Re: "Jan. 6 panel effort to blame Trump for violence ignores pointed warnings Congress got much earlier"

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/30/2022 5:52 AM, David Hartung, filthy lying philandering white
supremacist, lied:

> Watch the liberals reject this and call the source a "lie site"

Because it is.

>
> https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-panel-effort-tie-violence-trump-ignores-pointed-warnings-congress-got
>
>
> [...]
> With the help of a former junior White House aide, House Democrats on the Jan. 6
> committee tried Tuesday to convince the public that former President Donald
> Trump and his team were aware of the potential for violence among armed
> protesters the day of the Capitol riot and ignored the security risks.

Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They were
part of the planning.

> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,

She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
site doesn't know, either.

If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was. Her
testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
(orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
Trump did. That isn't hearsay.

Her testimony about what Trump said regarding allowing armed insurrectionists
into his rally *also* is not hearsay, because she *was* present when Trump said
it, and she *heard* him say it. She isn't testifying as to what someone told
her Trump said; she testified as to what *she* directly heard Trump say. That
isn't hearsay.

You don't know what hearsay is, and neither does that cunt Kremlin Girl / Bit of
Nothingness, and nor does your lie site.

Why do you lie all the time, you goddamned fornicating philanderer?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:45:09 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>>Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They were
>>part of the planning.
>

>No proof so far.

Again, for the retarded, yes, it has been proven that there was
planning and coordination between Trump staffers and some rioters.

>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>
>>She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
>>site doesn't know, either.
>

>She was not there.

She never said she was. She didn't testify to what happened, she
testified to what she was told. That's not hearsay.

>>If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
>>present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was. Her
>>testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
>>(orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
>>Trump did. That isn't hearsay.
>

>It isn't eye witness either.

Ear witness. She didn't testify to what happened, she testified to
what she was told happened.

Swill
--
Lock 'im up!

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:55:22 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:46:54 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:45:09 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They were
>>>>part of the planning.
>>>
>>>No proof so far.
>>
>>Again, for the retarded, yes, it has been proven that there was
>>planning and coordination between Trump staffers and some rioters.
>

>I haven't seen it. If you choose to insult like a childish liberal it
>means you are trying to distract.

And if you're going to lie that there is no evidence and that you
haven't seen it, you can blow me. You mightn't have heard it from Fox
or NYP but everybody else has reported it, it has been testified to
and documented in text messages.

>>>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>>>
>>>>She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
>>>>site doesn't know, either.
>>>
>>>She was not there.
>>
>>She never said she was. She didn't testify to what happened, she
>>testified to what she was told. That's not hearsay.
>

>Not admissible in court.

The hearing is not court and not a trial. Just think of it as the
12th Benghazi hearing and Hillary has really let herself go . . .

>>>>If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
>>>>present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was. Her
>>>>testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
>>>>(orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
>>>>Trump did. That isn't hearsay.
>>>
>>>It isn't eye witness either.
>>
>>Ear witness. She didn't testify to what happened, she testified to
>>what she was told happened.
>

>Hearsay.

Which is allowable to grand juries and investigators.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 1:55 PM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+
cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:46:54 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:45:09 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They were
>>>> part of the planning.
>>>
>>> No proof so far.
>>
>> Again, for the retarded, yes, it has been proven that there was
>> planning and coordination between Trump staffers and some rioters.
>

> I haven't seen it.

Of course you haven't seen it, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. Your head is
too far up Trump's asshole for you to be able to see anything.

>>
>>>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>>>
>>>> She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
>>>> site doesn't know, either.
>>>
>>> She was not there.
>>
>> She never said she was. She didn't testify to what happened, she
>> testified to what she was told. That's not hearsay.
>

> Not admissible in court.

It absolutely would be admissible in a court, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

>>
>>>> If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
>>>> present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was. Her
>>>> testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
>>>> (orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
>>>> Trump did. That isn't hearsay.
>>>
>>> It isn't eye witness either.
>>
>> Ear witness. She didn't testify to what happened, she testified to
>> what she was told happened.
>

> Hearsay.

Not hearsay, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. You're a fucking moron and
don't know what hearsay is. This is proved, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/3/2022 7:54 AM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+

cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 15:07:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2022 1:55 PM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+ cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:46:54 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:45:09 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They were
>>>>>> part of the planning.
>>>>>
>>>>> No proof so far.
>>>>
>>>> Again, for the retarded, yes, it has been proven that there was
>>>> planning and coordination between Trump staffers and some rioters.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen it.
>>
>> Of course you haven't seen it, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. Your head is
>> too far up Trump's asshole for you to be able to see anything.
>>

> You're the only one talking about him.

>>>>
>>>>>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>>>>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
>>>>>> site doesn't know, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> She was not there.
>>>>
>>>> She never said she was. She didn't testify to what happened, she
>>>> testified to what she was told. That's not hearsay.
>>>
>>> Not admissible in court.
>>
>> It absolutely would be admissible in a court, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.
>

> Hearsay

Not hearsay, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. It would be admissible in

court, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

>>>>
>>>>>> If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
>>>>>> present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was. Her
>>>>>> testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
>>>>>> (orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
>>>>>> Trump did. That isn't hearsay.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't eye witness either.
>>>>
>>>> Ear witness. She didn't testify to what happened, she testified to
>>>> what she was told happened.
>>>
>>> Hearsay.
>>
>> Not hearsay, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. You're a fucking moron and
>> don't know what hearsay is. This is proved, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.
>
>

> Hearsay

Not hearsay, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. It would be admissible in
court, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

[Scout]

"Somebody too" <nu...@biz.invalid> wrote in message
news:d6orbhphd8lj9qqr4...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>On 6/30/2022 5:52 AM, David Hartung, filthy lying philandering white
>>supremacist, lied:
>>
>>> Watch the liberals reject this and call the source a "lie site"
>>
>>Because it is.
>>
>>>
>>> https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-panel-effort-tie-violence-trump-ignores-pointed-warnings-congress-got
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> With the help of a former junior White House aide, House Democrats on
>>> the Jan. 6
>>> committee tried Tuesday to convince the public that former President
>>> Donald
>>> Trump and his team were aware of the potential for violence among armed
>>> protesters the day of the Capitol riot and ignored the security risks.
>>
>>Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence. They
>>were
>>part of the planning.
>

> No proof so far.

>>
>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>
>>She gave *no* hearsay testimony. You don't know what "hearsay" is, and
>>your lie
>>site doesn't know, either.
>

> She was not there.

>>
>>If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she
>>wasn't
>>present, that would be hearsay. But that's not what her testimony was.
>>Her
>>testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what
>>*Ornato*
>>(orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21)
>>*told* her
>>Trump did. That isn't hearsay.

Actually that is EXACTLY hearsay is.,..

hear新ay
/'hir?sa/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately
substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"

or legally

"Hearsay evidence is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a
witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the
truth of the matter stated."

Ornato TOLD her.. that's hearsay.

To mean anything legally they would need to call Ornato to the stand so he
can testify as a WITNESS to the event.

She didn't witness anything, Ornato may have but unless put on the stand..
we will never know.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, scooter, it's not. She is not testifying to Trump's actions, which she
didn't witness. She is testifying to Ornato's speech, which she *did* witness.
She is testifying about Ornato, scooter, not about Trump.

> hear·say
> /'hir?sa/
> noun

No dictionaries, scooter. But in any case, scooter, the definition you gave
does not describe what the hero Ms. Hutchinson said.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/5/2022 12:12 PM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+

cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:29:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/2022 9:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>> Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+ cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:54:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/30/2022 5:52 AM, David Hartung, filthy lying philandering white
>>>>> supremacist, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch the liberals reject this and call the source a "lie site"
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-panel-effort-tie-violence-trump-ignores-pointed-warnings-congress-got
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> With the help of a former junior White House aide, House Democrats on the
>>>>>> Jan. 6
>>>>>> committee tried Tuesday to convince the public that former President Donald
>>>>>> Trump and his team were aware of the potential for violence among armed
>>>>>> protesters the day of the Capitol riot and ignored the security risks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump and his co-conspirators *were* aware of the planned violence.  They were
>>>>> part of the planning.
>>>>
>>>> No proof so far.

Yes, proof given.

>>>>>
>>>>>> Their presentation, using the hearsay testimony of 25-year-old former
>>>>>> presidential aide Cassidy Hutchison,
>>>>>
>>>>> She gave *no* hearsay testimony.  You don't know what "hearsay" is, and your lie
>>>>> site doesn't know, either.
>>>>
>>>> She was not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the hero Ms. Hutchinson had testified to what Trump did, when she wasn't
>>>>> present, that would be hearsay.  But that's not what her testimony was. Her
>>>>> testimony is not about what Trump did; her testimony is about what *Ornato*
>>>>> (orchestrator of the kidnapping plot against Mike Pence on 01/06/21) *told* her
>>>>> Trump did.  That isn't hearsay.
>>>
>>> Actually that is EXACTLY hearsay is.
>>
>> No, scooter, it's not. She is not testifying to Trump's actions, which she
>> didn't witness. She is testifying to Ornato's speech, which she *did* witness.
>> She is testifying about Ornato, scooter, not about Trump.
>>
>>> hear·say
>>> /'hir?sa/
>>> noun
>>
>> No dictionaries, scooter. But in any case, scooter, the definition you gave
>> does not describe what the hero Ms. Hutchinson said.
>

> He proved you wrong and

No, I proved him wrong. Her testimony was not hearsay. This is settled.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 12:15:13 -0400, "Scout" wrote:

>Ornato TOLD her.. that's hearsay.

So what? This isn't a trial, it's a public investigation. Cops use
hearsay plenty in their investigations.

It's not as if fatso was physically capable of doing it.

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

[Scout]

"Somebody too" <nu...@biz.invalid> wrote in message

news:0939ch1vvnsj0rl80...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:29:29 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>

So you're saying the investigation is about Ornato then? So what does Trump
have to do with that?


>>> hear新ay

>>> /'hir?sa/
>>> noun
>>
>>No dictionaries, scooter. But in any case, scooter, the definition you
>>gave
>>does not describe what the hero Ms. Hutchinson said.
>

> He proved you wrong and look what you do.

Ignores realty? When isn't he doing that?

[Rudy Canoza]

Whenever scooter begins with "so you're saying," what follows is always a straw
man — a lie.

If you are going to address me, scooter, you'll address my posts directly.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 06:38:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If you are going to address me, scooter, you'll address my posts directly.

It's always fun to watch our little impotent dwarf stamp his tiny feet
and demand shit.

ROFLMAO

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:29:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
<notg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>No, scooter, it's not. She is not testifying to Trump's actions, which she
>didn't witness. She is testifying to Ornato's speech, which she *did* witness.
> She is testifying about Ornato, scooter, not about Trump.

I was once in a discussion about Martin Luther King as we were
awaiting a staff meeting to begin. As I recall, one person
practically worshipped him. A second person, her co-worker, pointed
out that parts of his dissertation were obviously plagiarized. The
first speaker bristled at this, claiming emphatically that plagiarism
was defined differently in theological institutions.

The second person replied quietly: "Calm down, Betty. All I'm saying
is that MLK was a human being and, therefore, demonstrated a range of
human foibles. I'm not claiming that one instance such as this one
negates his life's work. He was a great human being, but,
nonetheless, still a human being."

We should apply similar logic to Hutchinson's testimony. Liz should
not have asked Ms. Hutchinson about what she heard third hand
regarding the limo episode... remember, Liz Cheney was asking the
questions. Since she knew (or should have known) what the answer
would be, she also should have known that Trump's enablers would glom
onto that like a pond leech onto a fat boy and that's *all* that
they'd see. Hutchinson's testimony lasted about 75 minutes (more or
less depending on how you count breaks and procedural stuff); she
talked about what she heard third hand from someone else that Trump
did and said in the limo for a little over two minutes. Yeah, she
wasn't there and never said she was.

I don't pay much attention to Ms. Hutchinson's attackers who do so
defiladed behind the fifth amendment and various levels of "executive
privilege"... let them take the oath and *then* speak.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/6/2022 11:59 AM, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:29:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
> <notg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, scooter, it's not. She is not testifying to Trump's actions, which she
>> didn't witness. She is testifying to Ornato's speech, which she *did* witness.
>> She is testifying about Ornato, scooter, not about Trump.
>
> I was once in a discussion about Martin Luther King as we were
> awaiting a staff meeting to begin. As I recall, one person
> practically worshipped him. A second person, her co-worker, pointed
> out that parts of his dissertation were obviously plagiarized. The
> first speaker bristled at this, claiming emphatically that plagiarism
> was defined differently in theological institutions.
>
> The second person replied quietly: "Calm down, Betty. All I'm saying
> is that MLK was a human being and, therefore, demonstrated a range of
> human foibles. I'm not claiming that one instance such as this one
> negates his life's work. He was a great human being, but,
> nonetheless, still a human being."
>
> We should apply similar logic to Hutchinson's testimony. Liz should
> not have asked Ms. Hutchinson about what she heard third hand
> regarding the limo episode.

Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the events
of Insurrection Day (01/06/21). One of the events of Insurrection Day for Ms.
Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo episode." So, when
asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that. It was most
emphatically *not* hearsay.

"I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally* direct
eyewitness testimony. They are not hearsay.

It is worth noting that some of the "X" that Ornato said to Ms. Hutchinson has
been confirmed...by Ornato, and by Engel. Ornato and Engel both have testified
to the committee earlier, and *both* said that Trump demanded to be driven to
the Capitol and that he was furious at being told no. None of that is in
dispute. Trump *wanted* to be at the Capitol in order personally to lead his
violent insurrection.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

I agree with you, sir, that there was nothing dishonest about Ms.
Hutchinson's statement and that it was factually accurate; she never
said she was there.

It is also a fact that the committee investigating 1/6/21 is *not* a
jury of any kind; had they been such, Ms. Hutchinson would have been
stopped from talking about what somebody *said* happened in the limo.

It is a *very* weak statement; the critical thinker shouldn't pay much
attention to it.

When I am discussing religion with an atheist, I sometimes assert:
"Well, the man, Jesus, was a well documented historical figure..."
just to see if they'll take the bait. An atheist should be
indifferent to whether some religious loon was executed or not;
however, the Christian theist *must* have the historical fact. Thus,
the atheist is simply out to get the Christians (who, many times,
deserve it.)

Similarly, Cheney should have bypassed it... the limo episode told
third hand does *nothing* for her investigation; however, it makes her
look like she's out to get Trump... and she probably is... and he
likely deserves it... because I'd not challenge *any* damn thing
anybody said they heard somebody say they saw something about him
written on the shit-house wall.

I hope they get him.

But the limo story was still weak. The Trumpsters will rub the
committee's nose in it *forever*... that's all they'll want to talk
about. The problem is that they're not concerned with truth or facts
or any such technicalities. Liz handed them ammo.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about
> the events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of
> Insurrection Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about
> the "limo episode."  So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms.
> Hutchinson spoke about that.  It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>
> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally*
> direct eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.

Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
Example: Witness says "I heard A say the light was red."
It's not hearsay if offered to prove that A was awake, or that
Witness could hear A speak. It IS hearsay if offered to prove
that the light was red.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 13:59:54 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

*applause*

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:01:17 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

Rudy is very rarely so lucid and accurate, but your response was
simply brilliant, sir.

[Blue Lives Matter]

Still waiting for the Democrats to put these guys under oath. What's
the hold up? Are they afraid?

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

Well, thank you.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 16:06:19 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
<nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:

>Cry a river, you just accused the right of everything the left is
>guilty of.

I don't believe so, but if you do, then I'm over it.

We have to quit worrying about "left" and "right" and try to bring
some sanity into our discussion. I've been in both camps. I always
voted Republican up until '08. Since I'm in academia, I'm around a
lot of lefties; they're definitely no angels. I plan to vote
Democrat, but I'd *love* to see a moderate Republican surface...
preferably an intelligent one.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 18:35:13 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
<nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 19:29:02 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>

>A polite insult, how droll.

You utter piece of dog shit! How dare you deface my planet by
crawling across it spreading your trail of slime and filth as the
roaches crawl across the dregs of my Forth of July party now rancid
upon the kitchen table. (And I wasn't going to mention it, but don't
ever end a sentence with a preposition!)

Oh, well. That's all I have off the cuff.

Son, you're *way* out of your league. I don't troll much anymore
because it's too time consuming. Now, run along and bother someone
else... please.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 19:29:02 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

<chuckles> What you want is for Republicans to fall in line with you
leftist fruitcakes.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
news:h8mxK.32156$vd2....@fx39.iad...

Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day.. unless Tony Ornato
is the suspect insurrectionist on trial then repeating his comments about
events is clearly hearsay.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/6/2022 1:20 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the
>> events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of Insurrection Day
>> for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo episode."
>> So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that.
>> It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>
>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally* direct
>> eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>
> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.

Correct. But it was *not* offered as evidence of the truth of X. It was
offered as evidence of the fact of the conversation with Ornato.

[Matt Singer]

On 7/7/2022 3:24 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:h8mxK.32156$vd2....@fx39.iad...
>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the
>>> events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of Insurrection Day
>>> for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo episode."
>>> So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that.
>>> It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>>
>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally* direct
>>> eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>
>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.

Which it was not.

>
> Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day..

Ornato talking with Ms. Hutchinson, and telling her that Trump wanted to go to
the Capitol, is one of the events of the day.

[Scout]

"Matt Singer" <out.o...@wyebur.con> wrote in message
news:HHBxK.434011$zgr9....@fx13.iad...

Except that comment is hearsay.

Now if she was on the stand to say Mr. Ornato said he wasn't to go to the
Capital.. that would have been relevant testimony..

Instead she is repeating what she HEARD said about a 3rd party. That is ever
bit what hearsay is., She has NO directly knowledge of whether Trump said
that or anything remotely like is being asserted. The only people who could
testify to what Trump actually said would be those who actually heard him
say it.

" Hearsay rule is the rule prohibiting hearsay (out of court statements
offered as proof of that statement) from being admitted as evidence because
of the inability of the other party to cross-examine the maker of the
statement."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay_rule#:~:text=Primary%20tabs,the%20maker%20of%20the%20statement.

The court can't cross-examine Mr Ornato because he's not on the stand. He
wasn't under oath when he said it. Further I'm not aware how Mr. Ornato's
comment is even relevant as he's not the one being investigated or accused
here.

The issue is what Trump said.. and she wasn't there to hear it, so can't
testify on what was said. She has only.... wait for it.. HEARSAY.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 7/7/2022 7:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Matt Singer" <out.o...@wyebur.con> wrote in message
> news:HHBxK.434011$zgr9....@fx13.iad...
>> On 7/7/2022 3:24 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8mxK.32156$vd2....@fx39.iad...
>>>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the
>>>>> events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of Insurrection
>>>>> Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo
>>>>> episode."  So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke
>>>>> about that.  It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally*
>>>>> direct eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>>>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>>
>> Which it was not.
>>
>>>
>>> Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day..
>>
>> Ornato talking with Ms. Hutchinson, and telling her that Trump wanted to go to
>> the Capitol, is one of the events of the day.
>
> Except that comment is hearsay.

*Only* if offered as evidence to support the truth of the claim that Trump
grabbed the steering wheel and the agent's throat, scooter. But it wasn't
offered as evidence of those, scooter.

Once again, scooter:

"I heard Ornato say 'X'."
"I saw Ornato do 'Y'."

Neither is hearsay, scooter. Ms. Hutchinson, the American hero, didn't say "'X'
is true." She said, "Ornato said 'X'." What she is asserting is true, scooter,
is that "Ornato said 'X'," not "X is true." And she's telling the truth,
scooter: Ornato *said* "X."

Mark my words, scooter: if the noble Jan 6 committee calls Ornato *back* to
testify, he's going to refuse.

You're stupid, scooter. You like being stupid.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

Typical: he has all of the answers! What he misses is that politics
are *always* cyclic. They're like the crime rate: it goes up, then it
goes down... then it goes back up. It has been declining for about 25
years or so, but now it's headed north with a vengeance.

It works similarly in political polarity. One side is up for a while,
then the other undoes everything and starts over. Grass roots America
is fed up with our daily mass shootings. A clear majority of
Americans want universal background checks and an assault weapons ban;
however, the gun lobby controls congress. When it happens, it'll be a
dam burst.

It would be better for everyone to come to a happy middle now.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/7/2022 10:20 AM, Somebody too wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 22:30:15 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>

> No.

You should, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell, but you won't because you're such
a childish shitbag. He's right about you, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell:
you are *far* out of your league and out of your depth in your lame attempts at
trolling. Mostly, that's because you're exceptionally stupid. You are innately
stupid, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell, and then you work assiduously at
being even *more* stupid.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 12:16:48 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>

Your happy "middle" is about ending the 2nd amendment. It's probably
also about having men compete in women's sports and telling eight year
olds that they can change their gender and that their white classmates
are racists.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/7/2022 8:00 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/6/2022 1:20 PM,Just Wondering explained:

>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about
>>> the events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of
>>> Insurrection Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her
>>> about the "limo episode." So, when asked about the events of the day,
>>> Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that. It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>>
>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally*
>>> direct eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>
>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>
> Correct.  But it was *not* offered as evidence of the truth of X.  It
> was offered as evidence of the fact of the conversation with Ornato.

What is relevant about Hutchinson's testimony about a conversation
between Ornato and her, if not offered for the truth of what Ornato
said? If not relevant, why waste the time and money of Congress
and the nation asking about it?

[Just Wondering]

On 7/7/2022 8:02 AM, Matt Singer wrote:
> On 7/7/2022 3:24 AM, Scout wrote:

>> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked
>>>> about the events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events
>>>> of Insurrection Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to
>>>> her about the "limo episode." So, when asked about the events of the
>>>> day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that. It was most emphatically *not*
>>>> hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both
>>>> *equally* direct eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>>
>>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>
> Which it was not.
>>
>> Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day..
>
> Ornato talking with Ms. Hutchinson, and telling her that Trump wanted
> to go to the Capitol, is one of the events of the day.

If Hutchinson testified that Ornato told her Trump wanted a thing
as evidence of what Trump wanted, that would be hearsay.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 12:34:39 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:24:25 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>>You should, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell, but you won't because you're such
>>a childish shitbag. He's right about you, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell:
>>you are *far* out of your league and out of your depth in your lame attempts at
>>trolling. Mostly, that's because you're exceptionally stupid. You are innately
>>stupid, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell, and then you work assiduously at
>>being even *more* stupid.
>
>

>Look what I made you do without even trying.

ROFLMAO

He must have a script. LOL

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/7/2022 10:27 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 7/7/2022 8:00 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 7/6/2022 1:20 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

>>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the
>>>> events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of Insurrection
>>>> Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo
>>>> episode." So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke
>>>> about that. It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally* direct
>>>> eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>>
>>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>>
>> Correct.  But it was *not* offered as evidence of the truth of X.  It was
>> offered as evidence of the fact of the conversation with Ornato.
>
> What is relevant about Hutchinson's testimony about a conversation between
> Ornato and her, if not offered for the truth of what Ornato
> said?

It wasn't offered as evidence for the truth of what Ornato saw, Francis. You
know that. That was a really shitty try, Francis.

It gives the noble Jan 6 committee a reason to call the lying Trumpswab Ornato
back to testify under oath as to what *he* saw Trump do after Trump was denied
his trip to the Capitol.

Ornato, of course, has a big reputation as a liar. He has repeatedly denied
having had conversations with others that those others say occurred, even when
there were multiple witnesses to the conversation. We know that Ornato told
Hutchinson that Trump grabbed the steering wheel and Engel's neck. Is Ornato
prepared to lie under oath and say he never told that to Ms. Hutchinson? He
told it to her. Why would Ms. Hutchinson, heretofore a loyal Trump staffer
herself, make up that detail? She didn't; Ornato told it to her. Was Ornato
lying to her about that?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/7/2022 10:30 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

That's not what she testified to, Francis, so of course it wasn't hearsay. In
any case, Francis, Ornato and Engel *both* have previously testified to what
Trump told them he wanted. They also have told others what Trump told them he
wanted, and what Ms. Hutchinson said Ornato told her Trump wanted matches what
Ornato and Engel told others, including the committee, that Trump wanted.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
<nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:

>>That's not what she testified to, Francis, so of course it wasn't hearsay. In
>>any case, Francis, Ornato and Engel *both* have previously testified to what
>>Trump told them he wanted. They also have told others what Trump told them he
>>wanted, and what Ms. Hutchinson said Ornato told her Trump wanted matches what
>>Ornato and Engel told others, including the committee, that Trump wanted.
>
>

>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>is a liar.

You have no way of knowing that, sir. All you know is that both sides
of a contradiction cannot be true. It would help Ornato's position
were he to make a sworn, public statement regarding that incident...
I'm not sure it's even important.

1) John Doe says: "I shot J.F.K."

2) Jane Roe says: "I heard John Doe say that he shot J.F.K."

3) Tom Collins says: "I heard Jane Roe claiming that she heard John
Doe say that he shot J.F.K."

#1 is the strongest statement; if he didn't shoot J.F.K., he's lying.

#2 is the next stronger in that it's a statement of what she heard.
If she didn't hear that, she's lying; however, this doesn't tell us
who shot J.F.K.

#3 is weak. It depends on two levels of hearsay. Ignoring #2, if
Jane Roe says she didn't say that, can you, therefore, conclude that
Tom Collins is lying in #3? I say naught. There's a lot of room
here; that's why it's weak.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 16:06:19 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:01:17 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>>But the limo story was still weak. The Trumpsters will rub the
>>committee's nose in it *forever*... that's all they'll want to talk
>>about. The problem is that they're not concerned with truth or facts
>>or any such technicalities. Liz handed them ammo.
>
>

>Cry a river, you just accused the right of everything the left is
>guilty of.

Yup. Sho 'nuff. I don't understand why anybody would want to belong
to a party that engages in such tactics. Yet both left and right do
belong to those parties.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 19:29:02 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 16:06:19 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
><nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Cry a river, you just accused the right of everything the left is
>>guilty of.
>
>I don't believe so, but if you do, then I'm over it.

No, he's right. Both sides are dirty tricksters. I think the GOP
currently has the edge, especially in "alternative facts" but the Dems
can pull some tricks out of the bag too. Pity they're not more
competent but that's because libs tend to be conscientious and won't
tow the party line just because it is the part line. Republicans
otoh, will vote the part line even if it's a bill to kill all voters
over sixty as long as that's a party plank.

>We have to quit worrying about "left" and "right" and try to bring
>some sanity into our discussion. I've been in both camps. I always
>voted Republican up until '08. Since I'm in academia, I'm around a
>lot of lefties; they're definitely no angels. I plan to vote
>Democrat, but I'd *love* to see a moderate Republican surface...
>preferably an intelligent one.

Like Jon Huntsman. *stares wistfully at his Wikipedia page*

I'd wish McCain could be risen from the dead, but he'd probably choose
Palin again. (perhaps the stupidest decision over made by a
Presidential candidate)

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 18:35:13 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 19:29:02 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>

>A polite insult, how droll.

You've probably noticed by now I agree with him.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 12:16:48 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

>It works similarly in political polarity. One side is up for a while,
>then the other undoes everything and starts over. Grass roots America
>is fed up with our daily mass shootings. A clear majority of
>Americans want universal background checks and an assault weapons ban;
>however, the gun lobby controls congress. When it happens, it'll be a
>dam burst.
>
>It would be better for everyone to come to a happy middle now.

This is something I've been trying to communicate to gun enthusiasts.
Like a rubber band being wound up in a balsa wood airplane toy, that
tension is going to be released.

My bet is that an NRA owned Congress critter or his/her loved one(s)
will be killed in a mass shooting with a semi auto long gun and THEN
Congress will take action.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:56:36 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
<nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:12:49 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>

>Well all that aside no one knows so it's moot.

I will accept that without argument; however, isn't this your
statement:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
<nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:

[...]

>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>is a liar.

I would suggest that "liar" is a pretty strong term. E.g.: I have
been on newsgroups since the ARPANET days and I have *never* called
anyone a liar. Why do you use it so frivolously if the point is moot?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:44:12 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Matt Singer" <out.o...@wyebur.con> wrote in message
>news:HHBxK.434011$zgr9....@fx13.iad...
>> On 7/7/2022 3:24 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8mxK.32156$vd2....@fx39.iad...
>>>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about
>>>>> the events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21). One of the events of
>>>>> Insurrection Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her
>>>>> about the "limo episode." So, when asked about the events of the day,
>>>>> Ms. Hutchinson spoke about that. It was most emphatically *not*
>>>>> hearsay.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally*
>>>>> direct eyewitness testimony. They are not hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>>>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>>
>> Which it was not.
>>
>>>
>>> Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day..
>>
>> Ornato talking with Ms. Hutchinson, and telling her that Trump wanted to
>> go to the Capitol, is one of the events of the day.
>
>Except that comment is hearsay.

Of course it is. But this is not a trial, it's an investigation and
hearsay is allowed in investigations.

Her story can't be unheard.

>Now if she was on the stand to say Mr. Ornato said he wasn't to go to the
>Capital.. that would have been relevant testimony..
>
>Instead she is repeating what she HEARD said about a 3rd party. That is ever
>bit what hearsay is., She has NO directly knowledge of whether Trump said
>that or anything remotely like is being asserted. The only people who could
>testify to what Trump actually said would be those who actually heard him
>say it.
>
>" Hearsay rule is the rule prohibiting hearsay (out of court statements
>offered as proof of that statement) from being admitted as evidence because
>of the inability of the other party to cross-examine the maker of the
>statement."
>
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay_rule#:~:text=Primary%20tabs,the%20maker%20of%20the%20statement.
>
>The court can't cross-examine Mr Ornato because he's not on the stand. He
>wasn't under oath when he said it. Further I'm not aware how Mr. Ornato's
>comment is even relevant as he's not the one being investigated or accused
>here.
>
>The issue is what Trump said.. and she wasn't there to hear it, so can't
>testify on what was said. She has only.... wait for it.. HEARSAY.
>

None of which is relevant because this is not a trial.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:49:31 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
wrote:

>Neither is hearsay, scooter. Ms. Hutchinson, the American hero, didn't say "'X'
>is true." She said, "Ornato said 'X'." What she is asserting is true, scooter,
>is that "Ornato said 'X'," not "X is true." And she's telling the truth,
>scooter: Ornato *said* "X."

Accurate. Hutchinson testified to what she heard, not what Trump did.
She can't testify to what Trump did, she wasn't there. But she can
relate what she heard Ornato say in her office.

Again, this is an investigation, not a proper court trial.

[Ray Keller]

On 07 Jul 2022, Rudy pretending to be governo...@gmail.com posted some
news:fd0fchpicd164vibj...@4ax.com:

You meant to say shit story, Rudy.

In a way, Ms. Hutchinson stick a knife right in the heart of the January 6
nut squad theatrics.

She lied about writing the note and her overall sincerity must be
questioned and considered.

Besides, after this silly shit show, where are you going to find an
impartial jury?

See how fucking stupid liberal Democrats are?

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Of course it is *not*.

_Hearsay_

Ms. Hutchinson: "Trump did 'X' at the end of his rally."
Ms. Cheney: "How do you know Trump did 'X'?"
Ms. Hutchinson: "Because Tony Ornato told me he did."

_Not hearsay_

Ms. Hutchinson: "Tony Ornato said Trump did 'X' at the end of his rally."
Ms. Cheney: "How do you know Ornato said that?"
Ms. Hutchinson: "Because he said it *to me*."

In the first case, Ms. Hutchinson is testifying to what Trump did, but she
doesn't know what Trump did because she didn't witness it. In the second, she
is testifying to what Ornato said. She knows what Ornato said because Ornato
said it *to her*, i.e., she witnessed it first hand.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>
>> Now if she was on the stand to say Mr. Ornato said he wasn't to go to the
>> Capital.. that would have been relevant testimony..
>>
>> Instead she is repeating what she HEARD said about a 3rd party. That is ever
>> bit what hearsay is.

Bullshit. It is only hearsay if she is testifying as to the truth of what the
other person said to her. But she isn't. She's testifying as to what he said
*to her*, i.e., something she witnessed first hand.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 7/7/2022 6:05 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:49:31 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Neither is hearsay, scooter. Ms. Hutchinson, the American hero, didn't say "'X'
>> is true." She said, "Ornato said 'X'." What she is asserting is true, scooter,
>> is that "Ornato said 'X'," not "X is true." And she's telling the truth,
>> scooter: Ornato *said* "X."
>
> Accurate. Hutchinson testified to what she heard, not what Trump did.

Exactly. So why in another reply just minutes before this one did you fail to
understand that, and call what she said "hearsay" when it is not hearsay?

> She can't testify to what Trump did, she wasn't there. But she can
> relate what she heard Ornato say in her office.

And that's all she did.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 20:59:25 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 12:16:48 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It works similarly in political polarity. One side is up for a while,
>>then the other undoes everything and starts over. Grass roots America
>>is fed up with our daily mass shootings. A clear majority of
>>Americans want universal background checks and an assault weapons ban;
>>however, the gun lobby controls congress. When it happens, it'll be a
>>dam burst.
>>
>>It would be better for everyone to come to a happy middle now.
>
>This is something I've been trying to communicate to gun enthusiasts.
>Like a rubber band being wound up in a balsa wood airplane toy, that
>tension is going to be released.
>
>My bet is that an NRA owned Congress critter or his/her loved one(s)
>will be killed in a mass shooting with a semi auto long gun and THEN
>Congress will take action.
>
>Swill

Like this?

On June 14, 2017, during practice for the Congressional Baseball Game,
Scalise was shot and seriously wounded by a left-wing domestic
terroris who was targeting Republicans. He underwent treatment for
several months, returning to Congress on September 28.

Scalise has been an opponent of gun control and was given an "A+
rating" from the National Rifle Association. After being shot, and in
the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Scalise said on Meet the
Press that he is still a gun rights supporter:

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 21:47:01 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
wrote:

>On 7/7/2022 6:05 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:49:31 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neither is hearsay, scooter. Ms. Hutchinson, the American hero, didn't say "'X'
>>> is true." She said, "Ornato said 'X'." What she is asserting is true, scooter,
>>> is that "Ornato said 'X'," not "X is true." And she's telling the truth,
>>> scooter: Ornato *said* "X."
>>
>> Accurate. Hutchinson testified to what she heard, not what Trump did.
>
>Exactly. So why in another reply just minutes before this one did you fail to
>understand that, and call what she said "hearsay" when it is not hearsay?

Because it is hearsay regarding Trump's actions. It is not hearsay
regarding Hutchinson's experiences.

>> She can't testify to what Trump did, she wasn't there. But she can
>> relate what she heard Ornato say in her office.
>
>And that's all she did.

Precisely.

[governo...@gmail.com]

*plonk*

[John Baker]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 21:45:53 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
wrote:

He's an idiot, and a prolific one at that. Last night when I refreshed
the group, of 77 new messages, 55 were Swill's. That was the last
straw. Into the killfile he went.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

>so i dont have to brag about how long i have been on usenet

Someday, if you're lucky, you'll be as old as I and may refer to your
age, suggesting that it, somehow, imparts wisdom. You might stop
gratuitously using "liar" without any evidence, though... I know that
"everyone does it"; however, the world is full of assholes. I try
(not always successfully) not to be one of them.

[Just Wondering]

If what he said isn't true, it's also not relevant. So
yeah, what she said she heard him say is offered for the
truth of what he said.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/8/2022 11:04 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

What he said to her almost certainly *is* true, Francis. He needs to be
questioned under oath about it, and asked two questions:

"Did you, chronic liar Ornato, witness Trump grab the steering wheel and Agent
Engel's neck?"

"Did you, chronic liar Ornato, *tell* Ms. Hutchinson that you witnessed Trump
grab the steering wheel and Agent Engel's neck?"

> So yeah, what she said she heard him say is offered for the
> truth of what he said.

No, Francis, you shit-stained liar, it isn't. It's offered for the truth of the
chronic liar Ornato telling her something. And we know he *did* tell her that,
and we know that Engel did *not* protest the telling.

It's not hearsay, Francis. You know this.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 08:44:37 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>

Thank you!

Swill

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Now if she was on the stand to say Mr. Ornato said he wasn't to go to the
>>>> Capital.. that would have been relevant testimony..
>>>>
>>>> Instead she is repeating what she HEARD said about a 3rd party. That is ever
>>>> bit what hearsay is.
>>
>>Bullshit. It is only hearsay if she is testifying as to the truth of what the
>>other person said to her. But she isn't. She's testifying as to what he said
>>*to her*, i.e., something she witnessed first hand.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 09:02:13 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

>Someday, if you're lucky, you'll be as old as I and may refer to your
>age, suggesting that it, somehow, imparts wisdom. You might stop
>gratuitously using "liar" without any evidence, though... I know that
>"everyone does it"; however, the world is full of assholes. I try
>(not always successfully) not to be one of them.

In politics, the word "liar" was always avoided. I don't think I ever
heard the media call a candidate "liar" until Trump's lies became so
transparent and frequent.

Swill

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 12:04:16 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>If what he said isn't true, it's also not relevant. So
>yeah, what she said she heard him say is offered for the
>truth of what he said.

Liz should have had more sense than to have included the part about
what Hutchinson heard someone say about what they heard someone say.
If the "chain of custody" (to borrow a phrase) is accurately revealed,
there's nothing wrong with it... except it's weak. Since it's weak,
that's what the Trumpsters are going to want to talk about. Liz
should have stopped her from bringing it up.

It does make Trump look like a boorish fool, but that's not the
committee's objective... supposedly. The problem is that something
sibilant to half the population already thinks Trump is a boorish fool
and the other half think he's their returning messiah. So what's the
point.

Liz should have focused on the objective and used the information
provided by Hutchinson to look for people who were there. But,
then... being a boorish fool to his Secret Service detail isn't a
crime.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:04:13 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
wrote:

>Liz should have had more sense than to have included the part about
>what Hutchinson heard someone say about what they heard someone say.
>If the "chain of custody" (to borrow a phrase) is accurately revealed,
>there's nothing wrong with it... except it's weak. Since it's weak,
>that's what the Trumpsters are going to want to talk about. Liz
>should have stopped her from bringing it up.

Um, almost. Hutchinson told the committee what someone told her what
somebody else DID, not what they SAID.

But I agree it shouldn't have been said.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 7/9/2022 1:50 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:04:13 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
> wrote:
>> Liz should have had more sense than to have included the part about
>> what Hutchinson heard someone say about what they heard someone say.
>> If the "chain of custody" (to borrow a phrase) is accurately revealed,
>> there's nothing wrong with it... except it's weak. Since it's weak,
>> that's what the Trumpsters are going to want to talk about. Liz
>> should have stopped her from bringing it up.
>
> Um, almost. Hutchinson told the committee what someone told her what
> somebody else DID, not what they SAID.

It was both.

> But I agree it shouldn't have been said.

It was fine to say it. It gives the noble Jan 6 committee another angle to
check out.

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:50:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
governo...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:04:13 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>>Liz should have had more sense than to have included the part about
>>what Hutchinson heard someone say about what they heard someone say.
>>If the "chain of custody" (to borrow a phrase) is accurately revealed,
>>there's nothing wrong with it... except it's weak. Since it's weak,
>>that's what the Trumpsters are going to want to talk about. Liz
>>should have stopped her from bringing it up.
>
>Um, almost. Hutchinson told the committee what someone told her what
>somebody else DID, not what they SAID.
>
>But I agree it shouldn't have been said.
>
>Swill

Her overall testimony was believable and strong. She was a *very*
damaging witness. The bit about the limo incident was simply hear-say
twice removed. If I were a Trumpster, I would focus on that... oh,
wait. That's what they're doing.

Wow! I'm as smart as a Trumpster!

[Onomatopoeia *BOOM*!]

Oh, check it out, for sure. If I saw something written on the shitter
wall, I'd check it out, but I wouldn't repeat it.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Ms. Hutchinson testified as to what Ornato told her Trump did *and* said when
told he couldn't go to the Capitol. Her testimony about what Ornato told her
that Trump said matches what Ornato and Engel already told the committee. That
supports the idea that Ornato did in fact tell her what Trump did, in addition
to what Trump said. It was worthwhile for her to tell the committee everything
that Ornato told her about Trump's behavior when told he couldn't go to the Capitol.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:14:18 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 14:49:05 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
>wrote:

>>Ms. Hutchinson testified as to what Ornato told her Trump did *and* said when
>>told he couldn't go to the Capitol. Her testimony about what Ornato told her
>>that Trump said matches what Ornato and Engel already told the committee. That
>>supports the idea that Ornato did in fact tell her what Trump did, in addition
>>to what Trump said. It was worthwhile for her to tell the committee everything
>>that Ornato told her about Trump's behavior when told he couldn't go to the Capitol.
>
>

>Yawn

The conversation isn't boring enough to stop you replying to it.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:13:27 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:43:15 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:50:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
>>governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:04:13 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Liz should have had more sense than to have included the part about
>>>>what Hutchinson heard someone say about what they heard someone say.
>>>>If the "chain of custody" (to borrow a phrase) is accurately revealed,
>>>>there's nothing wrong with it... except it's weak. Since it's weak,
>>>>that's what the Trumpsters are going to want to talk about. Liz
>>>>should have stopped her from bringing it up.
>>>
>>>Um, almost. Hutchinson told the committee what someone told her what
>>>somebody else DID, not what they SAID.
>>>
>>>But I agree it shouldn't have been said.
>>>
>>>Swill
>>
>>Her overall testimony was believable and strong. She was a *very*
>>damaging witness. The bit about the limo incident was simply hear-say
>>twice removed. If I were a Trumpster, I would focus on that... oh,
>>wait. That's what they're doing.
>>
>>Wow! I'm as smart as a Trumpster!
>
>

>Crying about him over 2 years latter would prove otherwise.

When's the last time you complained about a Clinton or Obama.

>What a great way to put a shadow over Bidens failures.

What a great way to pretend the Trump administration wasn't a criminal
filled corruption machine.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:43:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 7/7/2022 10:30 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip

>>chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>

>>> On 7/7/2022 8:02 AM, Matt Singer wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2022 3:24 AM, Scout wrote:

>>>>> "Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2022 1:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hutchinson wasn't asked about the "limo episode." She was asked about the
>>>>>>> events of Insurrection Day (01/06/21).  One of the events of Insurrection
>>>>>>> Day for Ms. Hutchinson was Tony Ornato talking to her about the "limo
>>>>>>> episode." So, when asked about the events of the day, Ms. Hutchinson spoke
>>>>>>> about that. It was most emphatically *not* hearsay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I heard Ornato say 'X'" and "I saw Ornato do 'Y'" are both *equally*
>>>>>>> direct eyewitness testimony.  They are not hearsay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Witness's statement, "I heard Ornato say 'X'" is hearsay if
>>>>>> it is offered as evidence of the truth of X.
>>>>
>>>> Which it was not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, and if the issue were about the events of the day..
>>>>
>>>> Ornato talking with Ms. Hutchinson, and telling her that Trump wanted to go to
>>>> the Capitol, is one of the events of the day.
>>>

>>> If Hutchinson testified that Ornato told her Trump wanted a thing
>>> as evidence of what Trump wanted, that would be hearsay.

>>
>>That's not what she testified to, Francis, so of course it wasn't hearsay. In
>>any case, Francis, Ornato and Engel *both* have previously testified to what
>>Trump told them he wanted. They also have told others what Trump told them he
>>wanted, and what Ms. Hutchinson said Ornato told her Trump wanted matches what
>>Ornato and Engel told others, including the committee, that Trump wanted.
>
>
>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>is a liar.

They aren't under oath, are they?

Ornato has been known to "tell stories" before this.

Do I believe Ornato told her the story? Yes.
Do I believe it's true? No.
Therefore Ornato lie to Hutchinson. If he (or you) is concerned about
her repeating his lie, think about all the lies and rumors you've
spread by repeating facts not in evidence.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 20:00:23 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>

Because the point isn't moot. That's just his way of giving up in the
face of defeated debate.

"I know we've been arguing about this for days but there's no reason
to since it doesn't matter anyway."

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 21:17:28 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 20:00:23 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>

>so i dont have to brag about how long i have been on usenet

Dodge.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message

news:Ak_xK.540400$wIO9....@fx12.iad...

Thus Hearsay....

Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
proceedings,

In short, they are relying on Hearsay testimony.

[Matt Singer]

> Thus Hearsay [sic]

No, not hearsay, scooter. And do not capitalize the 'h' unless it's the first
word in the sentence, scooter.

>
> Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for anything

Your being unaware of it is to be expected, scooter.

> so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these proceedings,

It's relevant, scooter. He supposedly is dying to testify, scooter — or shall I
say testilie — so when and if he does, they can ask him about it.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>proceedings,

Don't treat us like we're stupid. He worked in the White House under
Trump and that makes what he says relevant. They aren't taking
testimony only from people under investigation, they're taking it from
everybody relevant as part of the investigation.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 18:49:20 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 19:41:47 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 21:17:28 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 20:00:23 -0500, Onomatopoeia *BOOM*! <x...@y.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Somebody too
>>>><nu...@biz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>>>>>is a liar.
>>>>
>>>>I would suggest that "liar" is a pretty strong term. E.g.: I have
>>>>been on newsgroups since the ARPANET days and I have *never* called
>>>>anyone a liar. Why do you use it so frivolously if the point is moot?
>>>
>>>
>>>so i dont have to brag about how long i have been on usenet
>>
>>Dodge.
>>
>
>

>tough town

Crap cars.

[Scout]

<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:imhoch1e8i5vagnjd...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>proceedings,
>
> Don't treat us like we're stupid.

Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
shifts in thought and behavior.

>He worked in the White House under
> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.

Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until then...
all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and what
he might be under investigation for.

> They aren't taking
> testimony only from people under investigation, they're taking it from
> everybody relevant as part of the investigation.

And what exactly do you think he's guilty of, and in what manner does his
comment reflect his illegal actions?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <tahcsr$1nm83$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> Thus Hearsay....

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Regardless
of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay When the
Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant s Credibility
Rule 807. Residual Exception

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Scout]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-F3CE9...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <tahcsr$1nm83$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Thus Hearsay....
>
> https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/
>
> Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Regardless
> of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

Nothing in that applies to a passing comment made by Mr. Ornato

> Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay When the
> Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

Mr. Mr. Ornato doesn't lack in creditability.

> Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant s Credibility

Doesn't apply since none of the exceptions much less all of them exist

> Rule 807. Residual Exception

Moot issue since Mr. Ornato is available was a witness.

So what exactly in this mess were you claiming to be pinning your hopes on..
seems like you simply cited any exception possible hoping you could find
something to stick..

However, more importantly WHEN and under WHAT rule was her hearsay evidence
even allowed to be taken?
That should have been determined in advance.. so where is your evidence?

I will simply acknowledge that you have admitted it was hearsay testimony
and now your ONLY hope is to try to find some excuse to make it legitimate,
which frankly is YOUR job.. not mine.

So.. show us the ruling that her hearsay testimony was acceptable to enter
into evidence and exactly what exclusions was being invoked.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 7/11/2022 12:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-F3CE9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <tahcsr$1nm83$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thus Hearsay....
>>
>> https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/
>>
>>    Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Regardless
>> of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
>
> Nothing in that applies to a passing comment made by Mr. Ornato

As Ms. Hutchinson was not testifying as to the truth of what Ornato told her,
scooter, there was no hearsay.

>
>>    Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay When the
>> Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
>

> Mr. Mr. Ornato doesn't lack in creditability [sic]

*credibility*, scooter, not "creditability." There is no such word as
"creditability," you stupid fuck.

>
>>    Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant s Credibility
>
> Doesn't apply

You don't know the law, scooter.

>
>>    Rule 807. Residual Exception
>
> Moot issue since

You don't know the law, scooter.

There was no hearsay, scooter.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:imhoch1e8i5vagnjd...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>proceedings,
>>
>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>
>Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>shifts in thought and behavior.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote

>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>
>>>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>proceedings,
>>
>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>
>Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>shifts in thought and behavior.

I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
posts. And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post. Iow,
you posted bs.

>>He worked in the White House under
>> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.
>
>Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until then...
>all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
>it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
>it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
>content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and what
>he might be under investigation for.

Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.

>
>> They aren't taking
>> testimony only from people under investigation, they're taking it from
>> everybody relevant as part of the investigation.
>
>And what exactly do you think he's guilty of, and in what manner does his
>comment reflect his illegal actions?

I didn't say he was guilty of anything. At worst, he's an office
gossip. I didn't say he needed to be investigated or charged with
anything.

*I* said they're taking testimony from persons relevant to the
investigation. Since a major focus of it has been on White House
activities, it makes perfect sense to find out who was in the White
House, what they did and what they said to each other.

Please don't twist my words and attribute to me things I didn't post.

Just to keep the record straight, I believe Ms Hutchinson when she
said he told her that story but I don't believe the story is true.
Iow, I expect he was spicing up an incident that was at best, partly
true.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:42:10 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Thus Hearsay....
>> https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/
>> Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Regardless
>> of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
>
>Nothing in that applies to a passing comment made by Mr. Ornato

It wasn't a "passing comment". It was a complete story probably told
with some relish as exaggerations so often are.

>> Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay When the
>> Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
>
>Mr. Mr. Ornato doesn't lack in creditability.

Credibility. You only typo that badly when you've gotten to excited
to notice.

>> Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant s Credibility
>
>Doesn't apply since none of the exceptions much less all of them exist
>
>> Rule 807. Residual Exception
>
>Moot issue since Mr. Ornato is available was a witness.

Is available or has already done so?

>So what exactly in this mess were you claiming to be pinning your hopes on..
>seems like you simply cited any exception possible hoping you could find
>something to stick..
>
>However, more importantly WHEN and under WHAT rule was her hearsay evidence
>even allowed to be taken?
>That should have been determined in advance.. so where is your evidence?

Sounds like you're trying to get nothing to stick, nothing at all.
Fact is, she related something she heard in a conversation that day
and related it not as something that happened but as something she was
told.

>I will simply acknowledge that you have admitted it was hearsay testimony
>and now your ONLY hope is to try to find some excuse to make it legitimate,
>which frankly is YOUR job.. not mine.
>
>So.. show us the ruling that her hearsay testimony was acceptable to enter
>into evidence and exactly what exclusions was being invoked.

Why do you keep treating this investigation like a trial? If it's a
trial at all, it's only in the court of public opinion and THAT court
allows hearsay, rumor and outright lies. Any Republican alive in the
nineties knows that.

Republicans believe Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with dozens of
other women AND that Hillary is a so ugly a blind man wouldn't fuck
her.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 19:38:50 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, Somebody too wrote:
>>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>>is a liar.

>They aren't under oath, are they?
>
>Ornato has been known to "tell stories" before this.

>Do I believe Ornato told her the story? Yes.
>Do I believe it's true? No.

>Therefore Ornato lied to Hutchinson. If he (or you) is concerned about

>her repeating his lie, think about all the lies and rumors you've
>spread by repeating facts not in evidence.

Have you thought carefully about them?

[OrigInfoJunkie]

You're known to be an idiot. Ms. Hutchinson also said that Ornato told her
things that he had earlier and separately told the committee. Both Ornato and
Engel described Trump as enraged, and saying that he was the "fucking president"
and they should do what he told them to do. It is perfectly plausible that the
fat fuck grabbed the wheel and then Engel's neck.

[Scout]

<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mo9pch1vbh1tubnq6...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>proceedings,
>>>
>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>
>>Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>shifts in thought and behavior.
>
> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
> posts. And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post. Iow,
> you posted bs.

My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call Mr.
Ornato as a witness.. then that would be ACTUAL testimony.

Asking someone else what another said about Trump... well that's just
hearsay.

That is unless Mr. Ornato is the subject of the investigation and he's the
one being accused of something.

Simple, basic rules of evidence. Something you apparently know very little
about.

>>>He worked in the White House under
>>> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.
>>
>>Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until
>>then...
>>all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
>>it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
>>it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
>>content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and
>>what
>>he might be under investigation for.
>
> Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
> heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.

No, I wouldn't because the rule remain the same no matter who it is.

If some staffer was being ask what another staffer said Clinton told them...
it would still be hearsay evidence.

The rules don't change because of political affiliation.

Maybe YOU think they should, but I demand that the rules be applied equally
to ALL..

Otherwise, we need to eliminate the rule.

So, no, I wouldn't. You, however, might have such double standards.. Do you?

However, that doesn't change the rules of evidence. Hearsay is hearsay and
it doesn't matter who is it.

>>> They aren't taking
>>> testimony only from people under investigation, they're taking it from
>>> everybody relevant as part of the investigation.
>>
>>And what exactly do you think he's guilty of, and in what manner does his
>>comment reflect his illegal actions?
>
> I didn't say he was guilty of anything.

Then her testimony, on this matter, is of no probative value and consists
purely of hearsay.

>At worst, he's an office
> gossip. I didn't say he needed to be investigated or charged with
> anything.

Then you have admitted her testimony is hearsay on what he said is hearsay
and should not be allowed.

>
> *I* said they're taking testimony from persons relevant to the
> investigation.

Except she's not relevant, or at least her testimony on what Mr. Ornato
said.. since you admit he's not being accused of anything. So it makes no
difference what he said someone else say.. the very definition of hearsay.

> Since a major focus of it has been on White House
> activities, it makes perfect sense to find out who was in the White
> House, what they did and what they said to each other.

Why?

she said, he said, trump said.. hearsay.

How does that establish anything?

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 7/12/2022 4:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mo9pch1vbh1tubnq6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>> anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>> proceedings,
>>>>
>>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>> shifts in thought and behavior.
>>
>> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
>> posts.  And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
>> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post.  Iow,
>> you posted bs.
>
> My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call

> Ornato as a witness

They might, but only because Ms. Hutchinson gave them the lead, scooter.

Of course, Ornato will refuse to testify.

.
>
> Asking someone else what another said about Trump... well that's just hearsay.

They didn't ask Ms. Hutchinson what the liar Ornato said about Trump, scooter.
She volunteered it. It wasn't hearsay. What Ornato said to Ms. Hutchinson is
of interest. It would only be hearsay if Ms. Hutchinson *testified* that "Trump
did 'X'." But she didn't. She testified "Ornato *told me* that Trump did 'X'."
Her testimony is that Ornato told her something of interest. He did.

>>>> He worked in the White House under
>>>> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.
>>>
>>> Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until then...
>>> all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
>>> it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
>>> it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
>>> content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and what
>>> he might be under investigation for.
>>
>> Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
>> heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.
>
> No,

Yes, you would.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/12/2022 9:52 AM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+
cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:38:50 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2022 4:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mo9pch1vbh1tubnq6...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>>>> anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>>>> proceedings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>>>> shifts in thought and behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
>>>> posts.  And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
>>>> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post.  Iow,
>>>> you posted bs.
>>>
>>> My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call
>>> Ornato as a witness
>>
>> They might, but only because Ms. Hutchinson gave them the lead, scooter.
>>
>> Of course, Ornato will refuse to testify.
>

> So what?

So then we'll know that he *did* tell Ms. Hutchinson that Trump grabbed the
steering wheel and Engel's neck, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

>>
>> .
>>>
>>> Asking someone else what another said about Trump... well that's just hearsay.
>>
>> They didn't ask Ms. Hutchinson what the liar Ornato said about Trump, scooter.
>> She volunteered it. It wasn't hearsay. What Ornato said to Ms. Hutchinson is
>> of interest. It would only be hearsay if Ms. Hutchinson *testified* that "Trump
>> did 'X'." But she didn't. She testified "Ornato *told me* that Trump did 'X'."
>> Her testimony is that Ornato told her something of interest. He did.
>

> He says he didn't.

No, he has not said that, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell. He hasn't said
anything about it, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

>>
>>>>>> He worked in the White House under
>>>>>> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until then...
>>>>> all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
>>>>> it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
>>>>> it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
>>>>> content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and what
>>>>> he might be under investigation for.
>>>>
>>>> Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
>>>> heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Yes, you would.
>

> Proof?

You just gave it, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:59:04 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
wrote:

>>Iow, I expect he was spicing up an incident that was at best, partly

>>true.
>
>You're known to be an idiot. Ms. Hutchinson also said that Ornato told her
>things that he had earlier and separately told the committee. Both Ornato and
>Engel described Trump as enraged, and saying that he was the "fucking president"
>and they should do what he told them to do. It is perfectly plausible that the
>fat fuck grabbed the wheel and then Engel's neck.

Plausible? Plausible for tubby to reach past a secret service agent
and try to grab the wheel? And you call ME an idiot?

That said, we're not talking about "plausible". That's worse than
hearsay. After all, it's "plausible" Melania had a sex change. It's
"plausible" that Barron is the child of Mick Jagger.

It's "plausible" that Jesus is going to come down and kick your ass
for writing that stupid paragraph.

Swill
--
And speaking of stupid, how dumb do you have to be to believe a god
who didn't prevent the Holocaust is going to help you win a football
game?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 07:25:45 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mo9pch1vbh1tubnq6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>><governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>>anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>>proceedings,
>>>>
>>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>>
>>>Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>>shifts in thought and behavior.
>>
>> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
>> posts. And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
>> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post. Iow,
>> you posted bs.
>
>My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call Mr.
>Ornato as a witness.. then that would be ACTUAL testimony.

I understand that. And if that had been the line of questioning, that
may be where they would have gone. But it seems to me that what they
were asking wasn't "what did the president do" but "what happened that
day?"

>Asking someone else what another said about Trump... well that's just
>hearsay.

Again, this isn't a trial, it's an investigation and investigators
routinely listen to and act on hearsay as leads.

>That is unless Mr. Ornato is the subject of the investigation and he's the
>one being accused of something.
>
> Simple, basic rules of evidence. Something you apparently know very little
>about.

I know more than you do. I know, for example that "the rules of
evidence" apply to a trial scenario. This is not a trial.

>> Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
>> heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.
>
>No, I wouldn't because the rule remain the same no matter who it is.

I call bullshit. Rightists in here are STILL whining about the
Clintons; Vince Foster, their investments, Benghazi (ELEVEN
investigations), Uranium and any number of "scandals" manufactured by
GOP operatives.

>If some staffer was being ask what another staffer said Clinton told them...
>it would still be hearsay evidence.

If it was at a trial.

>The rules don't change because of political affiliation.

But the complaints about the rules do.

>Maybe YOU think they should, but I demand that the rules be applied equally
>to ALL..

So do I but you and I have both seen too much hypocrisy in here to
believe it's actually going to happen.

>Otherwise, we need to eliminate the rule.

Nothing wrong with the rule. It applies in Trial, not Investigation.

>So, no, I wouldn't. You, however, might have such double standards.. Do you?

You know better. You also know that many of your compatriots on that
side of the aisle regularly practice hypocrisy. ELEVEN Benghazi
investigations and yet Republicans in the House boycotted the Jan 6
committee.

>However, that doesn't change the rules of evidence. Hearsay is hearsay and
>it doesn't matter who is it.

True, in a trial.

>>>> They aren't taking
>>>> testimony only from people under investigation, they're taking it from
>>>> everybody relevant as part of the investigation.
>>>
>>>And what exactly do you think he's guilty of, and in what manner does his
>>>comment reflect his illegal actions?
>>
>> I didn't say he was guilty of anything.
>
>Then her testimony, on this matter, is of no probative value and consists
>purely of hearsay.

And perfectly admissible as an investigatory statement.

> >At worst, he's an office
>> gossip. I didn't say he needed to be investigated or charged with
>> anything.
>
>Then you have admitted her testimony is hearsay on what he said is hearsay
>and should not be allowed.

Should not be allowed in a trial but is and always has been allowed in
an investigation.

>> *I* said they're taking testimony from persons relevant to the
>> investigation.
>
>Except she's not relevant, or at least her testimony on what Mr. Ornato
>said.. since you admit he's not being accused of anything. So it makes no
>difference what he said someone else say.. the very definition of hearsay.
>
>> Since a major focus of it has been on White House
>> activities, it makes perfect sense to find out who was in the White
>> House, what they did and what they said to each other.
>
>Why?
>
>she said, he said, trump said.. hearsay.
>
>How does that establish anything?

But for this bit, they might not think to find out more details about
Trump's behavior in the car after the Ellipse rally. It gives the
investigators reason to follow up with other questions to other
witnesses regarding the President's state of mind at the time.

What part of "this is not a trial, it's an INVESTIGATION" do you not
understand?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:38:50 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
wrote:

> What Ornato said to Ms. Hutchinson is
>of interest.

Gentlemen! This is the key phrase. In an investigation, people and
events are "of interest" and must be fully explored. You don't do
this bit at a trial, you do it during the investigation.

What all you Republican voters are upset about is that Trump and
others got caught red handed trying to subvert the Constitution and
you're pissed off that they didn't get away with it.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:52:15 -0600, Somebody too wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:38:50 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>>On 7/12/2022 4:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>>>> anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>>>> proceedings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>>>> shifts in thought and behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
>>>> posts.  And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
>>>> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post.  Iow,
>>>> you posted bs.
>>>
>>> My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call
>>> Ornato as a witness
>>
>>They might, but only because Ms. Hutchinson gave them the lead, scooter.
>>
>>Of course, Ornato will refuse to testify.
>

>So what?

Makes him look guilty. And puts him in contempt of Congress.

>>> Asking someone else what another said about Trump... well that's just hearsay.
>>
>>They didn't ask Ms. Hutchinson what the liar Ornato said about Trump, scooter.
>>She volunteered it. It wasn't hearsay. What Ornato said to Ms. Hutchinson is
>>of interest. It would only be hearsay if Ms. Hutchinson *testified* that "Trump
>>did 'X'." But she didn't. She testified "Ornato *told me* that Trump did 'X'."
>> Her testimony is that Ornato told her something of interest. He did.

>He says he didn't.

Was he under oath when he said that?

>Why believe her?

Why not?

>>>>>> He worked in the White House under
>>>>>> Trump and that makes what he says relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.. and if you point him on the stand, it will be relevant. Until then...
>>>>> all it shows is that he said something, doesn't make it true, doesn't make
>>>>> it creditable, and certainly does NOT suggest anything other than he said
>>>>> it. Why? Because the testimony being offered is hear say... as such the
>>>>> content of what he said is irrelevant other than it applies to HIM and what
>>>>> he might be under investigation for.
>>>>
>>>> Yet if this was a Clinton staffer circa 1998 you'd be crowing to the
>>>> heavens about how it was the most damaging testimony ever.
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>>Yes, you would.
>

>Proof?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:05:18 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 19:38:50 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:50:39 -0600, Somebody too wrote:
>>>Typical story telling from the left. They said they never said it. She
>>>is a liar.
>
>>They aren't under oath, are they?
>>
>>Ornato has been known to "tell stories" before this.
>
>>Do I believe Ornato told her the story? Yes.
>>Do I believe it's true? No.
>>Therefore Ornato lied to Hutchinson. If he (or you) is concerned about
>>her repeating his lie, think about all the lies and rumors you've
>>spread by repeating facts not in evidence.
>
>Have you thought carefully about them?

Apparently not. You should. You should think very carefully about
spreading unsubstantiated claims as fact.

Swill

[Just Wondering]

On 7/12/2022 4:46 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
> --
> And speaking of stupid, how dumb do you have to be to believe a god
> who didn't prevent the Holocaust is going to help you win a football
> game?
>

What makes you think the coach was was praying for a win of a
game that had already been played?

[Just Wondering]

On 7/12/2022 4:36 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 07:25:45 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>
>> Then you have admitted her testimony is hearsay on what he said
>> is hearsay and should not be allowed.
>
> Should not be allowed in a trial but is and always has been
> allowed in an investigation.

If Congress wants an investigation it should appoint a special
prosecutor to do it. Congress critters are particularly inept
at the task, and they lack the power to prosecute/bring charges
anyway. The Congress critter Jan 6 investigation is showboating
theater, and not very good theater at that. At least, the time
they spend investigation is time they can't use to think up
even more legislation to screw the country, so we should be
greatful for that.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/12/2022 5:46 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 7/12/2022 4:36 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 07:25:45 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>
>>> Then you have admitted her testimony is hearsay on what he said
>>> is hearsay and should not be allowed.
>>
>> Should not be allowed in a trial but is and always has been
>> allowed in an investigation.
>
> If Congress wants an investigation it should appoint a special
> prosecutor to do it.

There's no such thing as a "special prosecutor," Francis. Congress has no power
to appoint a *special counsel*, which you would know if you weren't a dumb-fuck
rent-skip chaser.

> Congress critters are particularly inept at the task, and

This select committee is conducting a pretty good investigation and set of
hearings, Francis. They're getting Trump closer and closer to the direct
planning of the violent insurrection — the violent insurrection that Trump
planned, organized, financed and directed. The planning and organizing was
going on in the Oval Office. That will be shown shortly.

[His Terrible Swift Sword]

In article <2ssrchlhfcajib2oh...@4ax.com>

Bullshit. It's a schoolyard bitch gossip club feeding innuendo
and character assasination to the media.

Nothing has come from it that we don't already know.

[His Terrible Swift Sword]

In article <t2c4ob$3h4tf$3...@news.freedyn.de>
governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>

Democrats are ignorant of civics and American government.

The recent decisions by the Supreme Court’s conservative
majority on abortion and guns appear to have pushed Democrats
deeper into seeking radical changes that would shift the court
back into liberal hands.

While, for many, simply packing the court with more left-wing
judges was the answer before the recent decisions, a new survey
found support for killing the court, electing judges, and even
allowing the United Nations to have the final say.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey sponsored by the Heartland
Institute, for example, found that 39% of Democrats would let
the U.N. reverse Supreme Court decisions it viewed as human
rights violations. The reversal of Roe vs. Wade could fall into
that category.

Worse, a majority (53%) of Democrats would support legislation
to “abolish” the court and turn it into an elected chamber with
judges picked on ballots. Just 21% of Republicans agree with
that proposal.

And 64% of Democrats support packing the court with 13 judges,
up from the current nine. Just 19% of Republicans agreed.

Driving the liberal anger, according to the survey, is a feeling
among Democrats that the Supreme Court is “racist” and “sexist,”
despite having two black people and four women sitting on it,
all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett being
liberals.

In the survey, 56% of Democrats said the court is a
“fundamentally racist” institution. And 67% said it is a
“fundamentally sexist” institution.

All that said, it is no surprise that Democrats generally don’t
like the court. According to Rasmussen’s preview of its survey
being released later Tuesday: “In the wake [of] a recent string
of decisions strengthening the Second Amendment, reining in the
power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the
constitutional right to an abortion, however, Democratic voters
mostly disapprove of the Supreme Court. Only 33% of Democrats
view the court favorably, while 63% have an unfavorable opinion
of the court, including 40% of Democrats who have a Very
Unfavorable view of the Supreme Court.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-
secrets/democrats-would-abolish-supreme-court-elect-judges-let-
united-nations-decide

[His Terrible Swift Sword]

In article <t26r5r$3dsnm$1...@news.freedyn.de>
governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
The White House is preparing the public for a less than rosy
June consumer price index report.

Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she and her colleagues
predict the headline number, which includes gas and food, will
"be highly elevated" based on cost increases caused "by the war
in Ukraine." But she added the figures were already old because
the national gas average has decreased this month to $4.68 per
gallon.

"June CPI data is already out of date because energy prices have
come down substantially this month, and are expected to fall
further," she told reporters.

Jean-Pierre additionally amplified White House complaints
regarding retailers not passing on crude oil savings to
consumers.

"The average retail price of gas was 11% higher in June than it
was in May, and the cost of gas in July is already 7% from the
June peak," she said. "I would also note that even though gas
prices shot up quickly when oil prices rose, they have not come
down as quickly as oil has."

"American families should not be the first to pay and the last
to benefit," she went on.

Although last week's June jobs report of 372,000 new positions
was positive for President Joe Biden, good economic news is
being overshadowed by inflation amid recession concerns.

Only an average of 33% of the public approves of Biden's
economic management before November's midterm elections after
May's 41-year-high inflation rate of 8.6%.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-
pre-spins-highly-elevated-june-inflation-report

[His Terrible Swift Sword]

In article <t1s7gv$383jj$7...@news.freedyn.de>
governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
For some time, I have believed that the Jan. 6 hearings are
irrelevant — that is, totally divorced from the reality of
today's political situation.

I'd love to know if I'm right. So why, then, won't anyone just
ask the question straight up?

The latest New York Times/Siena College poll asked voters about
their priorities, but it studiously avoided the question,
unfortunately.

When asked, "What do you think is the MOST important problem
facing the country today," respondents were not specifically
given the chance to weigh in on what cable news is trying to
portray as the worst calamity in the history of the nation. I
refer, of course, to the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.

Instead, the best option they were given was: "the state of
democracy/political division." Unfortunately, that could mean
anything. Even so, only 11% of respondents believed this to be
the most important problem.

Another option as the biggest problem America faces was
"Trump/Republicans," which I interpret as an answer suggesting
that Republican and Trumpist fascism is a serious threat to the
body politic. A pathetic 2% of the electorate offered that as an
answer. That's within the margin of error of 0%.

Also, 0% said that "domestic terrorism" was the main problem.
Aside from those three answers, I can't find any others that
would encompass Jan. 6.

Is there any polling out there showing that anyone outside the
Beltway can remember Cassidy what's her name's surname —
Richardson, right? No, wait— it's Hutchinson! That's it.

Of course, I'd be very interested in seeing this question asked
straightforwardly: Is the Jan. 6 riot your most pressing issue?
Is it even an important issue? Are you familiar with what it
refers to? Maybe, sometime soon, this will be asked. But I think
the answer, if we ever get it, will embarrass a lot of self-
important Beltway journalists who have spent the last few weeks
covering nothing else.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/does-anyone-care-
about-the-jan-6-hearings-

[Scout]

<governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2urchhg1bg3m01p0...@4ax.com...

A lot of people hold Congress in contempt.. so why should that matter?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

They're at 16% approval right now.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ubiquitous]

On 7/12/2022 9:52 AM, Somebody too wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:38:50 -0700, OrigInfoJunkie <bum...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2022 4:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mo9pch1vbh1tubnq6...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:31:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:52:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further I'm utterly unaware that Mr. Ornato is under investigation for
>>>>>>> anything so I fail to see how what he said is at all relevant to these
>>>>>>> proceedings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't treat us like we're stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes I wonder, but clearly this "we" business does explain your odd
>>>>> shifts in thought and behavior.
>>>>
>>>> I was charitably assuming I'm not the only person who reads your
>>>> posts.  And naturally, tossing of an insult while ignoring the content
>>>> of the post shows you have no supporting argument for your post.  Iow,
>>>> you posted bs.
>>>
>>> My point is that if they want to know what Trump said, they should call
>>> Ornato as a witness
>>
>> They might, but only because Ms. Hutchinson gave them the lead, scooter.
>>
>> Of course, Ornato will refuse to testify.
>

> So what?

LOL! First scooter says the Jan 6 committee "should" call Ornato to testify.
Then, when told that Ornato will refuse to testify, scooter bleats "so what?"
So, why do you suggest the committee should call Ornato to testify, scooter, if
you don't care if he shows up or not?

You sure are stupid, scooter.

[Byker]

"His Terrible Swift Sword" wrote in message
news:78bd32e6f7927730...@dizum.com...

In article <t1s7gv$383jj$7...@news.freedyn.de>
governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> For some time, I have believed that the Jan. 6 hearings are irrelevant —
> that is, totally divorced from the reality of today's political situation.

The MSM is using it as a distraction from other stories...

[Gunner Asch]

On 7/12/2022 6:48 PM, His Terrible Limp Dong bullshitted:

> In article <t1s7gv$383jj$7...@news.freedyn.de>
> governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> For some time, I have believed that the Jan. 6 hearings are
> irrelevant — that is, totally divorced from the reality of
> today's political situation.

You are full of shit.

>
> I'd love to know if I'm right.

You are not right. You are full of shit.

The Select Committee's work may not be the most important work for Congress to
do, but it is nonetheless extremely important. This is how we're going to bring
the full extent of Trump's perfidy in trying to destroy the republic to light.