January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[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

he can come and testify it under oath then.

I agree.  He must.

[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.

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.

I agree.  He must.

And until he does, Hutchinson’s testimony is the best yet source we have.

[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

he can come and testify it under oath then.

I agree.  He must.

And until he does, Hutchinson’s testimony is the best yet source we have.

A flimsy source IMO.  But there's time.  Let's haul this guy in, the Secret Service in, hell bring them all in.  Then let's see what kind of hand they have to play with.

[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.

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.

I agree.  He must.

And until he does, Hutchinson’s testimony is the best yet source we have.

A flimsy source IMO.  But there's time.  Let's haul this guy in, the Secret Service in, hell bring them all in.  Then let's see what kind of hand they have to play with.

I’m good with that.

[Ferguson97]

It seems there are 3 possibilities to what happened

1. It didn't happen and Ornato lied to Hutchinson that it happened... for some reason.

2. It didn't happen. Ornato never lied to Hutchinson about it happening, and Hutchinson is completely making it up... for some reason... and perjuring herself before Congress at the age of 26.

3. It happened. Ornato told Hutchinson about it. And now Ornato and the secret service agents are lying about it not happening to cover up the incident.

All 3 options involve the people involved to act irrationally and against their own self-interest.

Very weird. I'd like to have Ornato and the agents testify to figure out more.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1542236709060067329

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

We now have multiple testimonies that indicate quite clearly that the President engaged in a seditious conspiracy to interrupt the regular functions of government and entrench himself in power by his proclaim action.


And you guys are sitting here arguing about the specific side details of a glorified secretary’s testimony?

Jesus this country is screwed.

[Torie]

It seems there are 3 possibilities to what happened

1. It didn't happen and Ornato lied to Hutchinson that it happened... for some reason.

2. It didn't happen. Ornato never lied to Hutchinson about it happening, and Hutchinson is completely making it up... for some reason... and perjuring herself before Congress at the age of 26.

3. It happened. Ornato told Hutchinson about it. And now Ornato and the secret service agents are lying about it not happening to cover up the incident.

All 3 options involve the people involved to act irrationally and against their own self-interest.

Very weird. I'd like to have Ornato and the agents testify to figure out more.

These two guys were themselves deposed. So were they asked about Trump's wandering hands? If not, that suggests Hutchinson had not yet been deposed. I suppose they could cover it up by now testifying under oath that they lied to Hutchinson to ingratiate themselves with her or something. It just makes no sense at all that Hutchinson made the whole thing up out of whole cloth as to what they told her.

Lying about hearsay is a close to bizarre situation.

The irrelevancy of who wrote the note should be clarified by a handwriting expert looking at the original of the note.

[emailking]

She's clearly not lying, but it's been a year and a half, she most likely doesn't remember his exact words, just the idea conveyed, which could be flawed because memory is very unreliable. He also doesn't remember exactly what he told her, and may have relayed inaccurate information to her, for the same reasons. It's entirely possible nobody is lying, or ever lied.

[Progressive Pessimist]

We now have multiple testimonies that indicate quite clearly that the President engaged in a seditious conspiracy to interrupt the regular functions of government and entrench himself in power by his proclaim action.


And you guys are sitting here arguing about the specific side details of a glorified secretary’s testimony?

Jesus this country is screwed.

You're totally right, this absolutely does not negate any of the actually important aspects of the scheme. But what it does do is muddy the waters and delegitimize both the witness and the committee, especially given the low attention span of the average American who may be casually paying attention as the hearings keep making headlines. So yes, the country is screwed because at least 45% of the country are incapable of understanding nuance or caring about anything other than what exclusively affects them.  

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1542280619039899653

The key question here is whether he will fight the subpoena.

[GeorgiaModerate]

...apparently not.

https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1542296315572678657

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

...apparently not.

https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1542296315572678657

Ohohoho…

Hopefully whatever he has to say will be damning enough to push this bs about the Secret Service agent out of the news cycle.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The more I think about it, the more the SUV dustup makes me convinced that the rest of Hutchinson’s testimony is true. If they were so quick to bring people out to testify under oath that Trump didn’t attack Engel, it raises the obvious question of why they haven’t done the same regarding any other part of what she said. Where’s Mark Meadows contradicting the idea that Trump endorsed the “hang Mike Pence” chants? Or the allegations that he knew the protesters were armed and was warned not to direct them to the Capitol?

[Torie]

The more I think about it, the more the SUV dustup makes me convinced that the rest of Hutchinson’s testimony is true. If they were so quick to bring people out to testify under oath that Trump didn’t attack Engel, it raises the obvious question of why they haven’t done the same regarding any other part of what she said. Where’s Mark Meadows contradicting the idea that Trump endorsed the “hang Mike Pence” chants? Or the allegations that he knew the protesters were armed and was warned not to direct them to the Capitol?

Meadows would contradict her in the press but refuse to testify?

The weird thing as noted is the contradiction in testimony on minor matters from those who have been deposed. For example on who wrote the note. Once the second person is deposed creating a dispute as to authorship, why wasn't that cleared up right then and there? Are you sure you wrote it rather than the other guy, Eric Herschmann, who says he wrote it? Are you sure it's your handwriting? And so forth. And if Hutchinson is firm about, get back to Eric who was/is a friendly witness.

Addendum. Below is an image of the note. If you had to guess, who do you think wrote it? I know I didn't write it. Non cursive handwriting is way too labor intensive. I have horizontal lines with occasional bumps in them.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Do you rubes not realize that you couldn't reach the steering wheel of a limo from the back seat if your life depends on if?

Maybe he has really long spaghetti arms...

[Continential]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1542120684679208960
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1542121339422646274

Politics in the 21st century, folks.

[LBJer]

The more I think about it, the more the SUV dustup makes me convinced that the rest of Hutchinson’s testimony is true. If they were so quick to bring people out to testify under oath that Trump didn’t attack Engel, it raises the obvious question of why they haven’t done the same regarding any other part of what she said. Where’s Mark Meadows contradicting the idea that Trump endorsed the “hang Mike Pence” chants? Or the allegations that he knew the protesters were armed and was warned not to direct them to the Capitol?

Meadows would contradict her in the press but refuse to testify?

That's actually not at all an unreasonable idea, because there are no penalties for lying in the press (unless libel is involved).  There are serious ones for lying under oath and/or in court proceedings.  This is why Giuliani, Powell etc. weren't telling judges  the same things they were saying in public during those sham court cases.  

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/status/1542120684679208960
https://twitter.com/status/1542121339422646274

Politics in the 21st century, folks.

Seems like these have disappeared.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1542391432303894530

[Continential]

https://twitter.com/status/1542120684679208960
https://twitter.com/status/1542121339422646274

Politics in the 21st century, folks.

Seems like these have disappeared.

fixed

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Just remember Trump is a 4 time criminal, he called Obama out on Birthurism being from Kenya not from HI and he had Don Jr meet with Russia oligarchy to get dirt on Hillary and no one but Mansfield and Cohen were convicted and he was impeached on denying aid to Ukraine also all the Rs have been criminals Reagan Iran Contra and Bush W outted a CIA Agent and of course Nixon

Trump pardoned Stone, the failure of Mueller probe was the inaction on Don Jr he could of charge, so Trump is a repeat offender

Scooter Libby was still charged and Don Jr still could of been charged but no question Mueller was scared to charge Don Jr because of Trump pardon power

[Torie]

Sure the Jan 6 hearings have high production values and cohesion. That would not have been possible if the committee members were not all of one mind. The same story would have been told but with disruption and disputation and leaks and so forth. But given the unanimous point of view, yes the committee made the most of it. The committee is also blessed with skillful presenters who are lawyers. Cheney and Schiff have been particularly good.

[LBJer]

But given the unanimous point of view, yes the committee made the most of it.

For a presentation of any type to have credibility, it cannot present a "point of view" that it simply factually wrong.  The 2020 election was legitimate, period.  To have people who deny this on the committee would be like a documentary about the Holocaust having David Duke and other neo-Nazis on it, or an astronomy program having creationists on it.  

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1542546816637468673