Author Topic: 1/6 Committee Hearing  (Read 46870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #570 on: June 30, 2022, 02:41:12 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law.

Do we all agree that the January 6th committee should bring in the involved SS agents to testify under oath? Is the credibility of the committee damaged if that does not happen?

I have no strong point of view on the testimony, but to the bolded, and from the link you posted above:
Quote
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said: “Don’t be distracted by claims of ‘hearsay’. That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in court, not Congress.

“The key is that Hutchinson testified under oath. If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can’t be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

Always good to read the whole article. :)

I read the entire article, Vladeck, a noted Anti-Trumper who works for CNN, is being disingenuous.

Relaying hearsay “under oath” does not suddenly add credibility to the words. Let me demonstrate how this would go if perjury charges were ever brought:

Hutchinson: “I am not lying, that’s what the SS agent said to me”
SS Agent: “no she’s lying”
Hutchinson: “no he’s lying”


Ok, so now what? Exactly nothing

Yeah, I thought that analysis was lacking, too.  The reason hearsay isn't generally admissible in court is because our courts have found it be be fundamentally unreliable, and have done so for several hundred years.

For the law nerds:  https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/civil-practice/hearsay-a-brief-history-33130/


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #571 on: June 30, 2022, 02:52:25 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29397
  • Tommy Points: 1380
Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law.

Do we all agree that the January 6th committee should bring in the involved SS agents to testify under oath? Is the credibility of the committee damaged if that does not happen?

I have no strong point of view on the testimony, but to the bolded, and from the link you posted above:
Quote
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said: “Don’t be distracted by claims of ‘hearsay’. That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in court, not Congress.

“The key is that Hutchinson testified under oath. If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can’t be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

Always good to read the whole article. :)

I read the entire article, Vladeck, a noted Anti-Trumper who works for CNN, is being disingenuous.

Relaying hearsay “under oath” does not suddenly add credibility to the words. Let me demonstrate how this would go if perjury charges were ever brought:

Hutchinson: “I am not lying, that’s what the SS agent said to me”
SS Agent: “no she’s lying”
Hutchinson: “no he’s lying”


Ok, so now what? Exactly nothing

Yeah, I thought that analysis was lacking, too.  The reason hearsay isn't generally admissible in court is because our courts have found it be be fundamentally unreliable, and have done so for several hundred years.

For the law nerds:  https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/civil-practice/hearsay-a-brief-history-33130/
But it is only inadmissible if offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Hearsay statements are admitted in court all of the time for non-truth.  You know things like because I heard X, I did Y.  X may not be true at all, but because the speaker heard it they did Y, which they may have only done because they heard X. 
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #572 on: June 30, 2022, 03:10:23 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law.

Do we all agree that the January 6th committee should bring in the involved SS agents to testify under oath? Is the credibility of the committee damaged if that does not happen?

I have no strong point of view on the testimony, but to the bolded, and from the link you posted above:
Quote
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said: “Don’t be distracted by claims of ‘hearsay’. That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in court, not Congress.

“The key is that Hutchinson testified under oath. If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can’t be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

Always good to read the whole article. :)

I read the entire article, Vladeck, a noted Anti-Trumper who works for CNN, is being disingenuous.

Relaying hearsay “under oath” does not suddenly add credibility to the words. Let me demonstrate how this would go if perjury charges were ever brought:

Hutchinson: “I am not lying, that’s what the SS agent said to me”
SS Agent: “no she’s lying”
Hutchinson: “no he’s lying”


Ok, so now what? Exactly nothing

Yeah, I thought that analysis was lacking, too.  The reason hearsay isn't generally admissible in court is because our courts have found it be be fundamentally unreliable, and have done so for several hundred years.

For the law nerds:  https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/civil-practice/hearsay-a-brief-history-33130/
But it is only inadmissible if offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Hearsay statements are admitted in court all of the time for non-truth.  You know things like because I heard X, I did Y.  X may not be true at all, but because the speaker heard it they did Y, which they may have only done because they heard X.

Um, great.  How is this being offered for anything other than the truth of the matter?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #573 on: June 30, 2022, 03:23:00 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I kinda cringed when Hutchison told the story of the Trump lunge...for two reasons. First, because it terrorized me that if true, we had a President in control of nuke codes that had lost his mind. But secondly, because it was a third hand/hearsay story that I was rightfully thinking would be automatically pushed back on.

I don't think Hutchinson is lying. I believe her that she heard a story like this.

The two SS agents coming forward have taken oaths to protect the Presidency. Could lying under oath to protect their other oath of protecting the Presidency happen? I don't know. But clearly the office of the Presidency was hurt by the story told by Hutchinson.

I am conflicted here. I don't think Hutchinson lied especially since, firstly, so much of her other testimony, like all of it, has not been disputed in any meaningful way. Second, because she is a staunch Republican and a believer in Trump up until she saw Trump's 2:17PM tweet about Pence. Third, I don't see her motivation to lie given all the other incredibly damaging testimony. And fourth, she was tampered with and pressured to be loyal, it has to be because she knew something extraordinarily damaging to Trump, like the lunging incident.

But, I want to believe that those in public law enforcement wouldn't lie about such a thing as telling that story about what happened in the Beast. But, unfortunately, being a member of a family with a bunch of LEOs, I know LEOs aren't always completely truthful, even under oath, especially if what comes up makes them or their buddies look bad.

So I look at it this way. Throw out the Beast story. Concentrate on everything else Hutchinson testified to. If concrete evidence comes forward to confirm or deny the story, deal with that implication then.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #574 on: June 30, 2022, 04:16:54 PM »

Online JSD

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11576
  • Tommy Points: 1393
Nick, to help with your conflict, another portion of Hutchinson’s testimony is also in dispute:

Quote
Cheney displayed a handwritten note and asked if it had been written by her.

“That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff [Meadows] on Jan. 6, likely around three o’clock. … That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson said.

But former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann quickly disputed that Tuesday.

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

We have multiple pieces of her testimony being openly challenged, with one of those items being challenged by a party, Eric Herschmann, who also gave testimony unfavorable to Trump. Also, highly vetted SS agents, under oath, should get the benefit of the doubt. These aren’t Everett cops who are bilingual and scored a 95 on the civil service exam.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #575 on: July 01, 2022, 08:38:54 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Nick, to help with your conflict, another portion of Hutchinson’s testimony is also in dispute:

Quote
Cheney displayed a handwritten note and asked if it had been written by her.

“That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff [Meadows] on Jan. 6, likely around three o’clock. … That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson said.

But former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann quickly disputed that Tuesday.

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

We have multiple pieces of her testimony being openly challenged, with one of those items being challenged by a party, Eric Herschmann, who also gave testimony unfavorable to Trump. Also, highly vetted SS agents, under oath, should get the benefit of the doubt. These aren’t Everett cops who are bilingual and scored a 95 on the civil service exam.
Turns out Hutchinson's testimony might not be that far off and that Engel and Ornato might be more like Everett cops

FYI, my law enforcement family are state officers at a university, a state trooper and a detective and two officers in a city that is not Everett.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/secret-service-lunging-incident/index.html

Quote
Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.

The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident -- including details that are similar to how former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described it to the House select committee investigating January 6 -- in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson's testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.

Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do." The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.
"He had sort of lunged forward -- it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," the source said. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat -- for what reason, nobody had any idea."

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #576 on: July 06, 2022, 12:04:20 PM »

Offline heyvik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1875
  • Tommy Points: 67
January 6 Panel Sets Date For Next Hearing; Latest On WH Counsel Pat Cipollone’s Potential Deposition – Update


Patrick Hipes and Tom Tapp
Tue, July 5, 2022 at 5:14 PM

UPDATED with next hearing date and more: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol said today that its next televised hearing will be Tuesday, July 12, starting at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

Cipollone will be appearing under subpoena. A source familiar with his thinking says Cipollone intended to comply with the subpoena issued on June 29 for a July 6 interview, and it was extended until July 8. The interview will be on video.


Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #577 on: July 06, 2022, 12:20:53 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Tommy Points: 370
January 6 Panel Sets Date For Next Hearing; Latest On WH Counsel Pat Cipollone’s Potential Deposition – Update


Patrick Hipes and Tom Tapp
Tue, July 5, 2022 at 5:14 PM

UPDATED with next hearing date and more: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol said today that its next televised hearing will be Tuesday, July 12, starting at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

Cipollone will be appearing under subpoena. A source familiar with his thinking says Cipollone intended to comply with the subpoena issued on June 29 for a July 6 interview, and it was extended until July 8. The interview will be on video.

Cipollone is a big deal.  They’ve been trying to get him for awhile — I feel Hutchinson’s testimony was scheduled in part to encourage him to come forward.  I’m curious as to how much he says vs. how much he declines to answer due to privilege.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #578 on: July 06, 2022, 12:55:33 PM »

Offline boscel33

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2277
  • Tommy Points: 146
January 6 Panel Sets Date For Next Hearing; Latest On WH Counsel Pat Cipollone’s Potential Deposition – Update


Patrick Hipes and Tom Tapp
Tue, July 5, 2022 at 5:14 PM

UPDATED with next hearing date and more: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol said today that its next televised hearing will be Tuesday, July 12, starting at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

Cipollone will be appearing under subpoena. A source familiar with his thinking says Cipollone intended to comply with the subpoena issued on June 29 for a July 6 interview, and it was extended until July 8. The interview will be on video.

Cipollone is a big deal.  They’ve been trying to get him for awhile — I feel Hutchinson’s testimony was scheduled in part to encourage him to come forward.  I’m curious as to how much he says vs. how much he declines to answer due to privilege.

This one might be just as big.  "Sarah Matthews who served as deputy press secretary in the Trump White House until resigning shortly after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, has been subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the insurrection and has agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation."  I believe this is happening on Tuesday, 7/12/2022.
Don't Make Me Go Beth Dutton On You!

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #579 on: July 09, 2022, 02:19:20 AM »

Online JSD

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11576
  • Tommy Points: 1393
Nick, to help with your conflict, another portion of Hutchinson’s testimony is also in dispute:

Quote
Cheney displayed a handwritten note and asked if it had been written by her.

“That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff [Meadows] on Jan. 6, likely around three o’clock. … That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson said.

But former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann quickly disputed that Tuesday.

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

We have multiple pieces of her testimony being openly challenged, with one of those items being challenged by a party, Eric Herschmann, who also gave testimony unfavorable to Trump. Also, highly vetted SS agents, under oath, should get the benefit of the doubt. These aren’t Everett cops who are bilingual and scored a 95 on the civil service exam.
Turns out Hutchinson's testimony might not be that far off and that Engel and Ornato might be more like Everett cops

FYI, my law enforcement family are state officers at a university, a state trooper and a detective and two officers in a city that is not Everett.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/secret-service-lunging-incident/index.html

Quote
Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.

The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident -- including details that are similar to how former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described it to the House select committee investigating January 6 -- in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson's testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.

Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do." The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.
"He had sort of lunged forward -- it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," the source said. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat -- for what reason, nobody had any idea."

Gotta love CNN here. Absolutely nothing new or interesting yet spun as if this somehow adds credibility to Hutchinson’s story. The SS agents involved, Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato, admit Trump was irate and upset, just that at no point he made contact. And they are willing to testify to that. You should believe them.

Also, not taking anything away from local police, they undergo a tremendous amount of scrutiny to get on too, just not near the level of an SS agent.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #580 on: July 11, 2022, 11:08:23 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7729
  • Tommy Points: 588
So this thing with Bannon.  Bannon claims that he didn't testify when subpoenaed because Trump had asserted privilege through his attorney (Justin Clark) to Bannon's attorney (Robert J. Costello).  Bannon's lawyer testified to the Jan 6 Panel that they got a letter from Trump's lawyer that said Trump was asserting privilege and instructed Bannon not to testify.  Turns out that was a lie (surprise surprise) and that this letter that Trump's attorney wrote to Bannon's attorney never said anything about privilege.  Bannon and his attorney just claimed it did.  This is all based on an interview between the FBI and Trump's attorney so very much on the record.

So it has been established that Trump never formally made any claim of Privilege to support Bannon refusing to testify but now Trump is coming out and saying that he is withdrawing his privilege claim (a claim that was never made in the first place) and that he is "allowing" Bannon to testify.  Why would Trump do this?

My theory is that Bannon knows where the skeletons are and he told Trump that if Trump wants Bannon to remain loyal, Trump is going to have to help Bannon with his Contempt of Congress charges (for which he is clearly guilty).  So Trump is backing up Bannon's lie that he didn't testify because Trump told him not to.

But isn't Trump now culpable in this?  Is it legal to tell a witness not to testify?  Or to lie about telling a witness not to testify?  And now that he has come forward with all of this, isn't Trump committing fraud by saying the reason he tampered with the witness and obstructed justice was because he had asserted privilege, when he hadn't asserted privilege and had no legal right to in the first place?

Hoping some of the Lawyers can put this in perspective for the rest of us.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #581 on: July 11, 2022, 11:26:57 AM »

Offline heyvik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1875
  • Tommy Points: 67
So this thing with Bannon.  Bannon claims that he didn't testify when subpoenaed because Trump had asserted privilege through his attorney (Justin Clark) to Bannon's attorney (Robert J. Costello).  Bannon's lawyer testified to the Jan 6 Panel that they got a letter from Trump's lawyer that said Trump was asserting privilege and instructed Bannon not to testify.  Turns out that was a lie (surprise surprise) and that this letter that Trump's attorney wrote to Bannon's attorney never said anything about privilege.  Bannon and his attorney just claimed it did.  This is all based on an interview between the FBI and Trump's attorney so very much on the record.

So it has been established that Trump never formally made any claim of Privilege to support Bannon refusing to testify but now Trump is coming out and saying that he is withdrawing his privilege claim (a claim that was never made in the first place) and that he is "allowing" Bannon to testify.  Why would Trump do this?

My theory is that Bannon knows where the skeletons are and he told Trump that if Trump wants Bannon to remain loyal, Trump is going to have to help Bannon with his Contempt of Congress charges (for which he is clearly guilty).  So Trump is backing up Bannon's lie that he didn't testify because Trump told him not to.

But isn't Trump now culpable in this?  Is it legal to tell a witness not to testify?  Or to lie about telling a witness not to testify?  And now that he has come forward with all of this, isn't Trump committing fraud by saying the reason he tampered with the witness and obstructed justice was because he had asserted privilege, when he hadn't asserted privilege and had no legal right to in the first place?

Hoping some of the Lawyers can put this in perspective for the rest of us.

Wouldn't this be on Bannon though? It was his decision NOT to testify based on executive privilege.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #582 on: July 11, 2022, 11:28:19 AM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Tommy Points: 370
So this thing with Bannon.  Bannon claims that he didn't testify when subpoenaed because Trump had asserted privilege through his attorney (Justin Clark) to Bannon's attorney (Robert J. Costello).  Bannon's lawyer testified to the Jan 6 Panel that they got a letter from Trump's lawyer that said Trump was asserting privilege and instructed Bannon not to testify.  Turns out that was a lie (surprise surprise) and that this letter that Trump's attorney wrote to Bannon's attorney never said anything about privilege.  Bannon and his attorney just claimed it did.  This is all based on an interview between the FBI and Trump's attorney so very much on the record.

So it has been established that Trump never formally made any claim of Privilege to support Bannon refusing to testify but now Trump is coming out and saying that he is withdrawing his privilege claim (a claim that was never made in the first place) and that he is "allowing" Bannon to testify.  Why would Trump do this?

My theory is that Bannon knows where the skeletons are and he told Trump that if Trump wants Bannon to remain loyal, Trump is going to have to help Bannon with his Contempt of Congress charges (for which he is clearly guilty).  So Trump is backing up Bannon's lie that he didn't testify because Trump told him not to.

But isn't Trump now culpable in this?  Is it legal to tell a witness not to testify?  Or to lie about telling a witness not to testify?  And now that he has come forward with all of this, isn't Trump committing fraud by saying the reason he tampered with the witness and obstructed justice was because he had asserted privilege, when he hadn't asserted privilege and had no legal right to in the first place?

Hoping some of the Lawyers can put this in perspective for the rest of us.

I think you’re missing the mark on Bannon and his motivations.  He is inherently destructive.  Not sure why, but he wants to burn everything to the ground.  Initially it was seen as though cooperating with the committee would be unhelpful to that goal, so he and Team  Trump concocted this absurd “executive privilege” excuse, which they knew had no legs, to try to stymie the committee.  The committee hasn’t been stymied, however, and Team Trump is livid that there are no Trump defenders testifying on national TV.  So they have to try to get Bannon on TV, which means rescinding the “executive privilege” nonsense.  It’s also why Bannon is insisting on only testifying live, as opposed to giving a deposition first like everyone else, so he can control the narrative and potentially lie on national TV if needed.

As far as the legal jeopardy he’s facing from Clark’s testimony —they’re trying to deal that with by using it as an excuse to delay the trial.  The goal on that side is to not have a trial until have Republicans take the House next year, so McCarthy can rescind the subpoena and the charges will be mooted.  This is also why Bannon would be willing to lie on national TV — he won’t fear perjury charges.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #583 on: July 11, 2022, 11:46:36 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7729
  • Tommy Points: 588
So this thing with Bannon.  Bannon claims that he didn't testify when subpoenaed because Trump had asserted privilege through his attorney (Justin Clark) to Bannon's attorney (Robert J. Costello).  Bannon's lawyer testified to the Jan 6 Panel that they got a letter from Trump's lawyer that said Trump was asserting privilege and instructed Bannon not to testify.  Turns out that was a lie (surprise surprise) and that this letter that Trump's attorney wrote to Bannon's attorney never said anything about privilege.  Bannon and his attorney just claimed it did.  This is all based on an interview between the FBI and Trump's attorney so very much on the record.

So it has been established that Trump never formally made any claim of Privilege to support Bannon refusing to testify but now Trump is coming out and saying that he is withdrawing his privilege claim (a claim that was never made in the first place) and that he is "allowing" Bannon to testify.  Why would Trump do this?

My theory is that Bannon knows where the skeletons are and he told Trump that if Trump wants Bannon to remain loyal, Trump is going to have to help Bannon with his Contempt of Congress charges (for which he is clearly guilty).  So Trump is backing up Bannon's lie that he didn't testify because Trump told him not to.

But isn't Trump now culpable in this?  Is it legal to tell a witness not to testify?  Or to lie about telling a witness not to testify?  And now that he has come forward with all of this, isn't Trump committing fraud by saying the reason he tampered with the witness and obstructed justice was because he had asserted privilege, when he hadn't asserted privilege and had no legal right to in the first place?

Hoping some of the Lawyers can put this in perspective for the rest of us.

Wouldn't this be on Bannon though? It was his decision NOT to testify based on executive privilege.

Yes, Bannon lied about having a letter from Trump (via Trump's attorney) that stated Trump was asserting privilege and in some way instruction Bannon not to testify.  But now Trump has come out and said that he is waiving the privilege that he never actually asserted, which is a lie.  Trump's lawyer told the FBI that Trump never asserted privilege, that this letter never stated anything to imply Bannon would be protected by Trump's privilege (because no actual lawyer would create a letter based on falsehoods).

Trump is interfering publicly with a witness in a federal crime (Contempt of Congress).  He is lying publicly about a letter that his attorney has already testified to the FBI said nothing about privilege.  Trump is trying to protect Bannon so Bannon will say the right things in his testimony.

Re: 1/6 Committee Hearing
« Reply #584 on: July 11, 2022, 11:49:35 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29397
  • Tommy Points: 1380
Nick, to help with your conflict, another portion of Hutchinson’s testimony is also in dispute:

Quote
Cheney displayed a handwritten note and asked if it had been written by her.

“That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff [Meadows] on Jan. 6, likely around three o’clock. … That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson said.

But former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann quickly disputed that Tuesday.

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

We have multiple pieces of her testimony being openly challenged, with one of those items being challenged by a party, Eric Herschmann, who also gave testimony unfavorable to Trump. Also, highly vetted SS agents, under oath, should get the benefit of the doubt. These aren’t Everett cops who are bilingual and scored a 95 on the civil service exam.
Turns out Hutchinson's testimony might not be that far off and that Engel and Ornato might be more like Everett cops

FYI, my law enforcement family are state officers at a university, a state trooper and a detective and two officers in a city that is not Everett.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/secret-service-lunging-incident/index.html

Quote
Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.

The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident -- including details that are similar to how former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described it to the House select committee investigating January 6 -- in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson's testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.

Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as "demanding" and that the former President said something similar to: "I'm the f**king President of the United States, you can't tell me what to do." The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.
"He had sort of lunged forward -- it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," the source said. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat -- for what reason, nobody had any idea."

Gotta love CNN here. Absolutely nothing new or interesting yet spun as if this somehow adds credibility to Hutchinson’s story. The SS agents involved, Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato, admit Trump was irate and upset, just that at no point he made contact. And they are willing to testify to that. You should believe them.

Also, not taking anything away from local police, they undergo a tremendous amount of scrutiny to get on too, just not near the level of an SS agent.
Hutchinson never said she was told that Trump made contact, only that he lunged towards them.  Seems like her testimony has basically been corroborated. 
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.