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

[Hutch Starskey]

And, of course, not embellished in any way to make it sound more dramatic in a casual conversation. For sure they knew they were going to be quoted in a hearing under oath, so they recounted to her the exact details of everything that happened. Of course, you can hear the sarcasm. Until they get the people who were actually in the car to testify, there's no good reason to believe it happened.

You have no way to determine what if any embellishments were made. There is no reason to have fabricated such a story.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no way to determine what if any embellishments were made. There is no reason to have fabricated such a story.

There are all kinds of reasons, turd. For one thing, she's selling a book.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You gloss over the part that it was in error.

Better to have actual physical witnesses of people who were at the SUV with Trump to testify but there is a reason why the Joke 6 committee isn't going to allow it.

Can you figure it out buttercup?

No doubt they should testify. All those resisting should testify.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then why is everyone making such a big deal about him being in an SUV? If he wasn't in the Beast, then the story she was told is that much more unlikely. This is the problem with hearsay, the details and the truth get lost very quickly.

The SUV was shown to be the vehicle used. The RW world immediately started trying to “debunk” this by claiming it is impossible in the limo.

I have no idea why it was characterized as “the beast”. It may just be used as a generic term among staff.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are all kinds of reasons, turd. For one thing, she's selling a book.

Uh huh. Felony Perjury is so with it.

 

[hadit]

You have no way to determine what if any embellishments were made. There is no reason to have fabricated such a story.

I'm not saying she fabricated anything. Even if she quoted what she heard word for word, I think she heard a story that was just that, a story, subject to embellishment for dramatic effect. She had no way of knowing that what she heard was true or not, and that's why such hearsay doesn't carry much weight in court. Until we hear from the people who were actually there, I don't think the event itself happened the way she told it.

"I heard my neighbor say he murdered his wife" won't get your neighbor convicted of murder. What it would likely prompt is, "We'll go ask your neighbor if he murdered his wife". Let's see if the kangaroo court will follow the logical path and have the SS agents at the scene testify about it. If they don't, I remain skeptical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How is that facilitation?

By removing the obstacle. Maybe you have a hard time with simple English words...?

By the way, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You embarrass yourself here because what YOU described is HEARSAY in this case probably DOUBLE hearsay since NONE of them are physical witnesses of the alleged events in a SUV not in the Beast as they erroneously claimed.



Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

LINK

bolding mine

===

Using your very lose interpretation, I can say you beat your wife every day in a drunken rage, I heard it during my prayers.

You have very low standards for determining what is real and valid.

This isn’t a court proceeding, dope. It’s a hearing. There is no such standard.
Nothing loose about my interpretation. It’s yours that’s shaky.

 

[hadit]

The SUV was shown to be the vehicle used. The RW world immediately started trying to “debunk” this by claiming it is impossible in the limo.

I have no idea why it was characterized as “the beast”. It may just be used as a generic term among staff.

No, the presidential limo is referred to as "the beast" because it is specifically hardened to withstand pretty much anything short of a massive bomb blast. Staff would not call generic vehicles "the beast". If she heard he was in "the beast" when he wasn't, it reduces the story's credibility.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

since NONE of them are physical witnesses of the alleged events in a SUV

Wrong as always.

Engle was in the SUV.

But you know nothing about any of this except for some blog headlines.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm not saying she fabricated anything. Even if she quoted what she heard word for word, I think she heard a story that was just that, a story, subject to embellishment for dramatic effect. She had no way of knowing that what she heard was true or not, and that's why such hearsay doesn't carry much weight in court. Until we hear from the people who were actually there, I don't think the event itself happened the way she told it.

"I heard my neighbor say he murdered his wife" won't get your neighbor convicted of murder. What it would likely prompt is, "We'll go ask your neighbor if he murdered his wife". Let's see if the kangaroo court will follow the logical path and have the SS agents at the scene testify about it. If they don't, I remain skeptical.

This isn’t court, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, the presidential limo is referred to as "the beast" because it is specifically hardened to withstand pretty much anything short of a massive bomb blast. Staff would not call generic vehicles "the beast". If she heard he was in "the beast" when he wasn't, it reduces the story's credibility.

Much like this post reduces your credibility.

 

[Lesh]

Every reporter from ABC to FOX are reporting the same thing. It's like having multiple witnesses to a murder. More witnesses, more credibility.

So please, don't bother.

They’re all reporting the same thing from the same anonymous “source”

 

[Lesh]

Didn't she swear under oath that she heard it happened in the Beast? If she did and TRUMP! wasn't in the Beast, then what she recounted is false and cannot be taken seriously.

Don’t know but she was recounting what she was told by Ornato. If Ornato mentioned the Beast then meh… or if she just assumed he was talking about the Beast and he never specified… again… meh

 

[Nostra]

The SUV was shown to be the vehicle used. The RW world immediately started trying to “debunk” this by claiming it is impossible in the limo.

I have no idea why it was characterized as “the beast”. It may just be used as a generic term among staff.

I heard a former SS Agent on the radio yesterday saying they never use the term "Beast", so she is lying when she claim's the agent said "Beast".

 

[bripat9643]

Uh huh. Felony Perjury is so with it.

That has never stopped any of those Washington cretins before.

 

[bripat9643]

This isn’t a court proceeding, dope. It’s a hearing. There is no such standard.
Nothing loose about my interpretation. It’s yours that’s shaky.

it's not even a hearing, turd. At a hearing, the accused is entitled to have his attorney representing him. Rules of evidence still apply. This is a farce.

 

[Lesh]

it's not even a hearing, turd. At a hearing, the accused is entitled to have his attorney representing him. Rules of evidence still apply. This is a farce.

A Gran Jury is a hearing numbnuts

 

[Faun]

Wrong. Pelosi and Schif for brains are the ones who need to answer that questions.

Nope, they can't speak for Trump's allies. They can only speak for themselves but they don't want to.

 

[Faun]

So you agree Trump never incited any insurrection.

Got it.

Never said that either. A pity you lack the ability to understand that.