A bad day for Trump
-
The only question have, at the moment, is this: Who saw Trump "assault" the security team? If the witness didn't see it, it's hearsay.
I don't dispute any of this, but, in a court of law, little of it would stand.
Oh, and it's Mulvaney saying this....
"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.
-
-
-
Love how everyone is going to their respecting boxing corners. Only flipped if it were Obama not Trump we’re talking about. Anyway…none of these allegations (under oath) surprise me but we need harder evidence to do anything about it. Will Trump testify under oath? That is the real question.
-
The abortion stuff must not be going as planned, since they had to bring in the steering wheel lie.
-
The abortion stuff must not be going as planned, since they had to bring in the steering wheel lie.
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
The abortion stuff must not be going as planned, since they had to bring in the steering wheel lie.
Love how you presume it’s a lie. Others presume it’s truth. Personally, I’m guessing the truth lives somewhere in the middle of it all.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
The abortion stuff must not be going as planned, since they had to bring in the steering wheel lie.
Love how you presume it’s a lie. Others presume it’s truth. Personally, I’m guessing the truth lives somewhere in the middle of it all.
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
Love how you presume it’s a lie. Others presume it’s truth. Personally, I’m guessing the truth lives somewhere in the middle of it all.
The two are not equally credible. One testifies under oath, the other does not.
You should give more credence to the one testifying under oath. And that’s even before considering the other’s well documented records of lying,
-
I believe the anecdote in question was hearsay. The under oath testimony was that she heard about it second hand. She is almost certainly telling the truth about hearing about this thing. According to the story Jolly posted, those in a position to testify about what actually happened, first hand, are willing to testify that the hearsay is fiction. If that happens, I will be satisfied that the story got invented or sensationalized. But YMMV.
-
At worst, he tried to grab for a steering wheel and slapped around a secret service agent a bit.
Doesn’t really register for me on the Trump shock-o-meter.
Agreed that the story was probably told to the lady under oath, but got exaggerated along the way.
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Oh, and it's Mulvaney saying this....
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Seems like he was once President Trumps "inner circle". Since he turned against him, he is no longer credible?
Add him to the list of other: Mattis, Barr, etc etc
-
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
Love how you presume it’s a lie. Others presume it’s truth. Personally, I’m guessing the truth lives somewhere in the middle of it all.
The two are not equally credible. One testifies under oath, the other does not.
You should give more credence to the one testifying under oath. And that’s even before considering the other’s well documented records of lying,
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
The two are not equally credible. One testifies under oath, the other does not.
Yes, and that's why, in a real court, such testimony would not be permitted. It is hearsay. She did not witness it. She was told it happened. Full Stop.
You should give more credence to the one testifying under oath.
And the director of the Secret Service, and the driver of "The Beast" are willing to do so, under oath. Would you care to speculate why they were not called?
And that’s even before considering the other’s well documented records of lying,
If only there were a thread about presidential lies....
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Depose the attorney. In a rational world, that's what would happen.
The attorney Eric Herschmann has testified before, maybe he will testify again. There is a physical piece of evidence with handwriting, confirming whose handwriting it is shouldn't be that hard. It stretches credulity to think that Hutchinson (or anyone in like circumstance) would testify that it's her handwriting on the note card and handed that piece of evidence to the committee if that's not her handwriting.
From the article linked by the tweet:
The Jan. 6 committee has repeatedly relied on Herschmann's candid and sometimes vulgar testimony throughout the hearings in June, including when the former White House lawyer testified that he shot down former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark's plan to overturn the 2020 election.
In any event, Herschmann does not dispute the statement on the note card, just that he thought he's the one who wrote it. Since according to Hutchinson the statement was dictated by Maedows, it is possible that more than one people we're taking notes at the time and both Hutchinson and Herschmann wrote down the same statement.
At this point, Hutchinson has provided physical evidence, Herschmann has not. Maybe he will, and we can evaluate that when Herschmann provides physical evidence too.
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Depose the attorney. In a rational world, that's what would happen.
The attorney Eric Herschmann has testified before, maybe he will testify again. There is a physical piece of evidence with handwriting, confirming whose handwriting it is shouldn't be that hard. It stretches credulity to think that Hutchinson (or anyone in like circumstance) would testify that it's her handwriting on the note card and handed that piece of evidence to the committee if that's not her handwriting.
From the article linked by the tweet:
The Jan. 6 committee has repeatedly relied on Herschmann's candid and sometimes vulgar testimony throughout the hearings in June, including when the former White House lawyer testified that he shot down former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark's plan to overturn the 2020 election.
In any event, Herschmann does not dispute the statement on the note card, just that he thought he's the one who wrote it. Since according to Hutchinson the statement was dictated by Maedows, it is possible that more than one people we're taking notes at the time and both Hutchinson and Herschmann wrote down the same statement.
At this point, Hutchinson has provided physical evidence, Herschmann has not. Maybe he will, and we can evaluate that when Herschmann provides physical evidence too.
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
In any event, Herschmann does not dispute the statement on the note card, just that he thought he's the one who wrote it.
In any event, someone is not telling the truth.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
