Sounds like a couple layers of 'hearsay' here today,

[elleng]

so I'm not surprised if there are disputes.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. SS agents in question are known trump loyalists from what I am seeing now.

And if they know they cant be contradicted by anyone in the vehicle, they will lie under oath for sure.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Yes. And at least on MSNBC pointed out that she did not say she heard or witness herself.

[elleng]

4. Right, perfect examples of HEARsay.

[Effete Snob]

3. It's not a trial

The committee already deposed Engel and Ornato.

[mchill]

5. But heard j6 questioned SS before

Cassidy told j6 about this. She was simply relating a story they told her. They either lied to her or they are covering for Trump now. Trump only had people loyal to him on his detail.

[Effete Snob]

6. Back up a step there, partner

"or they are covering for Trump now"

WTF are you talking about?

And if you are going to say something about what a secret service agent is saying today, I want you to:

Name the agent.

Quote what the agent said.

Provide a link to the source.

[rzemanfl]

7. Bookmarking. n/t

[Effete Snob]

8. Bet that bookmark is going to gather some dust

They are coming out of the woodwork tonight.

[rzemanfl]

13. 849 divided by almost 18 years suggests that. n/t

[Effete Snob]

14. Meh

For obvious reasons, that doesn't move me.

[mchill]

34. What is that suppose to mean?

I can’t believe all of the nastiness in here. For why?

Maybe posters were nicer here when I joined 18 years ago. Or maybe being old, going through cancer, has made me less patient.

[yorkster]

16. Per her testimony Tony Ornato told her what

happened in the SUV. Robert Engel, the agent who was allegedly grabbed by the throat by Trump. was in the room with Ornato and Ms. Hutchinson. In response to a question from Liz Cheney, the witness stated that Mr. Engel did not dispute what Ornato was describing.

What is needed is for the 2 of them to also testify under oath.

I saw this testimony and heard several discussions of it on both C N N and MSNBC, so recollections are pretty clear.

[Effete Snob]

17. "What is needed is for the 2 of them to also testify under oath"

They already did.

The J6 Committee has it.

Do you think they let Hutchinson go out and contradict the testimony they already gave?

[yorkster]

20. No I don't. Maybe there needs to be some

"fleshing out" with a 2nd round of testimony from Ornato and Engel.
Anyway I'm off to watch Lawrence O'donnell. Schiff will be on.

[Tomconroy]

18. She never said Trump grabbed anyone by the throat.

[yorkster]

22. Clavicle may have been the word.

And she put her hand to the bottom of her throat to demonstrate. She didn't say Trump choked him.

[Tomconroy]

23. No. She didn't do that. She said the SS guy pointed to his clavicle.

It may seem like I'm picking nits but RWers are calling her a liar so it's important to be exact about what she said. She never claimed trump assaulted anyone. Therefore denials that trump assaulted anyone are meaningless.
And yes, I used to do this for a living.

[yorkster]

24. I do realize that her testimony was about what

Ornato told her. And I know there are those who are trying to cast doubt on her testimony. I did think I saw her lightly touch the base of her neck. In any case, she made it quite clear that she was recounting Ornato's narrative as it was told to her. I found her quite credible.

OK, basta for me on this topic.

[yorkster]

25. Minor point, but she did touch her throat with her hand.

She said clavicle and placed her hand briefly at the base of her throat. I knew I had seen that and that excerpt from the testimony came up on my news feed, so I clicked and watched again and there it was.

Sorry to nitpick. I know this is a tiny part of a huge story.

[Tomconroy]

27. She did do that but she didn't say the SS guy touched his clavicle.

But you are right to point out her action.

[mchill]

30. Pieces of what I heard listening to MSNBC

CNN

First, Chemo destroyed my memory and I should really keep a notepad around. One thing I heard, Orneda, whatever his name is (I can’t remember names at all), who was promoted from SS to the WH is extremely loyal to Trump. I also heard he was the reason Pence did not get in the limo and leave the Capital on j6. OK, so maybe I can’t verify where I heard that but I trusted where I heard it at the time and if Pence doesn’t trust the guy with his life, why would that person not lie for Trump?

I had also heard that the J6 committee had questioned the Secret Service before they questioned Cassidy so they didn’t even know of the story and if they didn’t know the story and it actually happened why did they keep it from J6. Right? Seems like an important story to tell. You can believe that or you can believe she lied about it. I can’t imagine why it would be to her benefit to lie about something like this.

But given this whole story is based on hearsay to begin with, it personally bothers me it has been made into seemingly the biggest event of the day and I’m certain Trump supporters will make it the lynchpin of her believability if they can.

I may be totally wrong putting these pieces together but FWIW my first thought in who the secret witness was, was Cassidy, 7 hours before it was revealed by putting pieces together. I use to be an Investigator in a side job I had in a Fed agency. Constructing timelines, conducting interviews, establishing facts. Maybe my mind just goes to the possibilities naturally.

[Effete Snob]

9. But the prior SS testimony was CONSISTENT with Hutchinson

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2022, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

We've known for WEEKS what the committee was told by the Secret Service agent Engel:

June 8, 2022

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

Engel told Jan. 6 select committee investigators that the two men discussed Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic. Engel noted that they went back to the White House instead of heading to Capitol Hill. The contents of Engel’s testimony have not been previously reported. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi declined to comment.

----

Now, that description requires you to imagine driving a car with Trump "taking a different view" on where you should go, as if that was some sort of polite discussion.

Engel already testified that they disagreed on where to go. There is no way that Trump simply said "okay" and sat back.

[mchill]

31. I've been a member for oodles of years

Your comment is pretty rough. Is it really that difficult to be nice to a fellow Democrat?

[mchill]

33. I said they testified BEFORE Cassidy

Not what the testimony was.

I can’t believe the rudeness in this thread given what Carol Leonnig said to Rachel Maddow last night about Orneda and Trump’s SS detail.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

10. Popehat explains - using Gym Jordan for an example...

Link to tweet

Full thread:
Naw, man, only some of it is hearsay. Need help understanding the difference? I'm here to help you. I'm hoping to help you. /1
/2 So if a player comes up to you and says "hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead," that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out of court statement, it's something that person perceived.
/3 But if people came to you and said "hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams," that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements.
/4 Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said "I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'"
/5 That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump

[LetMyPeopleVote]

26. Legal expert uses OSU wrestling scandal to explain 'hearsay' to non-lawyer Jim Jordan

Gym Jordan went to a 4th or 5th tier law school and was too stupid to take the bar exam. This Exhange made me smile

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-hearsay-osu-wrestlerrs/

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote, "You might want to read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Her testimony regarding Trump’s statements would be admissible in a criminal case against Trump."

Link to tweet

.....Attorney Ken White, a partner at Brown, White & Osborn, who blogs under the popular "Popehat" handle on Twitter, brought up Jordan's OSU scandal while explaining hearsay to the non-lawyer.

"So if a player comes up to you and says 'hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead,' that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out-of-court statement, it's something that person perceived," White said, appearing to refer to allegations against Jordan by former OSU wrestler Tito Vazquez.

"But if people came to you and said 'hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams,' that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements," White explained.

"Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said 'I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'' That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump," White explained.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=Ae2-3Xr1j6KJGjn2tLwwhQ

I enjoy PopeHat's posts

[choie]

11. It's not a trial

it's a hearing. There's no rule against "hearsay"

[elleng]

12. Right, so

I'm not surprised if there are disputes.

[Effete Snob]

15. But there aren't any disputes

"Anonymous sources" are disputed her testimony.

[ArnoldLayne]

19. She testified today under oath in front of millions of people.

Those two SS Agent then need get their butts in front of the committee and do what Miss Hutchinson did today testify under oath.

[elleng]

21. Yes but they may have testified already; they provided depositions,

may have been under oath. I suspect we'll hear more about this.

[mchill]

32. Has it ever occurred to you they may not have been asked about what happened in the limousine?

Has it ever occurred to you they may not have been asked about what happened in the limousine?

Don’t ask, don’t tell.

[elleng]

35. Clearly the issue/question has only JUST arisen.

[Bucky]

28. Hutchinson's most damning statements are definitely hearsay, but

I'm certain this is why Cheney was trolling Cipollone two weeks ago to get him to come testify. They've been sitting on the Hutchinson testimony and probably she and Bennie Thompson just recently decided to pull the trigger. Hutchinson is a smoking gun. Getting Cipollone to verify her testimony will be the fingerprints.

[elleng]

29. Sounds good; been wondering 'why now.'