Comments posted organically
What to expect next after Hutchinsen's testimony

By islander
June 30, 2022 2:25 pm
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars


Cassidy Hutchinson’s sworn testimony was solid and damning against Trump. The evidence took us from “everyone knows that happened” (which isn’t actually admissible evidence) to a new understanding of what happened in the form of sworn eyewitness testimony.

It also showed gaps in what we know. For example, we learned that Trump told Meadows to talk to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn on the night of Jan. 5th. We learned that Mark Meadows was planning to go to the Willard ‘war room,’ but Hutchinson talked him out of going because it wouldn’t be appropriate.
It seems to me that the next tasks are to:

🔹get the other witnesses and corroborating evidence, and

🔹fill in the gaps of what we don’t know.

“Come on, Teri, surely there is enough evidence now to indict.”

Certainly, but only a fool would bring charges before learning the entire story.

It’s harder to defend against eyewitness testimony that is corroborated by the others who were there. We heard from one person who was in the room where it happened. Lots of other people were in the room where it happened.

Here’s the best thing that can happen after yesterday’s hearing: Other witnesses saw what Cassidy Hutchinson did, and their lawyers told them this: If you are part of the coverup, you can get in trouble. If you have no liability, you’d better get in line to tell the story.

If you have one witness telling the story, the right-wing will find ways to discredit it. But if other people (including defendants pleading guilty) come forward, all saying, “I heard the same thing. And here are my text messages corroborating my impressions at the time” it’s harder to discredit the story.

If I were prosecuting this (which would never happen because I made up my mind early on never to be a prosecutor 🙂 my goal, under the circumstances, would be to get as many witnesses and as much corroborating evidence as possible.

Witnesses who are reluctant because they are scared, or True Believers, or they want to protect Trump can be persuaded if prosecutors can present enough evidence to the witnesses to show that the prosecution already knows the whole story and can prove it in court.

Because the DOJ has (and will soon have more) electronic records that these witnesses tried to hide, it’s likely that the DOJ has corroborating evidence and can fill in the gaps.

Looking forward to the next hearing of the Jan 6 Committee !!! 🍻


Cited and related links:

  1. terikanefield.substack.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "What to expect next after Hutchinsen's testimony":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 2:47 pm

    Other witnesses saw what Cassidy Hutchinson did, and their lawyers told them this: If you are part of the coverup, you can get in trouble. If you have no liability, you’d better get in line to tell the story.

    Cassidy Hutchinson didn't see $hit.

    Well, she saw ketchup on the wall.

    Her testimony consisted of what she heard second or third hand...

    ...and, most dramatically, she heard third hand Trump dropping an eff-bomb while he was committing an act of violence...

    ...and has had her story called a lie.

    Were I on a Grand Jury hearing that testimony I'd snort. This was all gossip except for the part that is false gossip.

    What we should expect next is testimony from the people actually involved in the stuff Cassidy heard about second or third hand...if...effin IF...it really happened.


  2. by islander on June 30, 2022 3:01 pm
    Hate wrote: "Her testimony consisted of what she heard second or third hand..."

    Sadly for you, Hate, you only watched part of her testimony so you only know some of what she said.

    Teri and I, and the others who watch the entirety of these hearings know what the witnesses said.

    You don't.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 3:05 pm
    Do you know who is on record corroborating Hutchinson's testimony? Donald Trump.

    Hutchinson said that when Trump was told that some of his supporters were armed, he said, "I don't F'ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the F'ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the F'ing mags away."

    We've heard the following before, and it seemed like a banal comment at the time, but when Trump was giving his Ellipse speech, he is practically begging his armed supporters to be allowed past the magnatometers so his immediate audience would look larger on camera. We didn't know at the time that the Proud Boys and others were packing and that security was warning and worried about it.

    Media will not show the magnitude of this crowd. Even I, when I turned on today, I looked, and I saw thousands of people here. But you don't see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don't want to show that.

    We have hundreds of thousands of people here and I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media...

    And I'd love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed. The military, the secret service. And we want to thank you and the police law enforcement. Great. You're doing a great job. But I'd love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. Is that possible? Can you just let [them] come up, please?

    npr.org


  4. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:19 pm

    isle,

    Actually, I went back and watched almost all of it.

    I heard, of course, about Trump dropping an eff-bomb in the beast which all people in the Beast deny.

    And there was a lot of, "My impression was..." and "He said something to the effect..." And, "I saw ketchup on the wall."

    Go through the testimony. It's on YouTube. Count all the times she spoke to Trump or he spoke to her. Ahhh, don't waste your time.

    She established nuthin.

    Her testimony told the Committee who to talk to and what to talk about.

    That's it.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:23 pm

    Curt,

    "Hutchinson said that when Trump was told that some of his supporters were armed, he said, "I don't F'ing care that they have weapons..."

    I'm not sure you can get a conviction out of that...on Trump, anyway.

    But, I'm not sure. Did Trump say that to her. Or, did someone tell her Trump said that?


  6. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 3:34 pm
    HtS,
    You couldn't be more mistaken in your impression. An impression that you got from the Trump toadies' talking points.

    The night before she testified I posted here that she would have the proverbial fly-on-the-wall perspective of what was happening in and around the Oval Office.

    Being a staffer who had a office between Trump's and Mark Meadows, she was in the room or within earshot of many presidential conversations and tirades. I gave a few examples of events and exchanges of which Hutchinson had direct knowledge. See the link below.
    selectsmart.com


  7. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:42 pm

    The night before she testified I posted here that she would have the proverbial fly-on-the-wall perspective of what was happening in and around the Oval Office.

    You were wrong. Fly on the wall on the room two rooms over, maybe.

    There's nuthin here that could lead to an indictment.

    I thought that she gave nice evidence that Trump’s an SOB...until the Secret Service agents said that she's full of it.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 3:52 pm
    HtS,
    We have not heard from the Secret Service agents on this matter. They certainly didn't say Hutchinson is "full of it".

    The closest you have is an anonymous "source close to the Secret Service" claiming that Engel and driver would testify under oath (but they haven't) that they were not assaulted (not that Hutchinson said that they were). I stand by my prediction that Engel and Ornato never will testify under oath about that.

    Incidentally, that's an example of hearsay.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:06 pm

    Bullfernerner, Curt!

    🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel. -Peter Alexander, NBC

    You are such a Good German.


  10. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:10 pm

    A source close to the Secret Service says both men dispute Trump grabbed the steering wheel or assaulted an agent. They do not deny that Trump was irate and demanded they drive to the Capitol.


  11. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 4:20 pm
    HtS,
    So you want to debunk what Hutchinson said as hearsay by providing four layers of hearsay in response?

    Peter Alexander's hearsay of the
    hearsay of an anonymous "source close to the Secret Service" of their
    hearsay from unnamed Secret Service personnel who
    supposedly heard Engel and the driver "would" testify under oath (although they haven't) What, no Ornato under oath?


  12. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:29 pm

    Curt,

    I don't want to debunk Ms Hutchinson's hearsay. I want people to understand that it is hearsay...and, much of it weak. "My impression was..." "He said something to the effect."

    Peter Alexander is a reporter of some repute. My judgment is that it's likely that his account will prove to be accurate.


  13. by Curt_Anderson on June 30, 2022 4:40 pm
    To use a phrase such as "he said something to the effect" or "I paraphrase" is an example of being a credible and careful observer. People frequently don't remember word-for-word what was said, but the recall the gist of it.


  14. by Donna on June 30, 2022 4:48 pm
    I agree with Curt's prediction that neither Engel nor Ornato will testify under oath.

    It's absurd to believe that Cassidy Hutchinson is lying. She is/was a MAGA and she has nothing to gain by lying. It's just wishful thinking on the part of her detractors that she's lying, and frankly it's bizarre that anyone but Trump and his accomplices would wish for that.


  15. by islander on June 30, 2022 4:52 pm

    "Her testimony consisted of what she heard second or third hand..." ---Hate

    I don’t think Hate understands what hearsay evidence is. For example; Hutchinson testified as to what the valet told her...that’s not hearsay evidence.

    If Hutchinson testified that "someone else told her what the valet said", What someone else told her would be hearsay evidence (unless there were corroborating evidence)

    What you said, "A source close to the Secret Service says both men dispute Trump grabbed the steering wheel or assaulted an agent. They do not deny that Trump was irate and demanded they drive to the Capitol", that would be hearsay since you are not claiming under oath to have heard what the Secret Service men said. You only heard it from someone else...an unknown source...


  16. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:55 pm
    Don Trump, Jr (so he's the one who watches CNN)

    It’s pretty surreal watching the CNNs of the world still pretending that there aren’t multiple actual witnesses willing to testify that the fake bombshell hearsay testimony they’re salivating over isn’t demonstrably false and that their dream witness/coffee girl perjured herself!


  17. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:00 pm

    To use a phrase such as "he said something to the effect" or "I paraphrase" is an example of being a credible and careful observer. People frequently don't remember word-for-word what was said, but the recall the gist of it.

    Credible perhaps. But, weak and imprecise, certainly.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:03 pm

    isle,

    Remind me. What did the valet say?


  19. by islander on June 30, 2022 5:12 pm

    "The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall."


  20. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:19 pm

    So, Ms Hutchinson's testimony about the President's anger is hearsay.

    If the valet was, say, accused of lying about the President, her testimony about the valet would be eyewitness testimony.


  21. by islander on July 1, 2022 6:27 am

    ”So, Ms Hutchinson's testimony about the President's anger is hearsay.”

    Not at all. Hutchinson is stating what she was told by the valet.

    If the valet had said, “someone told me that the president was angry and threw his plate” what the valet told her would be considered hearsay evidence because the valet was telling her something he did not witness.

    Can you see the difference now?


  22. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 6:35 am

    isle,

    In your scenario, the valet's testimony would be hearsay.

    In Ms Hutchinson's testimony, she didn't see or hear anything Trump said or did. Hearsay.


  23. by oldedude on July 1, 2022 6:37 am
    No. It's still third party, ergo, hearsay. The only relevancy is if the person that told her is dead. Perhaps if several people heard it from several other people, and those people got dead, you "might" build a case. Again, go to the original source. Oh. yeah. they already heard his testimony behind closed doors, and chose not to disclose that part of it. Sounds very shady to me

    Granted, they're not "required" to treat this as a trial and rule 16 doesn't apply, but it's really cheapened and accelerated the "kangaroo court in a third world shthole country" thought. And they're trying to take down the previous President. Why shouldn't it be run like a trial? And you wonder why Flynn won't say anything, and this is treated like a joke.


  24. by islander on July 1, 2022 7:08 am

    Hate, you still don't understand what hearsay evidence is.



  25. by islander on July 1, 2022 7:16 am

    "No. It's still third party, ergo, hearsay."

    No. There is no third party.

    Hutchinson is stating what the valet said to her.

    If the valet had said, “someone told me that the president was angry and threw his plate”, what the valet told her would be considered hearsay evidence because the valet didn't see it and was telling her what "someone else" told him. The "someone else" who told the valet would be the third party.


  26. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 7:20 am

    One of us doesn't.

    A witness may testify to what they have, well, witnessed about the subject of the testimony. In this case, Trump. If she saw Trump do something or heard him say something, the testimony would be useful.

    On this point, all she knows is the valet's opinion about Trump's state of mind. Ms Hutchinson's testimony is useless because the valet knows what he saw and heard and what he thought about it. He can be called to testify to that.


  27. by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2022 7:42 am

    Brigitte Gabriel

    Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer said she only recounted what she had heard.

    In other words, she spread office gossip in the halls of Congress under oath.

    Great use of our time and money.


    Catch that, isle? Bahahahahahahahahahaha.


  28. by islander on July 1, 2022 8:21 am

    "On this point, all she knows is the valet's opinion about Trump's state of mind.

    Hutchinson's testimony is not being used as evidence with regard to Trump’s guilt or innocence, it is, as you said, only being used to show his state of mind at the time.

    "Not every out-of-court statement is forbidden. If the statement is used to prove something besides the content of the statement, it's not hearsay. For example, if Henry heard Claire call Bob a jerk, Bob's lawyer can ask Henry to recount the insult in court, not to prove that Bob is a jerk, but to show Claire's state of mind—that she was angry or that she doesn't like Bob (assuming these issues are relevant to the trial).

    Likewise, Henry could also testify to hearing Claire telling Bob to "watch out" because there's no fact within the statement to prove or disprove. Rather, the threat is potentially relevant because it might show state of mind, such as Bob being afraid of Claire, Claire disliking Bob, and so on."
    *

    nolo.com


Comment on: "What to expect next after Hutchinsen's testimony"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 10:27 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (10 comments) [201 views]


Rally at Cheyenne FBI office planned for Sunday
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 12:15 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments) [75 views]


Do you recognize this dweeb?
History by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 4:49 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [11 views]


For those who want to know part two
News by islander     August 11, 2022 1:27 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (37 comments) [301 views]


Take your best guess: will Trump agree to unseal the warrant?
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 11, 2022 3:29 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (28 comments) [328 views]


Chucky actually says what he means... scary stuff
007 James Bond by oldedude     August 12, 2022 2:57 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (21 comments) [126 views]


A prosecution in a desperate search for a crime
Crime by HatetheSwamp     August 13, 2022 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [21 views]


An FBI story with scary parallels for Donald Trump
History by Curt_Anderson     August 12, 2022 5:40 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [92 views]


Woke-ism spreads to GOP
Humor by Donna     August 12, 2022 11:21 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [28 views]


FBI search warrant shows Trump under investigation for potential obstruction of justice, Espionage Act violations
News by Donna     August 12, 2022 1:36 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [124 views]


Crime selectors, pages, etc.