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.

The January 6 Show Trial Resorts to Hearsay

The Democrat January 6 Show Trial decided to take a page out of Ferris Bueller's Day Off and derided to run with a false yet salacious second hand claim based purely on hearsay:

Simone : Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Pretty much the same level of reliability  has come from the carefully produced  January 6 Committee Testimony.

AP: Cassidy Hutchinson, Trump White House aide, now in spotlight

 Former aide: Trump tried to grab steering wheel from Secret Service agent after 1/6 rally

Cassidy Hutchinson a little-known former White House aide, described an angry, defiant president who was trying that day to let armed protesters avoid security screenings at a rally that morning to protest his 2020 election defeat and who later grabbed at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him go to the Capitol.

Hearsay by its very nature is disallowed in court, with a few exceptions, because testimony that based on what the witness heard from what he said that he said that she said is by its nature unreliable.

As is the case here: 

There's numerous problems with the "testimony".

Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't actually there and is relaying a story she heard from somoene else second hand. The originator of the unlikely story, unsurprisingly was not called to testify about it, because you know, potential perjury.  

You can draw your own conclusions to the story's reliability from that lack of the Committee calling a first-hand witness to testify to the occurrence of the event.

Trump apparently wasn't even in the Beast (A Black Cadillac) that morning  but in a Chevy Suburban limo and thus could not have grabbed at the wheel of the Beast, never-mind that he could not have reached it from where the dignitaries sit in the beast anyway, making the entire story implausible at best.

The Secret Service agents who were actually there are denying this ever happened.

So the January Sixth Committee is relying upon second or even third-hand hearsay of a salacious story that fits the Democrat narrative, even as it doesn't comport with reality and the people who were actually present state it never happened.

Can you say reliance on unreliable and inadmissible evidence to paint an Democrat-pleasing "Orange Man Bad" story?   Yep, I knew that you could.

Yes, the Sixth Committee is naught more than a show trial, complete with a television producer to try to up the ratings of this now literal show trial.  

Hearsay is fine for ratings for reality TV.   

For a serious investigation into the claim that this was an "insurrection",  it is not.  Then again, this never was a serious investigation, it's a Democrat show trial and nothing more.

Dear AG Nessel: You're A Shanda Fur Die Goyim

The Yiddish term A shanda fur die goyim is one rich in European and American Jewish History,

The polite modern translation is:  Dear Jewish idiot, you're making Jews look bad in front of non-Jews, cut it out you moron.

Ok, the expression in Yiddish, a shanda fur die goyim, literally means “a shame before the nations,” describing embarrassing behavior by a Jew where a non-Jew can witness it. 

It's letting the team down, ok?

By either definition, Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel qualifies as being a shanda fur die goyim, in spades.

 Daily Wire: Michigan AG Slams People Wishing ‘Merry Christmas’ After Trump Warning

Nessel wrote, “I remember the first time I was at a store with my son and an employee said ‘Merry Christmas’ to us. My son looked devastated as asked ‘Are we the only people who don’t celebrate Christmas?’ I answered ‘No, and we are just as American as everyone else.’ Glad @JoeBiden knows that.

Say what?!?  You actually tweeted such silliness?

I'm sorry, either I'd wager $20 on 'things that didn't really happen', or, Ms. Nessel, if your son really is "devastated" by someone wishing him Merry Christmas, you're doing parenting very, very wrong. 

I'm not sure if she's destroying her son as a man by fighting "toxic masculinity",  and raising him as an emasculated fragile flower, or what.  Quite simply, if a child falls apart when someone wishes them a Merry Christmas, you best toughen them up, a lot, and raise them better.  

Heck, its not like AG Nessel is an observant Jew offended by Merry Christmas. Instead, it's because she's a progressive first and a Jew as a distant second or perhaps even a distant third.

Guess what?  As a Jew I have absolutely no problem wishing Christians a Merry Christmas, I do it all the time. No harm is done by it to me, nor to the recipient of the words.  Indeed, it happens to be a nice thing to say to your Christian friends at Christmas.

Nor do I take offense, nor does any harm occur, when someone happens to say cheerfully Merry Christmas to me.  Such a cheerful departing statement happened today even, a few times no less, and nothing bad happened - at all. After all, this is a majority Christian country and it's not like I'm wearing an f'ing yellow badge to let someone know I'm not Christian -- and it's a good thing that's the case.

Someone saying Merry Christmas to you is quite simply not a cause for offense nor for you to be devastated.  Instead you smile, wish them a Merry Christmas in return, and be on your way.  This is not hard, difficult, nor in any way painful, at all. It's really quite simple.

In short AG Nessel, grow up, teach your son how to grow up, and quit being such a shanda fur die goyim.

Oh, Hirono No!

Apparently any Republican nominated candidate for the Supreme Court will be asked if they have ever sexually assaulted someone.

The Washington Examiner: Hirono asks Barrett if she has ever 'made unwanted requests for sexual favors'

Seriously, the Democrat Senators have reached rock bottom and are starting to dig.

Anything to try and tarnish a rather impressive candidate with ridiculous questions, all because you don't like who is nominating her, right?

A Lesson Of The Iowa Democratic Primary

What lesson does the utter hash the Democrats has made of their first caucus offer as to Democrat governance?

Well, these are same Dem bulbs that want to control your healthcare, control your electricity, and control how business do business.

They promise they can efficiently manage all that, yet they can't even effectively manage to accurately, efficiently and credibly conduct a caucus of a couple thousand people in a setting that has had the same basic process since 1972.

Think about that for a bit.

Ladybird Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap

I'm a listed attorney for a prepaid legal service. As part of the deal, I get referrals from the service, and the customer gets 25% off my legal fees for being a member of the service. Not a bad deal, and it does bring in quite a range of referrals from absolutely insane people, to those with an incredibly strong and unearned sense of self-entitlement, to time wasters, to decent clients, to really good clients.

So, I had a referral six months ago for a potential client who wanted some ladybird deeds done.

Ladybirds are a special kind of deed that, to put it simply, if done right, lets you bypass probate with the property, name who is going to get the property when you die, and still give you complete control over the property including the right to sell it up until you die.

Basically, the deeds are good to avoid probate and can be used in some circumstances for Medicaid planning. See your attorney for details to see if it works for you or not - it is really not the right solution for everyone.

So I chat with this client and she wants 6 Ladybird deeds. Kinda unusual, typically one for the person's residence is the request as that typically works for Medicaid, and if you own more properties you may want a trust and/or LLC structure to handle that.

She insists she wants ladybird deeds and doesn't want a trust or anything else. She insistently wants ladybirds and nothing else will do. It is the first case of complete Ladybird fixation I've ever come across. Fine, I outline the advantages and disadvantages and then quote her the discounted price on doing and recording all 6.

She then hangs up and doesn't call back and I figure she was either kicking tires, or just didn't want to pay for the service.

The provider service calls me three months ago asking if I had dealt with her. I noted I had had a conversation with her 3 months before then, but she didn't retain me or pursue the matter. They then refer her to me again as she apparently wants to do it.

So she calls again, I quote her the price again, and she faxes me over the current deeds to look over. I quote her the price yet again, she doesn't retain me and actually asks for a further discount as, according to her, since I would be doing 6 deeds she should be entitled to a bulk discount. I calmly explain that she's already getting a 25% discount off the cost and if she can find it done as well for cheaper she's welcome to go do so. Then she hangs up and nothing happens for a couple more months.

She then calls last week, deciding she wants to do 4 deeds and wants to meet with me after hours, because she works. Fine, I stay later one night last week and she comes in, she asks lots of questions about the process, again asks for a bulk discount on 4 which I again explain isn't going to happen as she's already getting the 25% discount. She hems and haws, I expect her to leave after wasting my time yet again, but finally she writes a check for the 4 deeds - At this point I know to demand the full fee upfront for the deeds as I can tell exactly what will happen if I don't do so.

So, I get the deeds done, and actually correct an error in the legal description on one of the deeds that has crept into it, and they're ready to go.

She called me yesterday in the late afternoon wanting to come in immediately to get them done, after hours of course, because she be working.

Well, the first after hours day I can fit her in is next Tuesday, as I'm booked solid yesterday, and Friday and Saturday and not available due to other things going on, and even if I was, not sure I'd be inclined to make a special trip to the office and set aside Saturday time for this person after all this nonsense and attitude.

I note she can see me during normal hours on Monday or normal hours or later on Tuesday.

She states she's very concerned, because what if something happens and she dies over the weekend?

I tell her that the deeds aren't effective until they're signed and notarized. I then state to her in a rather deadpan manner that she should avoid unnecessary risks before coming in.

She's very insistent though and all wound up about doing them before Monday, because after her delaying doing anything for over 6 months, she wants them done quickly just in case, and I should drop everything to make that happen and arrange to meet her at her convenience.

I calmly point out she's waited over 6 months to do anything and odds are that she should statistically should survive until Monday to sign the deeds.

After a fair bit of carrying on, she then agrees to meet Monday during the day, we will see when she actually shows up.

She then actually asks that if she dies before she signs them, will her heir get a refund of the legal services?

Yes, seriously.

I explain that no, the heir would not get a refund as the work is done and awaiting her signature. She gets all wound up about that.

I tell her to be careful, drive safe, and I'll see her Monday.

Probably The Dumbest MSM Published Opinion Piece You'll Read Today

The Detroit Free Press seems to be reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel of the loony left for content these days:

Pardons: What if Donald Trump shot Melania?

Before you read it, be warned that it's a stream-of-consciousnesses, counter-factual, word salad masquerading as an opinion column by someone who describes themselves as a:

Michigan attorney who has defended nuclear resisters, including some desperado nuns, in court for decades and will on occasion use blunt force satire or actual legal arguments to make a point.

Unfortunately, the editorial lacks both satire worthy of the name, nor does it have any legal analysis worthy of perusal.

Nor is there any cohesive point to the editorial.

It's more of a "Something-Something Trump Is Bad Something-Something Dark Side".

There can be only one response to such an asinine opinion piece:

Kinda Missing The Plot

From Small Dead Animals: Manitoba's NDP (New Democratic party - Canada's socialist political party that typically comes in third behind the Liberals and Conservatives, decided to tweet a wish of a Happy Passover to Jewish Manitobans.

With a picture of two ladies with a loaf of challah bread. Yes, really.

Considering the rules of Passover are pretty specific and pretty well known that you can't have challah bread, or any other leavened bread for that matter (amongst other things) during the eight days of Passover, and instead have to eat Matzah (unleavened bread) this is a bit of a faux pas.

Anyways, have a Happy Passover thos those who celebrate it, and a Happy Easter to those who celebrate it.

Not Sure The Democrats Thought About That Optic For The SOTU Rebuttal

Having a Kennedy speechifying in front of a rebuilt car.

I don't know about you, but the association of Kennedys and cars cause a recollection of a rather checkered history of #metoo incidents.

Then again, Democrat policies are rather like car wrecks . . .

Oregon's Learned Vehicular Helplessness

Oregon passed a law that in rural areas only, people could now be legally permitted to pump their own gas.

Oregonians duly freaked out.

The Detroit Free Press: America is laughing at Oregon for having to pump its own gas

That a licensed driver, someone deemed by the state to be able to control and maneuver a multi-thousand tn machine in public is unable to fill it with gas is simply crazy. That they are reacting with sheer panic to the thought of having to add gas to their own cars is even more insane.

Now only New Jersey and urbanized areas of Oregon remain where people are deemed by law to be too stupid to add gasoline to their vehicles and it is illegal for them to do so.