight was 2020]

Grumps you follow Posobiec on Twitter? You do realize he’s a white nationalist right?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/trump-plans-to-live-at-mar-a-lago-and-employ-some-current-aides?srnd=premium

Yeah she hated Trump.

So just come out and say it Grumps. Are you saying she perjured herself? Any particular reason or......?

If it's not perjury she's just spewing what she heard from so and so.  I wonder why she was considering going to Mar A Lago if Orange Man was that evil.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Secret Service will refute her testimony.  #Liar

One side is lying, the other is not.

One side is under oath, the other is not.

How are you deciding the side NOT under oath is the one telling the truth?

If the Secret Service even released a statement, not under oath, that it is true, I will believe them.  No doubt.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

[Inmate Trump]

Grumps, you're really reaching here.

I respect you more than Fuzzy because you at least seem somewhat reasonable some of the time. But c'mon, you're just making sh*t up at this point because you're desperate.

[Inmate Trump]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

[wbrocks67]

Let's be honest, why would she make this up? And in turn, why would he make this up to tell her this story?

It's more likely that any SS agents are likely trying to cover up for Trump.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

[Inmate Trump]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

But that's not the indictable part anyway, even apart from the fact that it's hearsay.  It's just a sensational anecdote.  The legal jeopardy for Trump lies in the fact that he knew there were armed people in the crowd and wanted to send/lead them to the Capitol anyway to interfere with the certification.  There was firsthand testimony to this effect.  That's the primary criminal case.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why are people pretending that the secret service is disputing this?  All we have is one anonymous source claiming that three agents would dispute this.  None of the three agents is willing to go under oath.  The anonymous source isn't willing to go under oath -- he's not even willing to reveal his name, so it could literally just be some guy.  The only secret service agent who's actually put his name out there disputing it is Engel.  And I promise you Engel won't go under oath to testify about this, because he's a Trump stooge.  Which means you basically just have to assume he's lying, just like the Trump stooges have been caught lying about this all along.  If you go back a year ago, Engel would probably tell you (not under oath) that he thought the crowd was all antifa.  Please stop letting Trump stooges control the conversation with stupid lies.  Either go under oath or GTFO.

[Sir Mohamed]

Let's be honest, why would she make this up? And in turn, why would he make this up to tell her this story?

It's more likely that any SS agents are likely trying to cover up for Trump.

Why would she make this up and make herself a target for the worst elements of society?

[Torie]

Let's be honest, why would she make this up? And in turn, why would he make this up to tell her this story?

It's more likely that any SS agents are likely trying to cover up for Trump.

Why would she make this up and make herself a target for the worst elements of society?

Yes, there is no motive for her to lie under oath on this matter as to just what the hearsay was that she was told. Trump trying to grab the wheel and grab the driver is not that an important a fact, given that his irrational all consuming rage and insane idea of entering the capitol to confront those counting the ballots is well documented from other evidence.

[wbrocks67]

Let's be honest, why would she make this up? And in turn, why would he make this up to tell her this story?

It's more likely that any SS agents are likely trying to cover up for Trump.

Why would she make this up and make herself a target for the worst elements of society?

exactly, and she's no Trump hater either. She was an intern for him in 2018 and moved all the way up to this position by 2020-2021. she doesn't have an axe to grind here.

[Torie]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/29/officials-disputed-cassidy-hutchinson-bombshell-testimony-were-trumps-yes-men-report/

[wbrocks67]

It's entirely possible that both sides are telling the truth here.  

Hutchinson did not testify that Trump *did* these things; she testifed that she was *told* he did these things.  This is the definition of hearsay, and yes, that part of her testimony *was* hearsay.  (Most of the rest of her testimony was not; testifying to discussions that an individual took part in or directly observed is by definition *not* hearsay.)

The statements from the USSS so far have been to the effect that the agents are willing to testify that Trump didn't do these things.  This is not incompatible with what Hutchinson testified.  It's entirely possible that Trump did not in fact do these things, or did something minor, and the agent embellished the story to Hutchinson.  The agents need to answer under oath not only whether Trump did those things, but whether the agent told Hutchinson they did.

The bolded part.

Grumps, read that dude. Then read it again.

If you want him indicted, this isn't the kind of testimony that's going to get you there.  "Someone told me" doesn't cut it.  Haul in the people who witnessed it.  Now I do believe he whipped some dinner plates around, but that's not a crime.  Using ketchup is.

You called Hutchinson a liar, when all she's guilty of is repeating what someone else told her. That doesn't make her a liar.

And I agree, bring in the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. At this point, her testimony is all we've got. An agent refuting it, not under oath, does not "trump" her testimony.

I did. I appear to be correct.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-white-house-attorney-disputes-cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

he can come and testify it under oath then.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To get a few things straightened out here, I'd like to put down what seems to be the narrative thus far:


The prelude to Jan 6

Trump is guilty of abusing the power of his office to try and overturn a Democratic election by pressuring and attacking governors, secretaries of state, and other various election officials all the way down to low-level elections workers.  That much is beyond any reasonable doubt.

The main question there is whether Trump legitimately believed that the country was in an electoral crisis and he had to act to rescue the republic, or whether he was just grasping at any straw available to him to try and strong-arm his way into a second term.  Republicans have been desperately clinging to the former argument as justification for his actions -- well, if you really believed that a great electoral fraud had been committed, wouldn't you do everything in your power to fight back against it?

I think the committee has done an excellent job thus far of demonstrating that

(A) Trump was told repeatedly, again and again, by everyone close to him, that these notions about the election being stolen were false.  He chose to stick with the Giuliani/Eastman/Ellis circle of BS, but even that crew didn't have a straight story for how the election was stolen.  They kept having to shift from story to story, including a ludicrous story about Italian satellites changing votes.  Their arguments were laughed out of courtrooms across America.

(B) Trump's team took actions indicating that they knew their stories were false.  That's why they had like six different plans for how to switch the results by hook or by crook.  Trump was calling up secretaries of state and demanding that they "find more votes for him."  He was trying to get votes for Biden thrown out.  They had this Ron Johnson scheme where they created fake slates of electors, lied to everyone about what they were doing with the affidavits, and then tried to get them submitted as legitimate electoral votes.  They had people hide inside federal buildings to try and change official documents!

(C) All the people involved in this scheme of BS knew that what they were doing was some illegal BS.  That's why they all were asking for pardons, not even after it was over, but pre-emptively.  Eastman's "I've decided I should be on the list of pardons" is a pretty damning quote.

Put these three things together and there's a pretty clear case that Trump did not actually see himself as some suffering hero trying to defend democracy by whatever means necessary.  He was trying to use whatever strongman tactics were available to him to try and get the election overturned and earn a second term, and all the BS claims about election fraud, or YouTube conspiracy videos, or Italian satellites, or whatever nonsense Rudy was spouting off about in court, was all just pettifoggery to create a means for Republicans to cast reasonable doubt on the election results and for Trump to use exactly the defense he has been using.  Everyone involved knew that it was just a pack of stupid lies, but Trump was willing to pretend to believe them so he could use them as justification for throwing out votes, switching electors, etc.


Jan 6 itself

Although Trump knew all the conspiracy theories about electoral fraud or whatever were BS, he legitimately believed that he could weasel his way into remaining president.  Either by "finding more votes", or throwing out votes cast for Biden, or invalidating the vote count in states that he lost, or invalidating the entire electoral vote count, or having Mike Pence declare that certain states had unclear electoral votes and could not be counted.  He knew that he didn't need the election to actually switch in his favor -- all he needed to do was give the Republican Party license to say that there was "too much confusion" or "the results were unclear", or that the constitutional process had been broken, so that the result of the election would be placed in the hands of bodies that were under Republican control -- ideally the Supreme Court.

Jan 6 was a key part of this plan, because there were two possible options.  The first would be for Mike Pence to somehow introduce separate slates of electors, or invalidate the Biden electors, thus preventing the electoral vote count from happening as described in Article II of the Constitution.  That would create a constitutional crisis that could easily end in the Supreme Court deciding 5-4 that Trump gets to stay president.  The second would be for the actual electoral vote count process to be disrupted such that it doesn't occur on January 6 as required by U.S. Code Title III Chapter I, thus raising a question of whether it was still possible to legally count electoral votes and again leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide what happens next.

The committee has already shown that Trump went to great lengths to pressure Mike Pence to go along with option 1, and was absolutely furious when he didn't.  The committee has also demonstrated that many close Trump associates -- Giuliani, Eastman, Stone, etc. -- were intricately involved in planning option 2, including conversations with leaders of the Proud Boys and other paramilitary groups.  The committee has also shown that those paramilitary groups had been working very hard to plan the attack on the Capitol.

The committee has not yet shown that Trump himself, or anyone closely connected to him, knew that there was a plan to violently attack the Capitol.  It seems totally implausible to think that they were talking to the Proud Boys just as a coincidence, but Trump's team could claim that they were just talking about the rally, and the plans for a violent attack were kept secret from them.  There are various damning quotes floating around the testimony about how someone "knew things would get violent", e.g. Mark Meadows quote yesterday that "things could get really bad on the 6th."  But we don't have that smoking gun yet of some Proud Boy testifying that he told Rudy he was going to shoot Mike Pence and Rudy said "yeah that sounds good."

However, the case the committee can prove is that once the attack on the Capitol started, Trump was happy for it and wanted it to continue.

To prove this, they will have to establish that (A) Trump was in favor of an attack on the Capitol, and (B) Trump refused to stop it because he wanted it to continue.

(A) has lots of evidence in its favor -- Trump wanted to lead the march to the Capitol, he knew they had weapons and wanted to let them in with those weapons because "they're not here to hurt me", etc. but we still don't have any smoking gun about Trump either wanting them to kill Mike Pence, or wanting them to violently break into the Capitol.  It could all just be a coincidence!  Maybe he just wanted them to go protest outside the Capitol so loudly and mightily that the Congressmen would change their mind and stop counting the electors.  That seems to be the main thing MAGA is arguing right now.

(B) will be hard to prove since anyone testifying to Trump's state of mind that day can just be accused of speculation.  We know he was furious about not being allowed to lead the march.  We have a couple different sources testifying that he said "good" when he heard that the crowd wanted to hang Mike Pence.  We have his tweet attacking Mike Pence while the attack was going on, which combined with his "let him hang" sentiment and the fact that Trump knew the crowd was armed, certainly seems damning.  But we need more testimony about why Trump didn't call off the attack, what other things he said and did that day, etc.