The Jan 6 Commission hearings

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
… While I have not been following the revelations in these hearings very pointedly, it strikes me that a lot of the discussion has been somewhat indirect and could perhaps even be called hearsay. Hutchinson relays an account of the limo ride and interaction between Trump and the Secret Service agents... but wasn't there herself.
Everything discussed thus far absolutely paints a damning portrait on criminal intent... but is a painting admissible evidence? ;)
For what it's worth, only Hutchinson's account of Trump grabbing the wheel of the limo and grabbing the neck of a Secret Service agent was second hand. During her testimony, she described how she heard about it while she was in the presence of two Secret Service agents who were there. They didn't deny it. We've certainly heard of Trump's volatile temper throughout his life. This was the most vivid detailing of it while he was in the White House.

These others were direct eyewitness accounts:
  • The events just before Trump's Ellipse speech, where he made it clear that he knew that people in the crowd were armed. He was furious when he learned that the Secret Service insisted on continued use of metal detectors to screen people as they entered. And he was furious when he learned that security reasons would prevent his accompanying the crowd to the Capitol.
  • Two conversations between Mark Meadows, her boss, and Pat Cipollone, White House council. One took place a few days before Jan. 6, when Trump made it clear he wanted to go to the Capitol with the crowd, despite the lack of proper security. And the other was about Cipollone's fear that if Trump led the crowd at the Capitol, he would be criminally implicated in a number of felonies.
  • Trump throwing plate with food & ketchup onto Oval Office dining room wall. Hutchinson heard the crash of the plate against the wall. She went to see what happened (her office was less than 5 seconds away) where she saw the shattered plate and the ketchup on the wall. As she grabbed a towel and helped clean up the mess, she was warned to stay away from Trump as he was in a foul mood. During her time in the White House, she commented there were several other times when Trump threw dishes and flipped the tablecloth in the dining room, breaking contents of the table, and scattering things everywhere. Everyone who worked there were aware of his 'foul moods'.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
For what it's worth, only Hutchinson's account of Trump grabbing the wheel of the limo and grabbing the neck of a Secret Service agent was second hand. During her testimony, she described how she heard about it while she was in the presence of two Secret Service agents who were there. They didn't deny it. We've certainly heard of Trump's volatile temper throughout his life. This was the most vivid detailing of it while he was in the White House.

These others were direct eyewitness accounts:
  • The events just before Trump's Ellipse speech, where he made it clear that he knew that people in the crowd were armed. He was furious when he learned that the Secret Service insisted on continued use of metal detectors to screen people as they entered. And he was furious when he learned that security reasons would prevent his accompanying the crowd to the Capitol.
  • Two conversations between Mark Meadows, her boss, and Pat Cipollone, White House council. One took place a few days before Jan. 6, when Trump made it clear he wanted to go to the Capitol with the crowd, despite the lack of proper security. And the other was about Cipollone's fear that if Trump led the crowd at the Capitol, he would be criminally implicated in a number of felonies.
  • Trump throwing plate with food & ketchup onto Oval Office dining room wall. Hutchinson heard the crash of the plate against the wall. She went to see what happened (her office was less than 5 seconds away) where she saw the shattered plate and the ketchup on the wall. As she grabbed a towel and helped clean up the mess, she was warned to stay away from Trump as he was in a foul mood. During her time in the White House, she commented there were several other times when Trump threw dishes and flipped the tablecloth in the dining room, breaking contents of the table, and scattering things everywhere. Everyone who worked there were aware of his 'foul moods'.
First, a couple disclaimers. I have not followed the hearings closely, and criminal law is not my area of practice.

You may know everything that follows already, so this post may not be especially informative.

One thing to keep in mind about second hand statements is that whether or not the statement is "hearsay" in a legal sense depends on what facts the statement purportedly supports. For example, I believe Hutchinson stated that Trump was told that some of the protestors were armed. If this statement were proffered as evidence that the protestors were in fact armed, it would be hearsay. However, if it were to be proffered as evidence showing that Trump had reason to think that the protestors were armed (e.g. to rebut a claim by Trump that he had no idea if the protestors were armed), it probably would not be hearsay.

Simplifying somewhat, if the fact in question is whether or not the other person made a certain statement, an eyewitness statement (under oath) "He said X" is not hearsay, whereas "He said X" would be hearsay if the issue is whether or not "X" is true.

In some cases it is possible to get these types of statements entered on the basis that they are not hearsay because they are probative of some issue other than the truth of "X." A great deal of time and energy may go into arguing that there is some reason other than the truth of X why the statement should be entered.

There are also numerous exceptions that often permit evidence that is hearsay to be entered (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803).

Assuming it's a jury trial, once the evidence is entered the jury can consider the evidence even if it's hearsay. In any given case, the jury may decide that hearsay is not persuasive (e.g. if it's contradicted by other solid evidence), but it still gets entered and considered.

Having said all that, I'm not sure what a judge would decide concerning the statements by Hutchinson that someone else said Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. For example, it might fall under the Rule 803(1) exception as a "present sense impression."

Also, at this point in time we really don't know what other evidence for or against Trump and his inner circle might come out, and we also don't know what (if any) charges might be brought. The steering wheel incident may turn out to be a tiny piece of the total picture.

Shifting gears somewhat, one thing that struck me about the testimony so far is that Trump's sole concern was clinging to power. Unless I missed it (which is quite possible), no witnesses have said anything about Trump being concerned about the well-being of the country, our democratic form of government, etc. i.e. nothing like "Rudy, your ideas appeal to me in some ways, but we really need to think about what is best for the country, and I have a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability while I am president, consistent with my oath of office. The well-being of our Constitutional system of government is much more important than me winning the election."

The hearings are, of course, one-sided but it's hard to believe that the witnesses thus far have been consistently lying under oath (Unless, of course, one is a Qanon type).

On a highly speculative and hypothetical note, I found myself wondering what would happen if Trump is indicted, and if the evidence is rock solid, and if Trump is facing serious jail time? (notice the three "ifs" I'm not saying this is going to happen). In this hypothetical, one of his only ways out is a presidential pardon. Would he run for office hoping to win so he can pardon himself, or would he switch and support DeSantis (or another Trumpy candidate) in hopes that DeSantis will win and pardon him? It's unclear if a President can pardon himself, but my money is on "he can't." Given the uncertainty of a self-pardon, Trump would be faced with 1) supporting someone else like DeSantis which goes completely against Trump's massively inflated ego, or 2) go all in on winning himself and granting a self-pardon. This is of course purely hypothetical, and I have no idea if DeSantis would grant a pardon, etc.

Of course, we can imagine scenarios that are even less appealing (e.g Trump is convicted and he incites a civil war in an effort to overthrow the government and his criminal convictions)(this seems uncomfortably plausible to me given what we've seen in the hearings thus far).
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
First, a couple disclaimers. I have not followed the hearings closely, and criminal law is not my area of practice.

You may know everything that follows already, so this post may not be especially informative.

One thing to keep in mind about second hand statements is that whether or not the statement is "hearsay" in a legal sense depends on what facts the statement purportedly supports. For example, I believe Hutchinson stated that Trump was told that some of the protestors were armed. If this statement were proffered as evidence that the protestors were in fact armed, it would be hearsay. However, if it were to be proffered as evidence showing that Trump had reason to think that the protestors were armed (e.g. to rebut a claim by Trump that he had no idea if the protestors were armed), it probably would not be hearsay.

Simplifying somewhat, if the fact in question is whether or not the other person made a certain statement, an eyewitness statement (under oath) "He said X" is not hearsay, whereas "He said X" would be hearsay if the issue is whether or not "X" is true.

In some cases it is possible to get these types of statements entered on the basis that they are not hearsay because they are probative of some issue other than the truth of "X." A great deal of time and energy may go into arguing that there is some reason other than the truth of X why the statement should be entered.

There are also numerous exceptions that often permit evidence that is hearsay to be entered (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803).

Assuming it's a jury trial, once the evidence is entered the jury can consider the evidence even if it's hearsay. In any given case, the jury may decide that hearsay is not persuasive (e.g. if it's contradicted by other solid evidence), but it still gets entered and considered.

Having said all that, I'm not sure what a judge would decide concerning the statements by Hutchinson that someone else said Trump tried to grab the steering wheel. For example, it might fall under the Rule 803(1) exception as a "present sense impression."

Also, at this point in time we really don't know what other evidence for or against Trump and his inner circle might come out, and we also don't know what (if any) charges might be brought. The steering wheel incident may turn out to be a tiny piece of the total picture.

Shifting gears somewhat, one thing that struck me about the testimony so far is that Trump's sole concern was clinging to power. Unless I missed it (which is quite possible), no witnesses have said anything about Trump being concerned about the well-being of the country, our democratic form of government, etc. i.e. nothing like "Rudy, your ideas appeal to me in some ways, but we really need to think about what is best for the country, and I have a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability while I am president, consistent with my oath of office. The well-being of our Constitutional system of government is much more important than me winning the election."

The hearings are, of course, one-sided but it's hard to believe that the witnesses thus far have been consistently lying under oath (Unless, of course, one is a Qanon type).

On a highly speculative and hypothetical note, I found myself wondering what would happen if Trump is indicted, and if the evidence is rock solid, and if Trump is facing serious jail time? (notice the three "ifs" I'm not saying this is going to happen). In this hypothetical, one of his only ways out is a presidential pardon. Would he run for office hoping to win so he can pardon himself, or would he switch and support DeSantis (or another Trumpy candidate) in hopes that DeSantis will win and pardon him? It's unclear if a President can pardon himself, but my money is on "he can't." Given the uncertainty of a self-pardon, Trump would be faced with 1) supporting someone else like DeSantis which goes completely against Trump's massively inflated ego, or 2) go all in on winning himself and granting a self-pardon. This is of course purely hypothetical, and I have no idea if DeSantis would grant a pardon, etc.

Of course, we can imagine scenarios that are even less appealing (e.g Trump is convicted and he incites a civil war in an effort to overthrow the government and his criminal convictions)(this seems uncomfortably plausible to me given what we've seen in the hearings thus far).
This is the long form of what I was suggesting.
I think there is too much we do not know, outside of the investigation. They could have the evidence they need, but feel they need to swing the public some prior to releasing it? Worse would be that there is no evidence. That we all know something went down that should absolutely be illegal is not the same.
*sighs
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
This is the long form of what I was suggesting.
I think there is too much we do not know, outside of the investigation. They could have the evidence they need, but feel they need to swing the public some prior to releasing it? Worse would be that there is no evidence. That we all know something went down that should absolutely be illegal is not the same.
*sighs
At the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, there are unknown unknowns (we don't know what we don't know). Nevertheless, the universe of plausible Trump excuses is shrinking. The biggest unknown to my mind is what evidence the DOJ has against Trump and his inner circle. This is what will determine if Trump and his inner circle end up at the greybar hotel.

This is just a guess, but the Trump inner circle could start to flip (if they haven't already) in an effort to cut a deal and reduce their sentences. For example, if you're Rudy Giuliani (78 years old) or Roger Stone (69) and you're facing a potential sentence of 20 years, taking a hit for Trump looks like a poor choice. The inner circle appears to be made up of craven opportunists, and I suspect a reduced sentence would be the better opportunity (Stone might actually be an exception in the sense that he might be flat out nuts).

A mountain of hard evidence would probably be required to convict Trump in a criminal trial, and a big wild card would be the jury. All it would take to avoid conviction is one die hard Trump worshipper on the jury who ignores all evidence. There are probably not a lot of hard core Trumpers in DC, so the defense would probably try to get the case moved, but the odds of success are probably close to zero.

It's hard to say what will happen legally, but the evidence that has come out already has been sufficient to further shrink his support in the world of conservative media.


>>>Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.<<<


>>>Shortly afterwards, she went to the office of the chief of staff, Meadows, and related Giuliani’s words. Meadows was quiet for a while. Finally, he answered, “There’s a lot going on Cass, but things might get real, real bad.”

They did. And Trump, who had tweeted that his supporters should come for a “wild” time in Washington, manifestly knew things might get real, real bad. Instead of trying to stop it, he willfully exacerbated the problem — and would apparently have made it worse still if the Secret Service had not been courageously insubordinate.

That’s what we learned today. Things will not be the same after this.<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
First, a couple disclaimers. I have not followed the hearings closely, and criminal law is not my area of practice.
Hey, I'm not even a lawyer. Nevertheless, thanks for your input.
One thing to keep in mind about second hand statements is that whether or not the statement is "hearsay" in a legal sense depends on what facts the statement purportedly supports. For example, I believe Hutchinson stated that Trump was told that some of the protestors were armed. If this statement were proffered as evidence that the protestors were in fact armed, it would be hearsay. However, if it were to be proffered as evidence showing that Trump had reason to think that the protestors were armed (e.g. to rebut a claim by Trump that he had no idea if the protestors were armed), it probably would not be hearsay.

Simplifying somewhat, if the fact in question is whether or not the other person made a certain statement, an eyewitness statement (under oath) "He said X" is not hearsay, whereas "He said X" would be hearsay if the issue is whether or not "X" is true.

In some cases it is possible to get these types of statements entered on the basis that they are not hearsay because they are probative of some issue other than the truth of "X." A great deal of time and energy may go into arguing that there is some reason other than the truth of X why the statement should be entered.
Thanks for those comments. At this point, it does seem important to understand what Trump understood to be true, and when he knew it. After Hutchinson's testimony, it does seem that Trump and all his surrounding henchmen & yes men already seemed to be aware that the crowd at the Ellipse speech was armed and that they were next going to the Capitol. It's as if it was all planned and expected.
Shifting gears somewhat, one thing that struck me about the testimony so far is that Trump's sole concern was clinging to power. Unless I missed it (which is quite possible), no witnesses have said anything about Trump being concerned about the well-being of the country, our democratic form of government, etc. i.e. nothing like "Rudy, your ideas appeal to me in some ways, but we really need to think about what is best for the country, and I have a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability while I am president, consistent with my oath of office. The well-being of our Constitutional system of government is much more important than me winning the election."
Nicely said. I've had such thoughts, but not expressed as well as yours. I believe that Rusty Bowers, the GOP speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives said something to that effect. That was a week ago on Tuesday. He testified how Trump had asked him to reconvene the State House to overturn the Arizona election results. He refused.
The hearings are, of course, one-sided but it's hard to believe that the witnesses thus far have been consistently lying under oath (Unless, of course, one is a Qanon type).
These hearings are not a trial, they're akin to a prosecutor's summary of witness testimony given under oath. Perhaps it's akin to a grand jury proceedings. It's also meant to inform the Dept. of Justice.

It is also becoming clear that these hearings are also an open request for more witnesses to come forth. Yesterday's hearing ending with info about some emails sent to potential witnesses that spoke of the loyal record of the witness – a thinly veiled threat to stay loyal or else! No names of email senders or recipients were mentioned, but it sure seemed like Cassidy Hutchinson had been one of those recipients. The Jan 6 Committee was clearly saying to potential witnesses who may feel intimidated, that witness tampering is a crime, and that the Committee might have more to say about such crimes in future hearings.
On a highly speculative and hypothetical note, I found myself wondering what would happen if Trump is indicted, and if the evidence is rock solid, and if Trump is facing serious jail time? (notice the three "ifs" I'm not saying this is going to happen). In this hypothetical, one of his only ways out is a presidential pardon. Would he run for office hoping to win so he can pardon himself, or would he switch and support DeSantis (or another Trumpy candidate) in hopes that DeSantis will win and pardon him? It's unclear if a President can pardon himself, but my money is on "he can't." Given the uncertainty of a self-pardon, Trump would be faced with 1) supporting someone else like DeSantis which goes completely against Trump's massively inflated ego, or 2) go all in on winning himself and granting a self-pardon. This is of course purely hypothetical, and I have no idea if DeSantis would grant a pardon, etc.
Interesting. Too bad we can't ask Gerald Ford what he now thinks about his 1974 pardon of Nixon.
Of course, we can imagine scenarios that are even less appealing (e.g Trump is convicted and he incites a civil war in an effort to overthrow the government and his criminal convictions)(this seems uncomfortably plausible to me given what we've seen in the hearings thus far).
At this point, I'd much rather see it with a more positive spin. I imagine Trump wearing an orange jump suit, in a federal prison. I conjure up an image of Ft. Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Some posters follow this play book and I've seen them all, except case 5 I think.
1656762983235.png
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Apparently that story of the secret service driver and Trump was going around right after the 6th by people who should know.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Apparently that story of the secret service driver and Trump was going around right after the 6th by people who should know.
Lying under oath has consequences, unless you're a Republican of course. Then anything goes. :rolleyes:
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Maddening. While not part of this, episode 2 of the new Star Trek series showed a film to this first contact world who has been fighting for centuries what happened on planet earth history. Started with Pence's hangman's noose.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Not lookin to good for Trump on today's hearing. Interesting parts on the lead up as well as the alterations he had made to his speech. Eeks. :confused:
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Lying under oath has consequences, unless you're a Republican of course. Then anything goes. :rolleyes:
Even when not under oath, making materially false statements (e.g. to an official of the federal government*) or concealing a material fact is a crime.


Note that it does apply to certain activities of the legislative branch:

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (emphasis added)

If you doubt that this law has teeth, just ask Martha Stewart :

>>>If you ask people why Martha Stewart went to jail, many will say insider trading. And if you ask others what crime Scooter Libby committed, most will say breaching national security by disclosing the name of a covert C.I.A. agent. In both instances, they would be wrong. While Stewart and Libby were investigated for those crimes, they were primarily convicted of making false statements to government agents, the same crime to which President Trump’s former campaign aide George Papadopoulos recently pled guilty. . . .

The primary difference between perjury and laws like 1001? Perjury comes with this pre-warning in the form of the oath to tell the truth. With 1001, there’s no such pre-warning. If two F.B.I. agents approach you and immediately start asking questions in a seemingly friendly, relaxed manner, your telling a lie can lead to 1001 charges. And the lie does not need to be overt or complex; it can sometimes be falsely denying something or intentionally creating a misimpression. The fact that your discussion is not under oath – and that the agents haven’t said that lying to them may be a crime – does not absolve you of a criminal violation.<<< (emphasis added)


Ignorance of this law is most certainly not bliss.

*Lying to a federal official or agency is typically how this comes up, but this is not required.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
one can only hope the fat orange haired clown gets criminally charged ...........:)
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Some posters follow this play book and I've seen them all, except case 5 I think.
View attachment 56722
Of these, I've heard versions of #1 frequently (not by people who post here). It tends to focus on the word "insurrection" and it goes something like this "The media keeps calling it an insurrection. If people were going to instigate an insurrection, they would have brought guns and shot people. The protestors didn't shoot anyone. It's ridiculous to call it an insurrection!"

The Federal crime of Rebellion or insurrection is defined as follows:

>>>18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.<<<


On one hand, as far as I know (after minimal investigation on my part), none of the people who stormed the Capitol Building on January 6 have been charged under this section. I'm not saying it wasn't an insurrection as the term is used in every day English, but the widespread use of this term in the media does unfortunately provide the Trump supporters with a diversion of sorts (i.e. argue about the meaning of the term "insurrection" rather than what the actions of those who stormed the Capital on January 6).

I have not reviewed the evidence in every case, but in the cases I did look at the DOJ had overwhelming hard evidence (e.g. footage from body cameras, footage from security cameras, etc.) showing the defendant attacking police officers, etc.

From a legal standpoint, it boils down to what each person did and the evidence presented by the DOJ to support the charges in each case.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Takeaways from the January 6 hearings day 8 - CNNPolitics
The past few days have seen some pretty eye-opening revelations, such as USSS members contacting family to say good-bye. Speaking of the USSS, I simply cannot believe the deletion of text messages from Jan 6/7 was inadvertent.

I implore Republicans to do some self-examination. Is this what you really want? Gaining and keeping power by any means? Look at what's happened in other democracies - India, Poland and Hungary. They have all been back-sliding into authoritarianism.

And, this isn't a "both-sides" argument. The Democrats aren't trying to rig elections and they aren't trying to restrict women's rights. You may not agree with some/all of their policies, but they aren't trying to steal elections.


You might say, "Sure, GO_NAD!, that's fine for you to say, but you're a biased "liberal". It may appear that way, but I am actually a non-partisan centrist and I have voted for all three of Canada's main political parties in various elections. From the outside looking in, it is clear to me that the current GOP forms a "clear and present danger" to the Republic.
 
Last edited:
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
Takeaways from the January 6 hearings day 8 - CNNPolitics
The past few days have seen some pretty eye-opening revelations, such as USSS members contacting family to say good-bye. Speaking of the USSS, I simply cannot believe the deletion of text messages from Jan 6/7 was inadvertent.

I implore Republicans to do some self-examination. Is this what you really want? Gaining and keeping power by any means? Look at what's happened in other democracies - India, Poland and Hungary. They have all been back-sliding into authoritarianism.

And, this isn't a "both-sides" argument. The Democrats aren't trying to rig elections and they aren't trying to restrict women's rights. You may not agree with some/all of their policies, but they aren't trying to steal elections.


You might say, "Sure, GO_NAD!, that's fine for you to say, but you're a biased "liberal". It may appear that way, but I am actually a non-partisan centrist and I have voted for all three of Canada's main political parties in various elections. From the outside looking in, it is clear to me that the current GOP forms a "clear and present danger" to the Republic.
I read you loud and clear, no question the GOP is not the party my father and grandfather once embraced or I for that matter but I suspect JFK is rolling in his grave with regards to the Democrats as well......
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Takeaways from the January 6 hearings day 8 - CNNPolitics
The past few days have seen some pretty eye-opening revelations, such as USSS members contacting family to say good-bye. Speaking of the USSS, I simply cannot believe the deletion of text messages from Jan 6/7 was inadvertent.

I implore Republicans to do some self-examination. Is this what you really want? Gaining and keeping power by any means? Look at what's happened in other democracies - India, Poland and Hungary. They have all been back-sliding into authoritarianism.

And, this isn't a "both-sides" argument. The Democrats aren't trying to rig elections and they aren't trying to restrict women's rights. You may not agree with some/all of their policies, but they aren't trying to steal elections.


You might say, "Sure, GO_NAD!, that's fine for you to say, but you're a biased "liberal". It may appear that way, but I am actually a non-partisan centrist and I have voted for all three of Canada's main political parties in various elections. From the outside looking in, it is clear to me that the current GOP forms a "clear and present danger" to the Republic.
GOP is no longer a normal center-right party like others Western ones but a far right one. I recall a poster branding the former conservative German Chancellor Merkel a “liberal” so you are in good company. ;)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top