Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, Beerman said:
No, I never said she testified directly to what happened. Remember, the hearsay discussion?
She testified to what someone, Tony Ornato, told her. Apparently, Ornato is telling others he never told her that, and the Secret Service is saying the incident didn't happen.
And, others who are familiar with the presidential limo are saying it woukd be almost impossible for Trump to get to the steering wheels.
If anyone is misrepresenting her testimony, it's the liberal press.
The question of hearsay is moot, since this is not a trial. Meanwhile, she did not testify to what happened. She testified to what was described to her by men who were in the car at the time.
Just for sh*ts and giggles, look up hearsay and the exceptions to the rules, rather than mindlessly parroting talking points. I realize that the smearing of Hutchinson is well underway. It isn’t working. Don’t get sucked into a losing strategy.
The question of hearsay is moot, since this is not a trial. Meanwhile, she did not testify to what happened. She testified to what was described to her by men who were in the car at the time.
Just for sh*ts and giggles, look up hearsay and the exceptions to the rules, rather than mindlessly parroting talking points. I realize that the smearing of Hutchinson is well underway. It isn’t working. Don’t get sucked into a losing strategy.
I'm familiar with hearsay better than you. But, thank you.
I brought it up originally only to point out that her testimony shouldn't be given the same weight as it should if it was done on the courtroom. And, that there are reasons hearsay isn't allowed in court, with few exceptions. As you can see in the media headlines, it is indeed bring treated that way. Apparently, quite effectively, as it took yourself to go back to review things to realize she was testifying only to what she thinks she heard others say.
I doubt Ornato will not testify, as the committee doesn't want him contradicting the juicy story she told.
Or, maybe because like you said that it's not cost-effective to have to pay for his flight or Uber to come testify.
I'm familiar with hearsay better than you. But, thank you.
I brought it up originally only to point out that her testimony shouldn't be given the same weight as it should if it was done on the courtroom. And, that there are reasons hearsay isn't allowed in court, with few exceptions. As you can see in the media headlines, it is indeed bring treated that way. Apparently, quite effectively, as it took yourself to go back to review things to realize she was testifying only to what she thinks she heard others say.
I doubt Ornato will not testify, as the committee doesn't want him contradicting the juicy story she told.
Or, maybe because like you said that it's not cost-effective to have to pay for his flight or Uber to come testify.
Apparently not, since you keep bringing it up as somehow relevant.
It’s perfectly fine to criticize Ms Hutchinson. It’s not OK to misrepresent what happened in her testimony and use that as an excuse to invalidate her testimony.
Right now, the only question is whether or not she is credible … a matter of opinion. Obviously, I find her credible, if only due to confirmation bias. If she is wrong about what happened in the car, it should come out when the men involved testify under oath. I halfway agree with you about them never testifying, but not for the same reason. Lying about who said what to whom and whether it was true is perfectly legal and to be expected from people described as “Trump yes-men”. Lying under oath is a felony and will land them in jail. We’ll see what they do. Might depend on who’s paying the lawyers.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
18 minutes ago, Beerman said:
I'm familiar with hearsay better than you. But, thank you.
I brought it up originally only to point out that her testimony shouldn't be given the same weight as it should if it was done on the courtroom. And, that there are reasons hearsay isn't allowed in court, with few exceptions. As you can see in the media headlines, it is indeed bring treated that way. Apparently, quite effectively, as it took yourself to go back to review things to realize she was testifying only to what she thinks she heard others say.
I doubt Ornato will not testify, as the committee doesn't want him contradicting the juicy story she told.
Or, maybe because like you said that it's not cost-effective to have to pay for his flight or Uber to come testify.
You believe that you are more familiar with hearsay than Heron, but that is really a matter of perspective and is completely irrelevant to the topic.
You know who's words shouldn't be given much weight? Did you guess that the person who didn't swear an oath to tell the truth? No?
You doubt that Ornato won't testify?
You're twisting words again as that is not what she said about costs.
What? Trump was so angry he threw his lunch?! And, there was sworn testimony to this? Gasp!
Hillary threw an ashtray at her husband. So what. Maybe it was a medrol dose pack? (Said no one ever) Or perhaps it was because she felt slighted because her husband cheated on her.
Are you aware that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule? I think her testimony might meet the criteria. The question is moot, however, since this isn’t a trial, just curious. I agree, let’s get them under oath and see what they say when there are consequences for lying.
I’m also not sure that the accuracy or lack of it changes the emerging narrative of events, which kind of makes your suggestion more of a wasteful distraction than anything else.
What she testified to doesn’t even qualify as hear say. Tell me one thing she said she heard that is concerning? And I mean the EXACT words that were said.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
You know the right wing media is desperate when they deflect to Hillary Clinton in 2022 to counter the embarrassing details about Trump's erratic and concerning temperament.
You know the right wing media is desperate when they deflect to Hillary Clinton in 2022 to counter the embarrassing details about Trump's erratic and concerning temperament.
Wow glad to know I’m media. Good thing I’m not taking a medrol dose pack or some decadron might start raging.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
What she testified to doesn’t even qualify as hear say. Tell me one thing she said she heard that is concerning? And I mean the EXACT words that were said.
Nah. Do your own homework.
Your claims about Clinton DO qualify as hearsay, how ironic.
toomuchbaloney
16,054 Posts
Ornato should testify to that under oath.