A bad day for Trump
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
This article breaks down various parts of Hutchinson's testimony, carefully classifying for which parts she testified as a direct witness and for which other parts she provided second hand recounting ("hearsay"), and calling out the significance of each:
It turns out for the most part she was a direct witness to events recounted in her testimony; only on the "Trump tried to grab the steering wheel" part did she recounted the event second hand.
Paywall...
I feel badly that Ax has more subscriptions than I do. That’s two times Ax has made me feel badly. I only made him feel badly once.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Secret Service Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato.
…This is <checks notes> hearsay, of course, but if it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for TNCR, right?
Hearsay under oath ≠ hearsay not under oath.
-
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
-
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
- Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
No, not specifically. However, there are two things that come into play.
-
She was inconsistent in her use of "The Beast" vs a Secret Service SUV. Which was it? Were you confused? Was the person who told you this confused? In either case, why should she be believed if she can't get her story straight as to where it happened, as told by a third party.
-
If her testimony can be countered by people who were there (i.e. the Secret Service agents), why believe anything else she said?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
- Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
No, not specifically.
OK, I will just wait until a falsehood has been established (if that ever happens) before going further with this line of inquiry.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
Now, quit the gags and stick to the subject.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
- Yes. If the Secret Service has notified the committee that agents will be happy to be sworn in to refute her testimony, I consider her to be lying.
- Weasel words.
-
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
You brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, and you look enough like a "slant-eyed bastard" as he termed most folks of Asian descent, that I doubt you'd have said boo-shit to the man.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, …
Of course not, you are the one who brought out Uncle Henry with a quote attributed to Uncle Henry. I asked an Uncle Henry question only after you brought out an Uncle Henry quote.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
This article breaks down various parts of Hutchinson's testimony, carefully classifying for which parts she testified as a direct witness and for which other parts she provided second hand recounting ("hearsay"), and calling out the significance of each:
It turns out for the most part she was a direct witness to events recounted in her testimony; only on the "Trump tried to grab the steering wheel" part did she recounted the event second hand.
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
Now, I figure if the woman would lie about something as easily discernable as people fighting over a steering wheel, the truth ain't in her.
How does your Uncle Henry’s wisdom affect your view of President Trump?
-
Fun with Jessie...
Link to video
-
Wasn’t Trump attacked by the left for not showing up at the Capitol when he told the protesters he would be?
-
As Greenwood says further down in the Tweet:
"It's literally impossible to count how many times during the Trump years some blockbuster! Russiagate event materialized - the thing that was going to be the fatal blow - and journalists spent all day on Twitter reflexively peddling it, only to watch it fall apart over and over."
THIS alone is why I don't believe any of this crap.
-
There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.
She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.
Just another ploy ginned up by this guy...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.
You keep repeating the falsehood that her testimony is “full of hearsay.” The fact is that her testimony has a lot more “direct witness” material than hearsay. E.g., among things recounted in her testimony:
-
Trump saying to remove the magnetometers and let armed protesters in … she’s a direct witness to Trump saying those things.
-
Then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s warning about the criminal liability leading up to Jan. 6 … she’s direct witness to Cipollone making the warning
-
Kevin McCarthy’s phone call to Hutchinson expressing surprise and anger that Trump said (while speaking to a crowd) that he was going to the Capitol and McCarthy telling the Trump team not to go to the Capitol … she’s direct witness and party to that phone call, McCarthy called her.
-
After the Capitol was breached, then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s angry reaction to Trump’s inaction, Cipollone’s verbalized worry about the Trump team being responsible for people dying as a result … she’s direct witness to Cipollone’s reactions and statements.
Itemizing the events recounted in her testimony (and the USA Today article I linked to earlier did that) and you would see that there are a lot more “direct witness” matters than “hearsay” in her testimony.
-
