Text began coming in to Meadows on January 6th, begging trump to stop the Capitol attack

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So one scenario is they didn't bring them to the rally because of the magnetometers.

Another is that they brought rnem anyway and got them confiscated by police. As stated in testimony.

 

[struth]

A man already plead guilty to being at the rally, but outside of the magnetometers.

so not in the rally just near it

 

[berg80]

And when you “testify” as to testimony provided by others then it’s hearsay. That testimony is not proven fact and when you pass on what you heard, and in your case try to present as fact, then you are wrong in two ways including hearsay

Everyone understands there is a different evidentiary standard applying to hearings as opposed to a legal proceeding. Because something she testified to under oath may not be admissible in court doesn't make it untrue.

 

[berg80]

We know she lied once

No we don't. Try as you might to smear her, the testimony she gave was truthful as far as she knew. Don't forget she was an eyewitness to a lot of what she related.

 

[berg80]

gotcha so he didn’t actually go in

That's an immaterial point. Trump knew members of the mob were armed. Full stop.

 

[berg80]

It seems these folks rightly found Cassidy to be credible.

GOP megadonors turn on Trump after Jan. 6 hearings, set sights on DeSantis, Pence and other 2024 hopefuls

Republican megadonors are moving further away from Donald Trump and considering other potential 2024 contenders after the latest Jan. 6 hearings.

www.cnbc.com

 

[meaner gene]

oh so they didn’t actually go into the rally

They were at the rally, just not as close as those who went through the metal detectors.

Think of Trumps inauguration, how many people attended his inauguration, who weren't close enough to have to go through metal detectors?

Are you saying they didn't attend Trumps inauguration now?

 

[meaner gene]

gotcha so he didn’t actually go in

In is a relative term. It's like being at a concert, but in the bleachers, instead of on the floor close to the stage.

 

[WEATHER53]

Moron, it's not hearsay even there's first hand evidence corroborating the claim. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about, which is more apparent with every post you make.

If somebody tells you they saw something and then you pass those details on without having confirmed it yourself by seeing same yourself then you are gossiping or commiting hearsay. See I don’t have to curse, berate and name call because Im not upset about the flimsy reed I’m standing on.

 

[Chillicothe]

I hope the intermediary has testified to the committee as to who told him/her to call Cassidy.

I am keenly watching newsfeeds about this 'intimidation' story.
If it proves true, and if the DOJ brings an indictment against somebody....well, all of a sudden Trumpistan will be in DefCon4 whether they want to be or not.
Attempting to intimidate a federal witness will put the 'attempter' square in the bullseye.
And THAT can lead to fingering others.
This 'intimidation' story may have some real legs.
IMHO

--------------------------------------------------------

The right wing panic over her damning testimony is palpable.

I've read similar observations on this very forum.
It seems that that controlled and careful witness has drawn blood over there in QLoonistan. And the QLoons are awfully unhappy about it.

Look just at this thread....2,000 posts. That tells you there is panic amongst the RightyTighties.

IMHO


ps.....Don't we all want Pat Cipollone to come to the witness table with a sense of civic duty and a desire to be cooperative?

 

[struth]

In is a relative term. It's like being at a concert, but in the bleachers, instead of on the floor close to the stage.

or being at a basketball game, but not having a ticket and standing outside the stadium

 

[WEATHER53]

Perhaps it didn't inside the warm embrace of the right wing echo chamber of lies. Outside of it even Faux news talking heads were shocked.

Your impression of non reality

 

[struth]

They were at the rally, just not as close as those who went through the metal detectors.

Think of Trumps inauguration, how many people attended his inauguration, who weren't close enough to have to go through metal detectors?

Are you saying they didn't attend Trumps inauguration now?

sounds like they were near it, but not actually there

 

[WEATHER53]

Everyone understands there is a different evidentiary standard applying to hearings as opposed to a legal proceeding. Because something she testified to under oath may not be admissible in court doesn't make it untrue.

You are correct. It is not proven untrue; it is proven hearsay

 

[struth]

That's an immaterial point. Trump knew members of the mob were armed. Full stop.

there is no evidence of that

 

[WEATHER53]

Will pass the torch and let others do the battle with lib loons who are trying to redefine and mis apply the word hearsay

 

[meaner gene]

If somebody tells you they saw something and then you pass those details on without having confirmed it yourself by seeing same yourself then you are gossiping or commiting hearsay. See I don’t have to curse, berate and name call because Im not upset about the flimsy reed I’m standing on.

You do confuse part of it. The person isn't testifying as to what happened as a witness, but testifying what they were told by a witness. Hence what was witnessed becomes hearsay, but the conversation with the witness is direct evidence of their statement, but not to the truth of that statement.

Example, when police testified that Jussie Smolette told them he was attacked, was direct evidence of Jussie making the claim, not that his claim was truthful.

 

[meaner gene]

or being at a basketball game, but not having a ticket and standing outside the stadium

If the stadium didn't have walls, but instead just a fence, that might be the case. But walls did not separate those inside from outside the magnetometers. In fact someone "inside" the rally, could have been just a foot away from somebody "outside" the rally.

 

[struth]

You do confuse part of it. The person isn't testifying as to what happened as a witness, but testifying what they were told by a witness. Hence what was witnessed becomes hearsay, but the conversation with the witness is direct evidence of their statement, but not to the truth of that statement.

Example, when police testified that Jussie Smolette told them he was attacked, was direct evidence of Jussie making the claim, not that his claim was truthful.

so your saying Liz and Shifty weren’t offering anything she said in for the truth of it..

seems rather pointless

 

[struth]

If the stadium didn't have walls, but instead just a fence, that might be the case. But walls did not separate those inside from outside the magnetometers. In fact someone "inside" the rally, could have been just a foot away from somebody "outside" the rally.

glad you are admitting they weren’t at the rally