Many People Just Don't Want The Facts To Get In The Way Of The Narrative And it Shows

Some people have allowed Trump to live in their heads rent-free and engage in coup fantasies and it shows.

In my post The January 6 Show Trial Resorts to Hearsay I pointed out issues with the veracity of the testimony made by Ms. Hutchinson and some indicators that it was less than true, especially as those who were actually there, unlike Ms. Hutchinson. have stated the salacious details did not happen and that they offered that they would testify to the contrary.

RobertaX from The Adventures of Roberta X then came by and left a comment that Federal hearsay rules aren't simple. Well, to people who don't understand hearsay that is true enough. Starting out they appear very complex but once you understand the logic behind the rules they do make sense and can be worked with.  Just to be clear, I deal with hearsay in court all the time so I'm rather well acquainted and have a good working knowledge of such in both Federal and State Court. 

 I then noticed she had made a post on her blog on the same subject Wading The Rubicon: Yesterday's Hearing claimed Trump had "crossed the Rubicon" and attempted a coup, based on Hutchinson’s testimony.

Rather histrionic and contrary to the actual occurrence, which was bad enough.  No need to go over the top and over-exaggerate.  The riot, such as it was, was an unacceptable act and properly condemnable and indeed I have and continue to condemn it loudly and clearly, just in case anyone is wondering.

I then pointed out in a comment on her blog regarding the issues with the reliability of Hutchinson’s statements given, they were allegedly relaying information she had been given second or even third-hand and that those she alleged made the statements have said it didn’t happen and even offered to testify.

RobertaX as you can go see in the comments on her blog in the post then replied saying that

“As for "the originator of the tale was not called to testify under oath," he has, in fact, refused to testify under oath, one of the many Trump Administration staffers to so refuse (or to take the Fifth when they do testify). and that Trump attempted a coup."

She also claimed I failed to discuss the talking point that Trump allegedly wanted to go to the Capitol that day.   Go read her comment for yourselves.

No, I indeed did not address ever possible talking point and did not address that tidbit, mea culpa if such is required for not addressing every possible claim in the testimony. But, I’ll note her post doesn’t even mention that tidbit either so no need for my comment to discuss it, neh?

I then replied back to the effect that (no I did not save the comment after posting it there as I expected there would be no need to preserve it, so this is not verbatim and is paraphrasing and summarizing what was written hours earlier):

1. I’m rather familiar with hearsay and the reason it is not allowed in court is its unreliability, such as the case with Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony before the committee. Note in my original comment to her I stated it was disliked.

Disliked as in verily hearsay statements are typically inadmissible unless the statement is not hearsay or there is an exception from the rule to allow its admissibility. But I simply said “disliked”, as I doubted she wanted a dissertation in her blog comments on hearsay, it’s definition, and exceptions. (For the record, lest anyone think otherwise, I do know the committee is not a trial, had there been a trial there might have been cross-examination of the witness, disclosure of evidence, exclusion of un-reliable statements etc, and this is a managed TV show trial production, but hey, you do you).

2. I stated in my comment directly replying to her point that she claims the witnesses are refusing to testify.  I stated that The January Sixth Committee has the subpoena power and can easily compel the original witnesses to the alleged events who allegedly relayed them so they eventually reached Ms. Hutchinson to testify. They have chosen not to do so, nor apparently take up the offers of testimony by those who were actually there and state it did not happen - which speaks volumes.  Namely it  reveals that the Committee prefers unreliable salacious politically-charged accusations that get headlines over an attempt to determine the truth of what occurred that day.

3. It is highly unlikely that Trump could have reached the steering wheel from where he was seated. Since Hutchinson claimed it was in the Beast. He was instead in a Suburban limo which is not the Beast, that testimony is all questionable. What else did she get wrong hearing of it second- and third-hand?

4. There’s a reason testimony like this is disfavored it allows unreliable fabulations and confabulations to be accepted as factual when actual first hand accounts of the same event that contradict the approved narrative are available.

5. There was no “coup”. Indeed her claim of it being a coup demeans the very meaning of the word coup and demeans all the actual coups in history. Verily, if this was a coup as she puts it, it would have to be considered one of the most inept, unorganized, unarmed, unplanned, uncontrolled, and ineffective, coups attempt in the history of the known world. To call this stupid riot a coup is to overstate what occurred by far.   I noted Hutchinson's testimony is a very thin reed to rely upon to claim a coup attempt occurred.

Unfortunately, she chose not to publish the comment, claiming it’s a Trumpy talking point and not addressing the points she raised or others raised in the comments. That, my friends, is false. The comment she chose to block directly responded to her comment and the points she raised.

But that’s fine, that’s her blog, and her choice to not have a conversation nor address the points I made in response to her points. She can have the last word on her blog and mischaracterize what I said in the responsive comment that she has decided not to post as she deems fit.

But, I will note she came over here to my blog first and decided to engage here and discuss my post, which led me to her blog to discuss her over-the-top post, then to reply to her comment replying to mine,  expecting the same courtesy of civil discussion as is extended here. 
 
This is fine, I tolerate multiple views of opinion and do not delete comments simply because they disagree with my view or opinion. I solely delete comments that are spam or defamatory or otherwise in my discretion reach a point of very high unacceptability that you'd know it when you see them. Disagreeing with me does not constitute such. I even allow comments that point out I may have made an error or overlooked something, which I oft have been known to do. This tends to improve dialog and prevents an echo chamber effect and improves my blog as a result.  Dissenting opinions that bring the facts with them in a civil manner are welcome.

RobertaX is certainly always welcome to come and post her opinion in comments on my blog as she may wish to do so, as is anyone else with views that may be contrary to mine.