How much of this is hear-say? Originally Posted by ICU 812
Most of it but this isn't a trial where hear say is inadmissible. In this hearing you can say anything you want like "Tom told me" but if Tom isn't available to corroborate what you said, then it can't be used in an actual trial. I was planning on doing this in another thread but what the hell I'll do it here.
They had an unplanned Jan. 6th hearing today which turned out to be very interesting. They had one witness, 25 year old Cassidy Hutchinson, all 6 ' of her. She was the principle assistant to Mark Meadows, Trump's Chief of staff and her office was mere steps down the hall from the Oval office. After her testimony today which upset the hell out of Trump, he wrote on his own site that he didn't know her but had heard bad things about her. Typical, throw anybody and everybody under the bus even your own daughter if they say something Trump doesn't like.
This testimony today, painted Trump as the narcissistic asshole he is, which probably doesn't move the needle much for the DOJ since all of us already knew that but she went into detail like I have never heard before and I spend hours a day listening to this stuff.
This is what I thought were the highlights of her testimony.
One, that when Trump looked at the crowd gathering to hear him speak he noticed that there was lots of room left inside the security perimeter that the Secret Service had set up and he wanted to know why there weren't more people. He was told that the people with guns and to hear this testimony today, there were hundreds of people with guns including AR's, who didn't want to pass through the magnetometers and have to give up their weapons, so they chose to remain outside the perimeter.
Now get this, Trump told his security people to let them in even with their guns because "these are my people, they didn't come here to hurt me, so let them in". When his order was refused, he threw a hissy fit but it did no good. So as the prosecutors pointed out, here is evidence that Trump knew the crowd was armed but wanted them let into the area anyway.
Make of that what you want.
But the most fascinating part of the testimony was when Trump's speech was over and he had told his security people that he wanted to march to the capitol with his people, word came back from the capitol that it wasn't safe but Trump wanted to go any way. He was already in his vehicle "the Beast" by this time and the security people said they had to take Trump back to the White House for security reason."Fuck that Trump said, take me to the capitol". His security people said no, they were taking him back to the White House. This infuriated Trump and of course then came "I'm the President and I'm telling you to turn this car around" and he reached for the steering wheel to turn the car.
See, this is all hearsay because the woman giving this testimony was not in the car but people that were in the car told her this afterwards. So to make this testimony in a court of law, if they ever get that far, they will have to get this testimony from the people actually in the car that witnessed this. Now this is were it gets really interesting. When Trump grabbed the wheel, a security guy sitting next to him grabbed his arm and told Trump to remove his hand from the wheel! Can you imagine the balls that took? Then with Trumps other hand, he put it up to the guys throat and it wasn't clear what his words were at that point but they never turned that car around and by the time they got him back to the White House, he was so mad he didn't want to talk to anybody.
Then there were stories about the fits of anger he displayed which usually involved throwing things from dinner plates full of food to any thing he could get his hands on.
After the last hearing from 3 DOJ officials testifying that Trump tried coercing them into lying for him to this about his behavior, they are painting a much more detailed picture of what we already knew about this man BUT have they produced unlawful conduct that can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt?
And remember, there is no cross examination of any thing said in these hearings. We are getting only one side of the story not that the testimony of the 3DOJ officials could be impeached in my opinion but this is still an illegitimate hearing for that reason, no cross examination which is what I wrote before that it was funny every time the Chairman said "and without objection'....... Hell, there was no one there to object because the only two Republicans on the committee, were Trump haters from the jump. Neither one of them Chaney or Kinzinger, ever challenged a single word said in these hearings.
Just like dissecting Watergate. When John Dean heard about this surprise witness today he said "better be a big deal" referring to the testimony of Butterfield that told the world of the White House tapes.
This didn't do that in my opinion, but it sure was an insight into the inner workings of the Trump White House. I believe all of this makes DeSantis a stronger candidate. I hope I get the chance to vote for him.
