Jan 6 thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter altmin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 99
  • Views: 3K
ZenMode said:
It is likely that CH was telling the truth as she understood it or was told. The people who disputed her version of the the events declined to testify. The committee also, unless things have changed, declined to comment on the interviewing of those two people - Ornato and Engel. The committee also declined to subpoena the two people who disputed her story, right?
Click to expand...
i dont know and i dont' care. we know what happened and no amount of your bullshit can obscure that. whether cassidy hutchinson did or didn't tell the truth about an ancillary issue with barely any relevance matters not at all.

since you are so fond of rules of evidence, there's a principle called the collateral evidence rule. here it is:

extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness.

in other words, courts dont hear evidence that a witness is lying unless that lie directly bears on the case. if the witness testifies, "on wednesday, i ate mcdonalds for dinner. it made me sick so i stayed home from work. thats when i saw the people breaking into the house next door," the defense will not be permitted to prove that the witness actually ate burger king. it doesn't matter. unlike hearsay evidence rule, this rule is common sense and it applies almost everywhere.

so the collateral evidence rule would block that testimony. so hmm, maybe the committee was taking its job seriously. maybe you should learn more and bullshit less. it would not have helped the committee report to have people bickering over whether cassidy hutchinson did or didn't hear something that is of ultimately no bearing. basically, this sort of thing is the province of desperate defendants who realize the case is going against them and throw pasta and ketchup at the wall trying to make the witnesses look bad. it is ridiculous.
 

ZenMode said:
It is likely that CH was telling the truth as she understood it or was told. The people who disputed her version of the the events declined to testify. The committee also, unless things have changed, declined to comment on the interviewing of those two people - Ornato and Engel. The committee also declined to subpoena the two people who disputed her story, right?
Click to expand...
The 1/6 committee's interview with Ornato was made public in November 2022 so I'm not sure what you mean when you say the committee declined to comment. I assume the transcript speaks for itself.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
We’re not even going to come close to an agreement because you have an agenda to downplay what happened. I can’t help that.

And Roseanne Boyland died during the attack, not the next day.
Click to expand...
I forgot about Boyland. I would count her as a legitimate casualty of the riot along with Babbit. People who committed suicide and the two guys who had heart attacks/cardiac arrest, one before the Capitol was even breached, I wouldn't count as casualties of the riot.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Ok, since it was brought up, I'll acknowledge that, by definition, they did an investigation. Technically, anyone could conduct an investigation on anything.

The hearing was a made-for-tv event as evidenced by the fact that they allowed someone to testify about hearsay as though it was factual.
Click to expand...
The "made-for-tv" event was, in part, because the Trump Republicans elected to boycott the committee. Typically, there would be minority party members who would cross-examine witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson and emphasize the second-hand nature of the limo testimony. But the Trump Republicans decided to sit it out once Pelosi vetoed certain of their picks for the committee.

So yes, the committee's questioning and report was relatively one-sided. But the Trump Republicans have no one to blame but themselves because they knowingly refused to participate in the investigation. Compare this to the Warren commission, or the 9/11 commission, or any of the other bipartisan investigative commissions by Congress in the past.
 
superrific said:
i dont know and i dont' care. we know what happened and no amount of your bullshit can obscure that. whether cassidy hutchinson did or didn't tell the truth about an ancillary issue with barely any relevance matters not at all.

since you are so fond of rules of evidence, there's a principle called the collateral evidence rule. here it is:

extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness.

in other words, courts dont hear evidence that a witness is lying unless that lie directly bears on the case. if the witness testifies, "on wednesday, i ate mcdonalds for dinner. it made me sick so i stayed home from work. thats when i saw the people breaking into the house next door," the defense will not be permitted to prove that the witness actually ate burger king. it doesn't matter. unlike hearsay evidence rule, this rule is common sense and it applies almost everywhere.

so the collateral evidence rule would block that testimony. so hmm, maybe the committee was taking its job seriously. maybe you should learn more and bullshit less. it would not have helped the committee report to have people bickering over whether cassidy hutchinson did or didn't hear something that is of ultimately no bearing. basically, this sort of thing is the province of desperate defendants who realize the case is going against them and throw pasta and ketchup at the wall trying to make the witnesses look bad. it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I don't know the relevance of CH's testimony. Obviously Congressional hearings operate much more freely than a court. If charges would have been brought against Trump, I suspect a creative prosecutor could have found a use for that anecdote, but that's just speculation and not important now.

But, let's go with your claim that her testimony about the SUV is irrelevant. Why include it at all when you have conflicting testimony from 2 other people? Why not at least attempt to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty and mention the conflicting testimony? Why not subpoena one of them and ask them about it, again, if you want to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty? Even if CH and Engel or Ornata testified, there wouldn't be any bickering. For God's sake, it went on for a week and people don't testify at the same time. Put them on different days.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I don't know the relevance of CH's testimony. Obviously Congressional hearings operate much more freely than a court. If charges would have been brought against Trump, I suspect a creative prosecutor could have found a use for that anecdote, but that's just speculation and not important now.

But, let's go with your claim that her testimony about the SUV is irrelevant. Why include it at all when you have conflicting testimony from 2 other people? Why not at least attempt to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty and mention the conflicting testimony? Why not subpoena one of them and ask them about it, again, if you want to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty? Even if CH and Engel or Ornati testified, there wouldn't be any bickering. For God's sake, it went on for a week and people don't testify at the same time. Put them on different days.
Click to expand...
The relevance of CH's testimony concerns her 1st hand testimony and less so her 2nd hand testimony regarding Trump's behavior in the back of the SUV.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't know the relevance of CH's testimony. Obviously Congressional hearings operate much more freely than a court. If charges would have been brought against Trump, I suspect a creative prosecutor could have found a use for that anecdote, but that's just speculation and not important now.

But, let's go with your claim that her testimony about the SUV is irrelevant. Why include it at all when you have conflicting testimony from 2 other people? Why not at least attempt to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty and mention the conflicting testimony? Why not subpoena one of them and ask them about it, again, if you want to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty? Even if CH and Engel or Ornata testified, there wouldn't be any bickering. For God's sake, it went on for a week and people don't testify at the same time. Put them on different days.
Click to expand...
Assuming the committee had followed those suggestions, would that change the findings? Which ones do you refute and why?
 
ZenMode said:
Ok, since it was brought up, I'll acknowledge that, by definition, they did an investigation. Technically, anyone could conduct an investigation on anything.

The hearing was a made-for-tv event as evidenced by the fact that they allowed someone to testify about hearsay as though it was factual.
Click to expand...
nonsensical as happen when you try to defend the indefensible
 
ZenMode said:
I don't know the relevance of CH's testimony. Obviously Congressional hearings operate much more freely than a court. If charges would have been brought against Trump, I suspect a creative prosecutor could have found a use for that anecdote, but that's just speculation and not important now.

But, let's go with your claim that her testimony about the SUV is irrelevant. Why include it at all when you have conflicting testimony from 2 other people? Why not at least attempt to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty and mention the conflicting testimony? Why not subpoena one of them and ask them about it, again, if you want to maintain the appearance of impartiality and honesty? Even if CH and Engel or Ornata testified, there wouldn't be any bickering. For God's sake, it went on for a week and people don't testify at the same time. Put them on different days.
Click to expand...
in court, that testimony about the suv would be deemed relevant, though barely so. no creative prosecutor would find a use for that anecdote because it would be hearsay, which is not allowed in court.

i dont run congressional hearings. i wasn't there. i am not going to comment about the strategy, and neither should you. the committee did a fine job maintaining its impartiality. you can't take that much testimony without a few statements being questionable. its the nature of testimony.

note: the real story with ch was that her lawyer, paid by someone else (and he refused to tell her who), was urging her to give misleading testimony in order to protect other clients.
 
superrific said:
in court, that testimony about the suv would be deemed relevant, though barely so. no creative prosecutor would find a use for that anecdote because it would be hearsay, which is not allowed in court.

i dont run congressional hearings. i wasn't there. i am not going to comment about the strategy, and neither should you. the committee did a fine job maintaining its impartiality. you can't take that much testimony without a few statements being questionable. its the nature of testimony.

note: the real story with ch was that her lawyer, paid by someone else (and he refused to tell her who), was urging her to give misleading testimony in order to protect other clients.
Click to expand...
Well, it's hard to see or trust the impartiality when they apparently can't remain impartial on irrelevant details.
 
ZenMode said:
I forgot about Boyland. I would count her as a legitimate casualty of the riot along with Babbit. People who committed suicide and the two guys who had heart attacks/cardiac arrest, one before the Capitol was even breached, I wouldn't count as casualties of the riot.
Click to expand...
The officer who died from cardiac arrest didn’t have issues before the attack. He suffered two strokes the day after the attack on the Capitol.

And four other responding officers all committing suicide from days to a few months after the attacks sure seems like a pretty big coincidence to me.
 
My goodness. This is the discourse in this country- arguing the nature of January 6, something everyone witnessed live.

This is how Trump is elected. False narratives have become accepted truths and there are always sources, ridiculous to be sure, to support such narratives.
 
One more thing: the rise of minutia analysis has reduced discourse to a kindergarten level. So many focus on meaningless details in order to derail the discussion and, in their minds, reduce it to insignificance. It is the opposite of critical thinking, which is what MAGA wants.
 
You can run, but you can't hide....

Convicted Jan. 6 rioter arrested in Whistler, B.C., 4 years after U.S. Capitol was stormed

Antony Vo has been seeking asylum in Canada, hoping for pardon from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump

A man convicted and sentenced to nine months in jail for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was arrested in Whistler, B.C., four years to the day after the riot.

Rather than reporting to jail in the U.S., Antony Vo headed north to seek asylum in Canada.

He told CBC News last week that he was hoping U.S. president-elect Donald Trump would pardon him.

Trump has said he would pardon "a large portion" of those involved in the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top