January 6th Prosecution vs. Trump - Loving Updates

[BabyBoomer50s]

If you listen to some in this forum, he's unfairly prosecuting patriots because he's a corrupt power hungry mongrel

There's over 200 people currently on trial for their participation on January 6. Id say he's doing just fine.

Yes, I’ve seen those posts. I’m all for prosecuting the rioters. But I think many in this forum have been hoping for bigger fish. First degree Limo lunging perhaps.

 

[ll74]

Yes, I’ve seen those posts. I’m all for prosecuting the rioters. But I think many in this forum have been hoping for bigger fish. First degree Limo lunging perhaps.

If there's evidence of criminal offenses, then the committee should refer them to the DoJ.

What people hope for is irrelevant

 

[YDB95]

Is Eastman the mastermind and Trump just a patsy? Donald won’t like that.

I don't know who the mastermind was, but it sure as fuck wasn't Trump.

 

[Pad_Foot]

You mean some people are saying they think he knew, right?

There is a difference.

Dude! She heard that one personally!!

Why are you defending him?

The video shows HIM sitting way the fuck forward, but agreed, unless those in the car tell the truth. Hearsay

For them to say shit and be unwilling to testify ? That’s bullshit! She is suddenly believable!!

 

[Pad_Foot]

I don't know who the mastermind was, but it sure as fuck wasn't Trump.

They weren’t shy about the plan

This isn’t news except that all the “rumors” are confirmed

Does anyone doubt the GreenBay Sweep was shopped to them by those taking the 5th? Doesn’t matter. Trump played his part. They were just calling reps and senators during the insurrection instead of calling for help

Peter Navarro already blew his wad to try to cash in. “The Green Bay Sweep is Peter Navarro's name for a procedural strategy to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. He outlined the plot in a book published in November 2021 and spoke about it in multiple media interviews”

 

[rockcasbah]

Sounds like the armed insurrectionists foiled Trump’s electoral college political manouver to me.

 

[KeithD]

Sounds like the armed insurrectionists foiled Trump’s electoral college political manouver to me.

Only through blatant incompetence.

 

[rockcasbah]

Only through blatant incompetence.

Not criminal. Thanks for playing!

 

[KeithD]

Not criminal. Thanks for playing!

Yes it is, in multiple ways. Criminality does not hinge on just not being convicted for it yet.

It's amazing how you stupid fuckers cling to Trump no matter what rottenness is revealed. It's almost like there is no other person who can reflect your values like he does.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

lil lace rocksmoke clings to his betters.

 

[dmonty]

You need to broaden your resources. 1. She cited what she was told. Hearsay, but allowed in this case. If agents who were actually there testify otherwise then fine. 2. trump was not in the vehicle you posted a picture of.

again her Testi-lying specifically state he was in the "Beast" which is the specific vehicle pictured. And to date the Secret Service and the agents that were at the "scene" have come forward to rebut her lying. The whole reason they allowed her perjury to be entered into the record was that by allowing the Hearsay she cannot be held responsible for lying under oath. This was done purely for TV audiences to advance a political agenda narrative

 

[ll74]

again her Testi-lying specifically state he was in the "Beast" which is the specific vehicle pictured. And to date the Secret Service and the agents that were at the "scene" have come forward to rebut her lying. The whole reason they allowed her perjury to be entered into the record was that by allowing the Hearsay she cannot be held responsible for lying under oath. This was done purely for TV audiences to advance a political agenda narrative

She can absolutely be held accountable if found to be lying under oath....what a ridiculous statement

 

[KeithD]

Until others testify under oath, nothing they say or the Swiftboaters put out there means anything. Even then, some of those Trump got put on his security detail will lie--because they've lied for him before.

 

[ll74]

I believe if she truly was lying, Meadows would've already volunteered to testify under oath.

 

[butters]

her demeanour screamed honesty throughout her testimony.

that sort of composure in a 25 year old can only come from a certainty in their own mind that what they are relating is the whole truth. she had faith in her own testimony.

she wasn't struggling to 'find' more information to bolster her credibility, she wasn't wildly gesticulating or talking at a million miles per hour (doing a gym jordan), wasn't blustering or obfuscating.

 

[oggbashan]

And she wasn't lying. She was reporting what she was told. If that was wrong it doesn't mean she lied.

 

[KeithD]

her demeanour screamed honesty throughout her testimony.

that sort of composure in a 25 year old can only come from a certainty in their own mind that what they are relating is the whole truth. she had faith in her own testimony.

she wasn't struggling to 'find' more information to bolster her credibility, she wasn't wildly gesticulating or talking at a million miles per hour (doing a gym jordan), wasn't blustering or obfuscating.

Until/unless others go under oath to testify, her testimony holds. Nothing the board Trumpettes can do to undermine that.

 

[butters]

“It’s literally all hearsay evidence,” tweeted @JudiciaryGOP, a committee whose Republican members are led by Trump loyalist Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. “What a joke.”

they should know better. i'm sure they do, but the deliberate attempt to dismiss her testimony as 'literally all hearsay' is intended to confirm the maga belief system by playing on their ignorance of the legalities:

Hearsay Is Complicated

Hearsay isn’t the easiest legal concept to describe or understand. Technically, it’s an out-of-court statement offered as proof that the matter asserted is true (as opposed to the mere existence of the statement itself). The core issue is trustworthiness: an in-court statement relevant to litigation and made by someone who is speaking under oath is considered to be more trustworthy than a statement uttered outside of court and thus not subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. Consequently, the “hearsay rule” is one that generally excludes legally untrustworthy statements — but not all out-of-court statements — from being offered as evidence.

Accordingly, there are exemptions (things that the rules say are simply “not hearsay“) and exceptions (other carve-outs) in the federal rules of evidence, Harwin told Law&Crime. Regardless of the moniker applied, the courts who analyze these issues day-in and day-out under the aforementioned rules generally look for an indicia of trustworthiness in an out-of-court statement in order for a fact-finder (a judge or a jury) to consider it.

Examples of statements that are considered inherently trustworthy are present-sense impressions (“describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it”), an excited utterance (a “statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused”), and a “then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition,” which has an even broader definition:

The first issue with the GOP’s tweet is its wholesale approach to the testimony: “it’s literally all hearsay.” That’s not entirely accurate. While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are far more complicated than the all-or-nothing assertion made by the GOP’s tweet.

The second issue with the tweet is that Cassidy Hutchinson wasn’t testifying in a court of law. Therefore, the rules of evidence do not apply. Evidence rules apply to criminal and civil lawsuits tried before a judge and sometimes a jury. They do not apply to congressional hearings, which are fact-finding missions at their core. So, the hearsay assertion as applied to the Committee hearings is ultimately irrelevant. Trials are different. Trials assign legal blame in cases and controversies brought before a judge and assess punishments or damages. No legal jeopardy results directly from from a congressional hearing.

oh, there's plenty more, read for yourselves:
https://lawandcrime.com/jan-6-commi...arsay-evidence-the-truth-is-more-complicated/

 

[jomar]

again her Testi-lying specifically state he was in the "Beast" which is the specific vehicle pictured.

if she did she may have misspoke (don’t know the nickname for the suv).

And to date the Secret Service and the agents that were at the "scene" have come forward to rebut her lying.

She didn’t lie.

The whole reason they allowed her perjury to be entered into the record was that by allowing the Hearsay she cannot be held responsible for lying under oath.

Hearsay is not lying. How did she commit perjury?

This was done purely for TV audiences to advance a political agenda narrative

Feel free to think that.

 

[butters]

again her Testi-lying specifically state he was in the "Beast" which is the specific vehicle pictured. And to date the Secret Service and the agents that were at the "scene" have come forward to rebut her lying. The whole reason they allowed her perjury to be entered into the record was that by allowing the Hearsay she cannot be held responsible for lying under oath. This was done purely for TV audiences to advance a political agenda narrative

your understanding of 'hearsay' is flawed. i've posted a link that would be of help for you to read in order to gain a better understanding of the concept and its application in non-judiciary (and judiciary) settings.

basically, you're wrong. quelle surprise.

 

[butters]

questions now being raised over the Secret Service's response to the known threat on the morning of jan.6th with regards to other political figures than trump; protection for some but not for those trump didn't like? not doing their jobs properly:

Hutchinson said that Ornato, whom she described as "the conduit for security protocol between White House staff and the United States Secret Service," was aware of possible violence planned for Jan. 6 in the preceding days -- and alerted Meadows and Trump on the morning of Jan. 6.

Even with this information allegedly circulating among senior White House staff, the Secret Service ferried at least three of its protectees to travel to the Capitol -- Vice President Mike Pence, Second Lady Karen Pence, and incoming Vice President Kamala Harris, who was still a senator from California -- without supplementing their details with additional agents or coordinating with other agencies to shore up protection.

Secret Service officials have also said that local officials did not ask DHS to establish a special national security designation for the Jan. 6 sessions of Congress, so their hands were tied -- though Cohen said DHS and the Secret Service don't have to wait for local officials to reach out if they are aware of active threats.

Hutchinson's testimony indicated that the Secret Service either had advanced warning of the threats and failed to notify others and formulate an appropriate response plan -- or they were misled by White House officials who had a clearer understanding of the potential for violence and neglected to alert the appropriate agencies, Cohen said.

"These security lapses may not have been a result of incompetence, but instead due to deliberate actions taken by senior White House officials," Cohen said. "If this information was not provided to the Secret Service, or if it was and the Secret Service failed to expand security operations, that would be highly disconcerting."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=9f938c89f23f4e47b325578740964641

 

[KeithD]

It had already been reported that Trump had managed to politicize the Secret Service and questions were being raised on their intent to fully do their jobs in protecting the incoming president. Omato had already been caught in congressional testimony lying for Trump.

Trump's ongoing coup attempt has many facets. Any and all of them should have put him in prison by now.

 

[jaF0]

I've long had a plan to abolish the SS Executive Security detail. There have been too many security issues and instances of inappropriate coziness. Reassign all current agents to Treasury doing currency investigations like Treasury agents should be.

Either use DSS which is under State or create a hybrid detail of DSS and Military. In either case, the Command and Control would NOT be under the Executive and agents/soldiers/sailors/Marines would be rotated periodically to eliminate coziness and loyalties.

And there would be no charging the Government for them to live where necessary like EuroWhore did.

.

 

[icanhelp1]

again her Testi-lying specifically state he was in the "Beast" which is the specific vehicle pictured. And to date the Secret Service and the agents that were at the "scene" have come forward to rebut her lying. The whole reason they allowed her perjury to be entered into the record was that by allowing the Hearsay she cannot be held responsible for lying under oath. This was done purely for TV audiences to advance a political agenda narrative

If there had been cross examination of her testimony in real time she would have been blown out of the water. The commission would have been exposed for the biased kangaroo show trial it really is. It certainly would have left the american audience confused as to what is truth and what is bullshit. Pelosi doesn't want any negatives in her show trial.

 

[icanhelp1]

Until others testify under oath, nothing they say or the Swiftboaters put out there means anything. Even then, some of those Trump got put on his security detail will lie--because they've lied for him before.

OTHERS? How bout Nancy?