An editorial on the Jan 6th'd report.

No on both fronts. And there's zero room for equivocation there.

No on both fronts. And there's zero room for equivocation there. Originally Posted by HDGristle

No/Yes

J6 Stalinist Show Trial Committee delaying theatrical release of report because the stage is too crowded today, apparently

Pileup of Zelensky visit and omnibus risked overshadowing the report release, and was taking up most of Congress' bandwidth today, it seems.

would you feel better about it if i called her a milf cunt?


was it toxic rancor the press declared her secondhand testimony "BOMBSHELL" evidence? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'd refer you to legal terminology where you have direct witnesses and corroborating witnesses. There are those who were there and saw with their own eyes, and then they tell someone who recalls the story and corroborates that story. The timing becomes critical in this but, often times testimony that fluctuates for reasons like - money, influence, threats or other, can be held to be more believable when it's corroborated by other direct or indirect supporting person's.

Nobody saw the immaculate reception but it was Franco with the ball after the cameras stopped rolling and the rest of the audience corroborated the event.

I'd refer you to legal terminology where you have direct witnesses and corroborating witnesses. There are those who were there and saw with their own eyes, and then they tell someone who recalls the story and corroborates that story. The timing becomes critical in this but, often times testimony that fluctuates for reasons like - money, influence, threats or other, can be held to be more believable when it's corroborated by other direct or indirect supporting person's.

Nobody saw the immaculate reception but it was Franco with the ball after the cameras stopped rolling and the rest of the audience corroborated the event. Originally Posted by eyecu2

I'd refer you to legal terminology called hearsay

The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial. The rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent out-of-court, second hand statements from being used as evidence at trial given their potential unreliability.

This is because the usual level of scrutiny is lost with hearsay evidence as the maker of the statement is not at Court to be cross-examined and assessed by the jury.

I'd refer you to legal terminology called hearsay

The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial. The rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent out-of-court, second hand statements from being used as evidence at trial given their potential unreliability.

This is because the usual level of scrutiny is lost with hearsay evidence as the maker of the statement is not at Court to be cross-examined and assessed by the jury. Originally Posted by berryberry

Oh I agree that it's not the same as direct eyewitness testimony but to say it isn't effective or influential is just wrong. It is normally used to validate or provide context etc. when needed.

I'd refer you to legal terminology called hearsay

The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial. The rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent out-of-court, second hand statements from being used as evidence at trial given their potential unreliability.

This is because the usual level of scrutiny is lost with hearsay evidence as the maker of the statement is not at Court to be cross-examined and assessed by the jury. Originally Posted by berryberry

True that part of the testimony given could be classified as hearsay, but this is not a trial. I'm not seeing anything yet in the released report that she or anyone said that hasn't been corroborated. If there is, just provide the foot note# and I'll search.

True that part of the testimony given could be classified as hearsay, but this is not a trial. I'm not seeing anything yet in the released report that she or anyone said that hasn't been corroborated. If there is, just provide the foot note# and I'll search. Originally Posted by String Nutts

Hutchinson’s account Tuesday about a dramatic physical altercation between Trump and his top security official on Jan. 6 has come under intense scrutiny after sources told NBC News that two witnesses were prepared to testify under oath that it never happened.

AND

“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”

The pair of discrepancies have destroyed Hutchinson’s credibility

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...tiny-rcna35994

Hutchinson’s account Tuesday about a dramatic physical altercation between Trump and his top security official on Jan. 6 has come under intense scrutiny after sources told NBC News that two witnesses were prepared to testify under oath that it never happened.

AND

“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”

The pair of discrepancies have destroyed Hutchinson’s credibility

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...tiny-rcna35994 Originally Posted by berryberry

discrepancies? that's a little harsh don't ya think? let's call them ... lies.


bahahahahaaaaa

They have a copy. Where is CSI when you need them?

They have a copy. Where is CSI when you need them?



Originally Posted by String Nutts

do you really think the committee wants a hand writing analysis? of course not. but that's the problem with the whole thing isn't it? it was a manufactured spectacle designed to present a preformed narrative and had nothing to do with actual "fact finding".


otherwise the secret service who stated the "narrative", second hand at that, didn't happen and who said the agents who were there said they would testify. can't have that, can we?


even the FBI has said there was no planned insurrection.

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-...153636457.html


FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exc...es-2021-08-20/


5 minute read August 20, 20219:43 PM CDT
Last Updated a year ago

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources

so someone tell me what was the real purpose of this "committee"?

The two sources cited in the post above, are from 2021. The resulting inquiries from the January 6th committee would show that there are indeed a lot more facts, that implicate coordination. I'm not sure those dotted lines connect directly to trump, but it does show coordination and it has been since those reports that these folks like The oath keepers have gone to jail. When you state that there is no insurrection, that is not what that first link even shows. It says it does not show it's tied to Trump. More appropriatly it mean at the time of that article they had the ability to connect all the different communications.

Down playing what happened in January is the dumbest thing conservatives should do. They should just say those were bad actors and bad people. Making excuses for storming the capital is foolish.

The two sources cited in the post above, are from 2021. The resulting inquiries from the January 6th committee would show that there are indeed a lot more facts, that implicate coordination. I'm not sure those dotted lines connect directly to trump, but it does show coordination and it has been since those reports that these folks like The oath keepers have gone to jail. When you state that there is no insurrection, that is not what that first link even shows. It says it does not show it's tied to Trump. More appropriatly it mean at the time of that article they had the ability to connect all the different communications.

Down playing what happened in January is the dumbest thing conservatives should do. They should just say those were bad actors and bad people. Making excuses for storming the capital is foolish. Originally Posted by eyecu2

name one. the Oath Keepers? they had no impact at all. Ray Epps? tweets and posts on twitter and facebook? BLM and Antifa do the same.

who say's i'm downplaying it? it was stupid. it was not an insurrection. it was a riot. and in some cases it wasn't even that.

i'm sure you know that there are many documented examples of the capitol police allowing these "insurrectionists" into the Capitol building? so .. they were in on it? they coordinated it??

I'm not sure how or why the question of coordination has come up. I'm looking again at the Jan 6th executive report. I don't see where they are trying to prove coronation or the need to. I don't know of any testimony in this area at all.



I'll assume that you're saying that the lack of any proof is a get out of jail free card, but it's not.



As far as the real purpose, I believe this is the answer.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3233/text