Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  331 comments

By:   David Spunt (Fox News)

Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source
Secret Service agents are prepared to refute testimony that Trump lunged at a steering wheel during the Jan. 6 riot to try to go to the Capitol, a source tells Fox News.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.

The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone repeatedly warned staff in the days before the rally that "we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable" if Trump goes to the Capitol, Hutchinson testified.

Former aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson testifies before the House Jan. 6 Committee on June 28, 2022, as Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., questions her. (Fox News)

Following Trump's speech at the Ellipse, he got into the presidential SUV under the impression that he was going to the Capitol, then had a "very strong, very angry response" when the head of his Secret Service detail, Bobby Engel, said that they were going to the White House.

"The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f'ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now," Hutchinson testified, relaying what she was told later that day by another White House aide, Tony Ornato.

"The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm and said, 'Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol.'"

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington before the Jan. 6 riot. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Engel and the SUV driver, an unnamed Secret Service agent, are prepared to testify before the Jan. 6 committee that the president didn't lunge at the steering wheel. The Jan. 6 committee and the Secret Service are in discussions about whether one or both men will appear on camera.

The news was originally reported by NBC after Hutchinson's testimony on Tuesday.

A former White House aide testified Tuesday that then-President Trump wanted to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

Jody Hunt, a former Justice Department official in the Trump administration who is representing Hutchinson, tweeted that others with knowledge of the events should appear before the Jan. 6 committee.

"Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told," Hunt tweeted. "Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

All this committee needs for the final nail in it's own coffin is to put on somebody who makes bombshell allegations, that eventually get contradicted.

Didn't they at least try to substantiate her testimony before putting her in front of TV cameras???

It now appears that she may just be another POS Trump-hater.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

So when do the death threats come from the right towards Ms. Hutchinson?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
It now appears that she may just be another POS Trump-hater.

I'm a little surprised (not really) you havent considered an obvious possibility - the two secret service agents are "Trump lovers", and will lie for him. 

She was just saying what someone told her, a few minutes after it would have happened. The denials are coming much later. 

(It now seems that the grabbing of the steering wheel may be a "he-said she-said"  description of what happened. The Secret Service acknowledges this morning that Trump was "irate" in the back seat of that car.)

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago
I'm a little surprised you havent considered an obvious possibility (not really) - the two secret service agents are "Trump lovers", and will lie for him. 

Now I know this is an unheard of concept for the left but,  it could be as simple as being honest and telling the truth.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.1    one month ago

Out of sheer desperation you are assuming Cassidy Hutchinson is lying because she "hates Trump". 

I have to laugh at people who think this entire mountain of evidence against Trump, most of which has nothing to do with Cassidy Hutchinson, is because people irrationally "hate" him.  

But lets consider this -  of the two of them , Trump and Hutchinson, one of them is a known pathological liar and the other was under oath in front of the world. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago
I'm a little surprised (not really) you havent considered an obvious possibility - the two secret service agents are "Trump lovers", and will lie for him. 

In that case the testimony isn't much good, is it?


She was just saying what someone told her, a few minutes after it would have happened. The denials are coming much later. 

Actually, John it was her that came forward late in the game. The denials came forward hours after her testimony or are you now suggesting that the two secret service agants had crystal balls and knew what was going to come out of her mouth yesterday?


(It now seems that the grabbing of the steering wheel may be a "he-said she-said"  description of what happened. The Secret Service acknowledges this morning that Trump was "irate" in the back seat of that car.)

You only need one lie to tarnish the entire testimony and further discredit the committee.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    one month ago
You only need one lie to tarnish the entire testimony and further discredit the committee.

This sentence would be ridiculous even if it were true. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    one month ago

Obviously, her damning testimony required corroboration. The fact that the committee ran with it anyway is just another insult to the intelligence of millions.

BTW the two agents are willing to testify under oath!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.6  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago

I am not surprised that you believe a fucking piece of hearsay over two agents that were there; and who are willing to testify.

Hearsay isn't permissible in a court of law; but it definitely is for the partisan shit show Pelosi put together. 

(It now seems that the grabbing of the steering wheel may be a "he-said she-said"  description of what happened. The Secret Service acknowledges this morning that Trump was "irate" in the back seat of that car.)

Walk that fucking comment back John! Walk it back real damn hard! So no assault- no grabbing the steering wheel! Guess what, being irate in the back of the car isn't illegal! 

The left want to convict Trump so damn much they are willing to throw our Constitution and laws out! Trump is entitled to same rights and protections as everyone else. No matter how far he has driven himself into tortured TDS driven minds!

Midterms are coming; and Republicans had better be prepared to clean house. There is no dealing with Democrats!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    one month ago
The fact that the committee ran with it anyway is just another insult to the intelligence of millions.

That people would irrationally defend Trump in the face of mountains of evidence is what is an insult to millions of Americans. Donald trump wanted to and tried to steal the election. The vast vast majority of evidence of that does not come from Cassidy Hutchinson. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    one month ago

I don't care who it is. Why not do things fairly?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    one month ago
Out of sheer desperation you are assuming Cassidy Hutchinson is lying because she "hates Trump". 

Lol ..... the projection at play in that comment is exponential.

So two professionals, who have sworn an oath, and were actually there, are less credible to you than a second hand account from an aide who wasn’t even there?

This serves as a perfect example of how TDS can destroy any chance of solid reasoning.

I feel sorry for this aide.    Another person being used and spit out by TDS ridden pieces of shit.     Used and abused by the left like Dr Christine Blasey Ford was.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.8    one month ago

What has happened that is unfair?  She gave what she knew and was told, and others dispute it. 

Most likely the dispute comes from a parsing of words. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.6    one month ago

Those who defend Trump at this point are pathetic people. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.10    one month ago
What has happened that is unfair? 

What an insincere question.


She gave what she knew and was told, and others dispute it. 

The Committee (all picked by Pelosi) put her out there without checking her story. Those who got to watch were shocked and may believe it. There was nobody to cross examine and the "others" were not there to contradict her.


Most likely the dispute coms from a parsing of words.

Ah, the luxury of liberal privilege.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.12    one month ago

Vic, you have spent the last 5 years denying that Trump has ever done anything wrong at all. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.13    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.11    one month ago

More projection at work.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.16  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.11    one month ago

People suffering from TDS are even more pathetic.

People willing to throw out our Constitution and laws in order to get one individual are beyond pathetic. They are traitorous. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.2.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    one month ago
Out of sheer desperation you are assuming Cassidy Hutchinson is lying because she "hates Trump".

And where did I say that?  EXACTLY WHERE did I say that?  You need to pay better attention to what people are saying and stop adding in shit you know wasn't said (or even implied).  

I have to laugh at people who think this entire mountain of evidence against Trump

"entire mountain of evidence"?  Where is this evidence?  If it were so criminal then exactly why has nothing been done about it?  Many people have pressed you to provide anything from this "mountain of evidence" and you cut and run faster than a cockroach.  At best you've given some bloggers opinion.  No real documents showing evidence.  In fact, you've even labeled these people as trolls and handed out tickets for even questioning you on your "Smoking Gun" / "Bombshell" / "Final Nail" seeds.  

But lets consider this -  of the two of them , Trump and Hutchinson, one of them is a known pathological liar and the other was under oath in front of the world.

Ok lets consider it.  BOTH are politicians.  BOTH are pathological liars.  That's their job.  The difference is, you are no narrow minded in your infatuation with Trump you miss 99% of what is out there.  There is a very good chance that this SUV Driver is telling the truth.  But because of who this persons statement backs, it sent you into a TDS driven rage and dismiss them from the start.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.2.18  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    one month ago
Obviously, her damning testimony required corroboration. The fact that the committee ran with it anyway is just another insult to the intelligence of millions.BTW the two agents are willing to testify under oath!

Oh shit - a new story where it states that Tony Ornato (you may remember him as the person who briefed Hutchinson about what Trump did in the limo where he attempted to grab the wheel and attempted to attack the agents) states he did NOT brief Hutchinson about the events in the limo.

A source close to former Trump Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Tony Ornato says he did not brief Jan. 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson on one of the major allegation she made to the committee Tuesday. 

Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified to lawmakers Tuesday that Ornato told her former President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that the Secret Service take him to the Capitol on January 6. Ornato further told Hutchinson, according to her, that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that.

However, a source close to Ornato told Fox News that Ornato watched the hearing yesterday and was shocked when Cassidy made the allegation about the steering wheel.

Oh damn...  this seems to poke a great big hole in the testimony from yesterday.  Will the committee bring in the agents from the car?  Will they talk to Ornato?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.18    one month ago

I guess that would be the committee's worst fear: that even what she claimed to have heard would be contested.

Wow. Did this backfire!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.20  pat wilson  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.18    one month ago
Oh damn...  this seems to poke a great big hole in the testimony from yesterday.  Will the committee bring in the agents from the car?  Will they talk to Ornato?  

Be careful what you wish for.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.2.21  Snuffy  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.20    one month ago

Actually I'm all for the truth and putting an end to the partisan politics.  That would be a very welcome change out of Washington.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.2.22  Sunshine  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.20    one month ago
Be careful what you wish for.

Why?  After millions of tax dollars being spent it would be nice to know who is telling the truth.  Will the committee ask for all parties involved to testify?

No one likes kangaroo court type hearings regardless of political leanings.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
1.2.23  JaneDoe  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.18    one month ago
Oh damn...  this seems to poke a great big hole in the testimony from yesterday.  Will the committee bring in the agents from the car?  Will they talk to Ornato?  

It would be nice to hear a first hand account. Unbelievable that they didn’t just go to the sources to begin with. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.2.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.22    one month ago
Will the committee ask for all parties involved to testify?

That would be nice.........................There is presently no cross examination and it seems all one way "testimony". Supposedly they "interviewed" 1000 people.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.9    one month ago
So two professionals, who have sworn an oath, and were actually there, are less credible to you than a second hand account from an aide who wasn’t even there?

Of course not.   This part of Hutchinson's testimony was stated to be second-hand.   She simply stated what she was told.

If SS witnesses have first-hand information then that would supersede second-hand information.

So let's assume they are correct;  that means that Trump did not lunge (need a clear definition) at the steering wheel.    That tidbit makes little/no difference.

Now if we have testimony that shows that all the witnesses who testified that Trump knew his supporters where armed and breaking and entering the Capitol and refused for three hours, in spite of pleas from his family, advisors and 'friends', to tell his supporters to cease (or take any other action) then that would be quite significant.

Not likely.   So what does one make of a PotUS who knowingly allows an armed attack on the Capitol and refuses to lift a finger to stop it for three hours?   (And that is but one allegation.)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.1    one month ago

When is the 'right' going to be honest?  Tell the truth?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.27  pat wilson  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.22    one month ago
Will the committee ask for all parties involved to testify?

I hope so.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    one month ago

"...one of them is a known pathological liar..."

Care to tell us where you obtained your psychology PHD and/or psychiatric degrees that you are able to diagnose such? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.29  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.28    one month ago

Newsvine and then Newstalkers .....

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.30  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.29    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.31  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.25    one month ago

So what does one make of a PotUS who knowingly allows an armed attack on the Capitol and refuses to lift a finger to stop it for three hours?   (And that is but one allegation.)

I’m reserving judgement until such time that I can evaluate all the data that becomes available.    This committee doesn’t give me warm and fuzzies on that from the start.    This last testimony is just proof of that.    My guess is they thought they were going to slip that BS past everyone and then two SS agents spoke up.

The fact that they hired a Hollywood producer to manage the whole thing is suspect as well.

And that they have no members on the committee at least sympathetic to Trump.

Lots of strikes going against them.    Hard to miss if you are being honest with yourself

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.32  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago
I'm a little surprised (not really) you havent considered an obvious possibility - the two secret service agents are "Trump lovers", and will lie for him.

This is why this hearing is a waste of time. No matter what gets presented, anyone can rationalize anything into anything they want to believe, or want others to believe, including the committee. And given anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew what the committee would present to us at the end even before that there would be a committee was announced, makes it harder to take seriously. This has all been about competing narratives, not truth. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.32    one month ago

Dismissing the evidence because one knows upfront that this is partisan is irrational.   Instead of categorical dismissal one should focus on the evidence under oath by R witnesses, the words of Trump on video and the facts that are now common knowledge.

Let's take two examples:

  1. Do you believe Bill Barr's testimony when he stated that he told Trump that there is no credible evidence backing up his allegations of election fraud and this allegations were bullshit?    Do you think this R former AG is lying under oath?
  2. Do you believe Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers' (R) testimony when he stated that Trump wanted him to violate his oath of office and replace Arizona state electors?  Do you think Bowers is lying under oath?

How rational is it to hold that all of the Republican witnesses are lying under oath and thus categorically dismiss everything in these hearings?

I would recommend setting aside the obvious fact that this is partisan and just evaluate the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.   Objectively.   

These people seem to have plenty to lose (personally) and not much to gain (personally) by putting themselves front and center on the world stage and making statements under oath against Trump and thus all of his supporters.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.34  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.33    one month ago
I would recommend setting aside the obvious fact that this is partisan and just evaluate the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.   Objectively.

That's sort of the problem for me, TiG. It's partisan. The partisan committee gets to narrate the whole shebang. What the public will see and what it won't. 

Concerning your questions. 

Do you believe Bill Barr's testimony when he stated that he told Trump that there is no credible evidence backing up his allegations of election fraud and this allegations were bullshit?    Do you think this R former AG is lying under oath?

I can't say with any degree of certainty, but my feeling is that he was not lying. It has nothing to do with him personally, under oath or not. I think it would be too logistically hard to pull off a rigging of an election on that scale without leaving evidence behind, but I can't rule it out, either. 

Do you believe Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers' (R) testimony when he stated that Trump wanted him to violate his oath of office and replace Arizona state electors?  Do you think Bowers is lying under oath?

I think he probably told the truth as he saw it, which may be the actual truth. Was there counter testimony? Was there any witnesses in this whole show that presented a counter to the narrative of the partisan committee? I don't know, since I haven't watched any of it. My impression from headlines leads me to believe there was no counter-narrative. 

At the end of the day, however, I don't think it really matters much to me anyway, since I have no faith at all in Congress. It is a snake pit of special interest and if there are any honest members, they're thoroughly kept under heel by all the one's who're corrupt. On both sides. Sorry, but that's what the conduct of our leaders have led me to over the decades. 

For anyone else reading this, none of this is said in defense of Trump. I don't want him running for president again, personally, so don't go all 'He's a Trumper' on me. The only relevance Trump has anymore, as far as I can see, is something to beat the right over the head with. The Repubs should dump him like last week's garbage. I feel the same about Biden. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.34    one month ago
What the public will see and what it won't. 

Key questions however should be relevant.    For example, what did Trump know about the insurrection and when did he know it?  in context of what he did.   It is quite clear that Trump was very aware of what his supporters were doing at the Capitol and that he refused to act for 3 hours.   Facts like this are rather well established by the evidence so what would the other side argue ... that he really did not know what was going on?

I can't say with any degree of certainty, but my feeling is that he was not lying. It has nothing to do with him personally, under oath or not. I think it would be too logistically hard to pull off a rigging of an election on that scale without leaving evidence behind, but I can't rule it out, either. 

To me he is an R, a former AG for Trump who is speaking under oath and making statements that are not difficult to believe.   After all, telling Trump that his allegations are groundless and that his claims of fraud are bullshit is, when all is said and done, the pure truth.

... but I can't rule it out, either. 

At this stage you think it is possible the 2020 election was rigged??    Drakk??   Are you being technical here and saying that 100% certainty is next to impossible (and I would agree) or are you saying this is more like 80/20?   I would say that I am 99.x% certain that this election was NOT rigged to a level that affected the outcome.   That is based on the failure at every turn of Trump and minions to support any of their allegations and the positive certification by the entire USA electoral process (both D and R participants).   In short, being realistic, there is no chance that Trump's Big Lie is correct.   It is total bullshit.   But since this is reality, one should logically hold out at least an infinitesimal possibility that it is not.

I think he probably told the truth as he saw it, which may be the actual truth. Was there counter testimony? Was there any witnesses in this whole show that presented a counter to the narrative of the partisan committee? I don't know, since I haven't watched any of it. My impression from headlines leads me to believe there was no counter-narrative.

Why would he lie?   The man is compromising his R career when he testified under oath that Trump was trying to get him to put forth false electors.    And after the testimony, this R attempted to cover his ass by saying he would vote for Trump if he were the nominee in 2024.   Clearly this was no easy thing to get up their and buck much of his party.   What could he possibly have to gain by lying under oath?

The Repubs should dump him like last week's garbage. I feel the same about Biden. 

I agree on both counts.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.2.36  Sunshine  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.34    one month ago

  It's partisan.

Omg…you didn’t.   

Now you will branded a Trump supporter. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.36    one month ago
Now you will branded a Trump supporter. 

I stated that this committee is (obviously) partisan at its onset.   Stereotyping is a flawed way to operate.   Stick with what people write and not what your biased and demonstrably distorted stereotype suggests.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.38  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.35    one month ago
At this stage you think it is possible the 2020 election was rigged??    Drakk??   Are you being technical here and saying that 100% certainty is next to impossible (and I would agree) or are you saying this is more like 80/20?

Please. You know better than that, I think. When you have a government that allows radioactive gas to intentionally be released from a nuclear facility without telling those citizens they were going to do it, for 14 years, you can't rule anything out. As I said, I can't see even the government having the wherewithal, especially one not yet in power, pulling off something like a rigged election on this scale, so I'm pretty doubtful that fraud happened on a significant scale. But I can't say it's impossible.  

Why would he lie?   The man is compromising his R career when he testified under oath that Trump was trying to get him to put forth false electors.    And after the testimony, this R attempted to cover his ass by saying he would vote for Trump if he were the nominee in 2024.   Clearly this was no easy thing to get up their and buck much of his party.   What could he possibly have to gain by lying under oath?

I did not say he was lying. He may have very well told the absolute truth. My comment addressed the committee as a whole, not any one specific thing. My belief is that the committee isn't interested in what is true. What the committee is interested in is presenting a narrative that most damages the other side. 

My own opinion is that Trump acted irresponsibly, at the least, on the 6th and would love to see him barred from running again. However, just because I feel that way isn't reason enough to keep him from running. It seems pretty clear to me that this committee can't find any actual actionable crimes with which to charge Trump and so the purpose of the committee was always to write events in such a way as to demonize every single thing he did or didn't do, no matter how tenuous a connection, as an orchestrated plot to overthrow the government.

I have a hard time believing Trump could organize anything remotely like a coup. I think Trump honestly thought the whole country would just spontaneously rise up and make him King or some similar fantasy. I think he was so convinced by his own narcissistic view of himself that he didn't need to do anything other than be himself. And when things started falling apart, the only thing I saw him doing was what someone without a plan would do when they had no idea what to do. For instance, when he called Bowers, I doubt he had any idea how improper, and possibly illegal, that would be. I doubt it even crossed his mind. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.38    one month ago
But I can't say it's impossible.  

I stated that I agree that technically one cannot deem it impossible.   But you seem to be stating that you think it is reasonable to hold that this election might have been rigged.   It has been about 20 months now since election day and after all the efforts by Trump and his minions there is no evidence of rigging or any activity that would have come close to changing the outcome of the election or even the outcome of a single state.

Nothing.   The evidence against rigging are the results of the myriad investigations, recounts, lawsuits and certified votes delivered by the USA electoral process.  

The election, Drakk, was not rigged.   Trump lost,  Biden won.   Fair and square.  

You do not have to say it is impossible but I would expect you to realize that it is well beyond unreasonable to hold that Trump is the legitimate PotUS.

My belief is that the committee isn't interested in what is true. What the committee is interested in is presenting a narrative that most damages the other side. 

You cannot see it being both?   Of course the committee (at least the majority) wants political advantage and thus is happy to damage the GoP.   You cannot see them also wanting to hold Trump accountable?   You cannot see them wanting to get the truth out?   After all, there seems to be no need to lie about what happened, the truth is damning all on its own.

It seems pretty clear to me that this committee can't find any actual actionable crimes with which to charge Trump a

This is such a strange and common view.    You assume that because the committee is not operating as a criminal proceeding that their  communication of findings is all bullshit.    So do you believe that Trump did NOT attempt to steal this election??    Do you believe that his actions were not against the US government??

If the DoJ musters the balls to take on a former PotUS with all the extant political support he still (inexplicably) enjoys, I expect (based on the evidence) that he would be charged with at least sedition and possibly treason.

I have a hard time believing Trump could organize anything remotely like a coup.

He is not alleged to have organized a coup.   The allegation is that he attempted with a multifaceted scheme to steal the election.

Trump:

  • lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).

And in the last session we learned that Trump as a sitting PotUS:

  • knew that his supporters were armed and demanded that they be allowed past the metal detectors so that his audience would look bigger
  • knew he was talking to an armed crowd yet encouraged them to march on the Capitol
  • encouraged his supporters who then engaged in an attack on the Capitol; breaking and entering and communicating an intent to kill the V.P.
  • knew his supporters threatened to kill Pence and whose response was that 'he deserves it'
  • allowed his supporters to continue their attack for three hours and who refused to listen to the pleas of staff, family and 'friends' advising him to stop them

What must this guy do before some recognize the need to hold him accountable?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.40  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.27    one month ago

Will never happen. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.37    one month ago
"Stick with what people write and not what your biased and demonstrably distorted stereotype suggests."

I'll have to remember that - "biased and demonstrably distorted" - that says it all

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.42  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.39    one month ago
You do not have to say it is impossible but I would expect you to realize that it is well beyond unreasonable to hold that Trump is the legitimate PotUS.

Not sure why you are trying to have an argument that isn't there. If I don't think the election was rigged, would that not necessitate that I must therefore believe Trump lost and Biden won? Not sure what you're trying to do here. 

Once again, my comments aren't in defense of Trump. My comments are directed at the idea of a partisan effort on behalf of the left to promote a political agenda regardless of what needs to be done to accomplish it. If the actual truth is involved it's incidental. For instance, the Cavenaugh confirmation hearings. The only difference between that and these hearings is that a lot of what has been said or alleged in this committee is probably true, which is fortuitous for the committee, but incidental, because even if it were not true they'd still be doing exactly the same thing. We see it time and time again and it makes me sick. We see it from the right, as well, just not so egregiously, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.43  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.42    one month ago
Not sure what you're trying to do here. 

I am simply responding to what you wrote.  I am not trying to do anything.   When you wrote:

Drakk @1.2.38Please. You know better than that, I think. When you have a government that allows radioactive gas to intentionally be released from a nuclear facility without telling those citizens they were going to do it, for 14 years, you can't rule anything out. As I said, I can't see even the government having the wherewithal, especially one not yet in power, pulling off something like a rigged election on this scale, so I'm pretty doubtful that fraud happened on a significant scale. But I can't say it's impossible.  

I was surprised that instead of coming back with something like:  'yes, I am just not ruling out the possibility even though it is tiny' you instead wrote language that suggests you think there is a realistic possibility (albeit small) that the election might have been rigged to falsely elect Biden.    Remember, I agreed upfront that technically (maybe a fraction of a percentage) there is a possibility of rigging and then suggested a big difference between that and, say an 80/20 probability split.   Your response sure seems like you are more of the 80/20 than the 99.x/(1-0.x) probability.    That I did not expect. 

My comments are directed at the idea of a partisan effort on behalf of the left to promote a political agenda regardless of what needs to be done to accomplish it.

Yes it is partisan.   Of course.   Big deal.   Ignore that aspect and consider the evidence presented to you.   You are an intelligent adult and are perfectly capable of determining if testimony sounds credible.   You can compare the testimony with the other facts that you know about Trump and determine if it all fits.   And, in contrast, you can detect contradictions and other flaws which will reduce your confidence.   Finally, you are perfectly capable of detecting if you are being led around by rhetoric.

In short, you (et. al.) are capable of listening to and processing the information presented by this committee and coming to a better informed understanding of what likely took place.   You are not sitting on a jury, you are not deciding Trump's fate.   You are simply part of an audience getting informed and the information provided is better structured and certified (e.g. under oath by operatives who mostly had direct contact with Trump ... first hand experience) than what you typically find on media channels and the internet sources which serve as the primary news source for most everyone.

Think of this as a well presented, well organized, oath-based, personal testimony set of information specific to Jan 6th and what led up to that with the primary question being:    What did Trump know, when did he know it and what did he do?

And, as with any source of information, you listen and you decide what you think is the truth.   Information is good.

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
1.2.44  Betty  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago

So, you do know that the 2 secret service agents have worked as Presidential s.s.a. since Pres. Clinton. 2nd Trump is just too big to actually get to the steering wheel of suv and the beast" limo. 3rd she has never stated she heard anything first hand. It was always "he said to the effect of...," this is a major issue with any trial going on in the USA. 2nd and 3rd party hear say.... 

Why would any one with the over 30 years of historic service of the Presidents, lie about this issue of grabbing the wheel and grabbing an agents neck? Trump, for that matter many people in the world, are not able to take on or even attempt to take on a secret service agent knowing they could be taken out in seconds by secret service agents. This whole spill of hers is not true. If it were why didn't they talk to agents and the actual person that wrote that note she claims she wrote. Do a writing analysis with 3 to 5 experts, at least 3, and go from there on that one.

But you making the statement that they are Trump lovers and will lie for him is total bull, no one in secret service will allow their 30+ years go down the drain for her or for him, for anyone for that fact. That is why they are hired for one, I'll be back to talk to you when they discredits every single thing she said.

I do believe he stated he wanted to go to capital. But nothing else makes NY since. You have ABC, NBC and Fox stated the agents along with the spokesperson for the secret service to come to testify as she did. 

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
1.2.45  Betty  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.43    one month ago

As with all politicians,  DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY! They are all about their back pocket than their actual job and defend their bosses, the American People!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  Betty @1.2.45    one month ago

Hi Betty.   You are preaching to the choir here.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

trumpster sycophants willing to lie to protect their insurrectionist hero. go figure.

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
1.3.1  Betty  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago

So, 2 men that have spent over 30 years as secret service agents, since Clinton, are willing to risk their lives to tell the truth? They haven't even been called upon to defend or to dispute this ladies testimony,  which is mostly if not all hear say!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

It now appears that she may just be another POS Trump-hater.

According to an "unnamed" source, that only contacted FoxNews (meaning right winger)?  She made no secret that the claim was at least second or third hand info, and I personally don't care if it is true or not, does not effect the rest of the hearings one iota.

Remember, last time he was near any protestors, he decided to make an unscheduled examination of the Whitehouse's bunker.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4    one month ago
According to an "unnamed" source,

It was Col Mustard, in the den, with a lead pipe

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.2  devangelical  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4    one month ago

the agents were probably threatened with their jobs by that trumpster blowhard in the service that miraculously didn't lose his own job after violating the hatch act.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.3  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.4.2    one month ago

We do not even know what these agents would say.   I am very interested in hearing their testimony.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.3    one month ago

me too. maybe they're negotiating an immunity deal from retaliation within their agency from some appointed trash that was left behind by the last administration.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.4.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @1.4.1    one month ago
It was Col Mustard, in the den, with a lead pipe

So you have no idea who it is and went for a snarky response.  Why even bother responding to a legitimate question?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.4.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4.5    one month ago

What question do you see in comment 1.4 which was the one responded to?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.4.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.4.6    one month ago

What question do you see in comment 1.4 which was the one responded to?

I'll give you a hint.  It ends in a question mark.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.4.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4.7    one month ago

That's why I asked. Context does not necessarily command an answer. Evidently you think it does but I don't. It's more like a statement that puzzles you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.9  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.4.2    one month ago
the agents were probably threatened with their jobs by that trumpster blowhard in the service that miraculously didn't lose his own job after violating the hatch act.

Gee, was that before or after Trump's plot to rule the world by commandeering the nation's industries for his own personal use fell apart?

I mean, if we are just throwing out wild-assed ideas?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.4.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.4.8    one month ago
That's why I asked. Context does not necessarily command an answer.

And yet you did.  But your answer had nothing to do with the only question I posited.  So, are you just trolling?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.4.11  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4.5    one month ago

Lighten up Francis, it was a joke.    Try growing a sense of humor.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @1.4.11    one month ago

Hey, some hard core lefties do indeed have a sense of humor. Only problem is, to them it is only funny if they themselves come up with it first and it involves conservatives.

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
1.4.13  Betty  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4    one month ago

Actual, CBS and NBC were the first to report about the secret service wants to come forward about her lies. Also, they were the first to report that she did not write that note and the actual writer has called upon them.to give his information on the truth on the note. Fox actually was the next day, thank you very much. Please come with " receipts" (actual facts) before speaking. Thank you

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.5  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

revolver-illustration-id163978705?k=6&m=163978705&s=612x612&w=0&h=0UjjORUtpURTKgO5xzsjHQNBrceY91ik-X1oF38kZls=

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.6  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

So that is all you have got? He didn't lunge at the steering wheel.?  What about the rest of her testimony? 

This is a little,  no  a lot like the Muller report, which gave ten chargeable instances but in trumptopia all they heard was no collusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @1.6    one month ago
What about the rest of her testimony? 

Exactly.   This is all a game of deflection and faux obtuseness in defense of Trump and thus defense of the GoP which remains willfully infected with the Trump parasite.

The steering wheel story was repeatedly stated as second hand and is NOT, by an stretch, the core of her testimony.   Yet we have the predictable attempt to use any excuse, not matter how absurd, to attempt to discredit the damning testimony from these sessions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.6.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.6    one month ago
So that is all you have got? He didn't lunge at the steering wheel.?

If you have so much, why lie?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.6.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6.2    one month ago

Why do you presume she was lying?   Why would she lie on something that is trivial in comparison to the core of her testimony?  

She and Cheney both repeatedly stated that this is what she was told.   She was recounting what she was told and never even implied that she knew this was true but rather that she trusted Ornato and Engel was right there and did not deny what Ornato told her.

If the story is wrong then either: 

  • Hutchinson is lying (which makes no sense given this is a minor piece of her testimony)
  • Ornato was lying (which makes no sense either ... why would he lie)
  • Hutchinson misunderstood or misremembered what she was told (faulty memory of a 25 year old intelligent person)
  • Hutchinson accurately recounted what she was told

You, et. al. seem to leap to 'aha she lied therefore her entire testimony is a lie and therefore the entire hearing is a lie and therefore the entire committee work is a lie'.

Feel free to correct the above if your conspiracy theory does not go that far.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.6.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.6.3    one month ago
Why do you presume she was lying?  

Three individuals dispute her testimony


  • Hutchinson accurately recounted what she was told

    She is claiming that someone else's notes were her own. Don't you care?
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.6.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6.4    one month ago

It is alleged that agents will testify that her testimony on the story told to her by Ornato was wrong.   We do not know what part was wrong or how it could be wrong.   Yet you leap to the conclusion that she lied.

Don't you care about truth?

I have already stated multiple times that I want to hear from these witnesses.  Unlike you, I wait for the evidence before leaping to a conclusion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.6.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.6.5    one month ago
It is alleged that agents will testify

By whom and when?

Her testimony has been left to stand unscathed for 2 days already!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.6.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6.6    one month ago

I do not know any more about the inner workings than you do.

But this portion of her testimony is trivial.   This is second-hand information and she clearly disclosed that.   Ultimately what Trump did in the vehicle is not going to be criminal and at best goes to his state of mind.   Not that important since plenty of other testimony speaks to Trump's state of mind.

What is important is what Trump knew, when he knew it and what he did with the information.    This sidebar, in comparison, is secondary.

And by the way, Vic, it is quite possible that her testimony was spot on and that she accurately recounted what she was told.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.6.8  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6.2    one month ago

It was noted hearsay. Ask your question to the person who supposedly told her that.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.6.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Thomas @1.6.8    one month ago
It was noted hearsay.

Well, i say here, if someone lied to Hutchinson about what happened in the limo, all of her first hand accounts of her testimony must also obviously be lies, because she once repeated a lie, that she was told, and even though, up front, she admitted this is what she was told, it was obviously told by her in her recollection gathered with the blatant attempt to demean and defile Trumps stellar reputation as the ultimate non liar in, and of our nation, who could never be associated with any wrong doing, as he has always had nothing but the absolutely pure and honest intentions to abide by every single law in our country, and would never lower himself to not follow every letter of our laws to the T, for it is completely exampled, since i just lied to you, every damn word you ever utter again, written or verbal, rat or gerbil, will be a lie, cause Vic has determined this, and Vic puts Spock to shame when it comes to logic and reasoning, for it is best to just keep appeasing him.   

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
1.6.10  Betty  replied to  Thomas @1.6    one month ago

1st ex secret service agents have already stated it can not be true due to his size and the vehicle.

2nd she said it was the beasts steering wheel, he was in the SUV. 

3rd She said she wrote the note, another man has come forward stating that it is his handwriting and he wrote it- provable by handwriting analysis,  hoping she doesn't have chicken scratch for handwriting like a man. 

4th She states all the way through testimony that , "he stated that he said something to the affect of...," you and I and everyone else in the USA would never allow hearsay to convict anyone!!! I van just say I herd you killed someone and because I said so it has to be true..., how does that sound legal or fair to you?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.6.11  Snuffy  replied to  Betty @1.6.10    one month ago
how does that sound legal or fair to you?

I wouldn't worry so much about the legal and fair bit because this committee is nothing close and it doesn't have to be.  Think of this more as the committee is the prosecution submitting testimony to the grand jury which is made up of the voting public.  As has been said in the past, a good prosecutor should always be able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  That that's what this is all about.

The committee wants to convince the voting public that Donald Trump should not be allowed to win another election.  That's all this is for.  That's why they have brought in James Goldston to run the hearings.  The hearings are factually based, but totally packaged for TV and by a TV news exec to get a good story.  The testimony and video that is being presented is carefully selected to tell the story the committee wants to present.  It's very much one sided and everybody knows it.  I've been wrong in the past but I doubt that any legal action will come from these hearings.  While the evidence being presented is damning, it's also very carefully selected without context and by itself cannot show the intent of Trump which is part of what any legal proceedings would need.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.6.12  Thomas  replied to  Betty @1.6.10    one month ago

Who wants to convict him solely upon one witnesses testimony? There are a whole slew of witnesses.  

The fact that one part of her testimony may be inaccurate(in that she heard it from someone else) in no way calls into question the parts of her testimony that were not hearsay. 

I  would like to hear from the other people in the room. 

Trump is a known liar.  That means that testimony from him is suspect at best to begin with.  This young woman needs to have the benefit of the doubt until proven untruthful. 

Personally, I think that Trump should be locked in a stock, with every person given rotten fruit and vegetables to hurl at his slimy face. Because he lied to America and far down the road from the point where he should have been a bad memory, he is still a viable option. 

Fucking unbelievable. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

The ketchup too?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

Who cares about the damn ketchup? 

Trump is a childish brat. It isn't against the law to hurl ketchup at the wall. 

I would prefer that to the human fuck up machine currently occupying the Oval Office any day.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago

“Trump is a childish brat. It isn't against the law to hurl ketchup at the wall. 

I would prefer that…”

Enough said…as we further lower the bar. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago

Well, why not - don't infants throw their food around?   But then maybe it was just a way of saying that the White House walls needed redecorating, 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.1    one month ago

Right, disregard the human fuck up machine in the White House now.

But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!! 

What the Jan 6th committee is all about. Because they can't have anyone looking at Biden and asking real questions about what he and the Democrats are doing to this country.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
SUV driver, an unnamed Secret Service agent, are prepared to testify before the Jan. 6 committee that the president didn't lunge at the steering wheel.

How long before the left Doxes this agent and their normal threats begin?  I give it to Friday.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    one month ago
(It now seems that the grabbing of the steering wheel may be a "he-said she-said"  description of what happened. The Secret Service acknowledges this morning that Trump was "irate" in the back seat of that car.)

Have they ever found the SCOTUS leaker?

Did they even try?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

Doesn’t serve a purpose to advance their left wing crackpottery so no, it won’t happen until Republicans take over next year.

Meanwhile, the sanitization protocols are engaged ......

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.1    one month ago
it won’t happen until Republicans take over next year.

That's all important

And we can never let them have power again!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

You know they didn't even try.  I have to agree with Sparty in @3.1.1 - nothing will be done about it until after November.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.3    one month ago

I hope the American people have finally had enough. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    one month ago

I'm pretty sure they have.  I this the other day:

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    one month ago

Your usual projection, deflection, denial.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago

Until you prove me wrong - piss off yank.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago

Your usual copy n' paste.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.2    one month ago

My usual truth.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    one month ago

You have never stated a fact EVER.

You piss off.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.4    one month ago

I will take his truths and facts over yours any day. At least he does not deflect, project, deny, and go out of his way to insult and be obnoxious those that disagree and do not share his views. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.5    one month ago

"I will take his truths and facts over yours any day. At least he does not deflect, project, deny, and go out of his way to insult and be obnoxious those that disagree and do not share his views."

Of course you do.  What truth and facts?

"and go out of his way to insult and be obnoxious those that disagree and do not share his views." 

And no he never does that!

"Just another Trump freak out article all over nothing." Jeremy

"Then why are you here?"  Evil Genius

"[deleted]  And to ask why people are freaking out over something that has been going on for decades.  Not like I'd get a straight answer."'

Your oh so tolerant friend said 'to piss you off' in answer to 'then why are you here'

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    one month ago

Your usual projection, deflection, denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.7    one month ago

My usual truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    one month ago

Now these agents are saying whatshisname is too big and fat to lunge at them that way - he is a big fat pig tub o lard but that doesn't mean he didn't attempt it.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.9    one month ago
Now these agents are saying whatshisname is too big and fat to lunge at them that way

Please cite your source.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    one month ago

But you have zero problem telling others to "F#*k Off right? Perhaps he feels "P#*s Off is better that stooping to your level of profanity.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4  JaneDoe    one month ago

So a surprise hearing is held so Ms. Hutchinson can testify about something she was told. I just don’t understand why they would not have gone to the secret service agents who were there for their account before putting her out there like that. It’s not like they didn’t know who they were or where to find them. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JaneDoe @4    one month ago

They've operated that way for 6 years

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.1.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
"The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f'ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now," Hutchinson testified, relaying what she was told later that day by another White House aide, Tony Ornato.

Maybe someone should speak with Tony also. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JaneDoe @4.1.1    one month ago

That should have been done before putting her in front of TV cameras.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.1.3  JaneDoe  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

Totally agree. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago
That should have been done before putting her in front of TV cameras.

When do Democrats tell the truth?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.4    one month ago

Because they don't have to. They totally control the committee. Whenever they have power they rule like their beloved uncle Joe.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JaneDoe @4    one month ago
So a surprise hearing is held so Ms. Hutchinson can testify about something she was told.

If you'd watched the hearings you'd know most of the things she testified to were things she was a first hand witness to. The incident with the driver was one of the few that was her retelling what she'd been told had happened so it's not surprising that there may be a different account coming from those who witnessed it first hand. Perhaps it was just the President threatening to take the wheel and drive to the capital that got blown into an actual attempt.

We won't know until the other agents are willing to testify and tell us what really happened. I'm going to reserve my judgement on this hearsay account until further investigations and testimony are revealed. As for the rest of her testimony I believe her, she seemed extremely credible and her testimony was pretty damning about what she heard, saw, and cleaned up, first hand.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
4.2.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    one month ago
If you'd watched the hearings you'd know most of the things she testified to were things she was a first hand witness to?

True. I guess I was just concentrating on the article that was seeded and could have worded that sentence better. 

We won't know until the other agents are willing to testify and tell us what really happened. I'm going to reserve my judgement on this hearsay account until further investigations and testimony are revealed.

IMO they should have went to the agents who had first hand knowledge before having Ms. Hutchinson testify to hearsay. 
Now we have the agents according to this article willing to testify that didn’t happen. We have the article linked at 1.2.18 where Tony Ornato states he did not brief Ms. Hutchinson on what happened in the limo.

I also read this article  where a spokesperson for Eric Herschmann claims he wrote the note Ms. Hutchinson claimed to have written. 

As for the rest of her testimony I believe her, she seemed extremely credible

I’ll have to wait and see if any of the statements above turn out to be true before I judge her credibility.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    one month ago

Her credibility was also vouched for by people extremely close to Trump, and when Trump states he barely knew her, RED FLAGGS, should shoot up, like horns, out of his twisted head. Did you notice NO ONE has jumped up to contest the meat n potatoes of her stated VERY DAMAGING arguments, well except for whose handwriting, as BOTH, may have written it down , making BOTH CORRECT, cause the absolute bottom line, what was written to be given to Trump, WAS NOT CONTESTED!  How many squeaking tiny holes will they allow to justify and excuse this reckless abandonment of lawlessness that has what, over 30,000 documented LIES under his belt while in office, averaging over 20 provable LIES while PRESIDENT OF OUR UNITED STATES PER DAY !  WTF people will do and say to say this :man: is not guilty because he hasn't been convicted is just CRAZY. His former Lawyer was in Prison as a co Conspirator/ or was it DEFENDANT, and the only reason Trump WAS NOT, is because he was a sitting POTUS, something i could have seen tjhe Republicans disregarding, as i think they should have, had it been a Democrat. Never have i seen so many look for every microscopic reason to NOT accept the FACTS, cause Trump has PROVEN WHO THE FCK HE IS OVER and OVER, but, but, but  for TENS of ThOUSANDS a COINCIDENCE will and do  NEVER a correlation MAKE, when their disingenuous defense is writ with that they deem fake, because afraid to be awake, for the wake, cause every day they must continue to tell themselves a LIE, for some worthless than about any other MUTHER FCKN Person in this whirled where they MUST SPIN to face themselves again and again, and rather curious, as to when will be WHEN, as their centrifugal is not forced, yet may cause Earths orbit to change when absorbed in full, cause NEVER have i seen so many Defend one so full of BULL, and perhaps it istime to CULL the herd, cause i've heard enough from the herd that listened oh to well, while attempting to sentence and send those sane, to HELL with these LIARS and into a deep abandoned oh Well they deservedly should be go n b    sent, where they can dwell about repent, and re Pence, as this oh Well will be so DEEP that none of their cries and pleas for help can be heard, for the Herd have been heard ENOUGH ALREADY, let em drown in their shared waters of DENIAL,   because  i've listened to and read, so many who can't accept what is smack there in front of their faces, amongst thousands upon thousands of examples, that will never be viewed ample, and that just is what it is, and why i will still SCREAM into DEAF EARS, till i SHOVE MY FINGERS in theirs to give them my FUCK U Signs, that all of the deaf voices in their head will NOW claim , they cannot read      well know longer can care about those who refuse to see,  cause , they are not worthy of one(as in cause),    they blatantly contest because they believe it is (a contest),  where they LOSE, after they so EVIDENTALLY HAVE, by admitting they've been WRONG ALL ALONG, cause they joined a CULTure of arrogance, and can't quit their habit while they are fckd more times than a loose prostituted pregnant rabbit without a leg to stand , cause they cannot accept that their foaming mouthed Trump B rabid , has fckd them over with his deceit, that which he firmly sits around in, in his unadulterated SHIT he has sold the weak minded, who have never been told or seem to mind it, asz they bask in a flask of chilled Aid to Trumps top advisor,who witnessed so much first hand, the clock need not a second to decide that the drunk and disillusioned,  need be deprogramed, and Gini Uncle Thomas has volunteered, to steer them all "RIGHT" cause so many deniers will never accept being WRONG

 . .

Possibly a tad long winded, buy that is the way i wind it, when my frustration with deniers reaches a certain point where it is best to release my vent, before i do so in person , because it can only swell and get worse and, don't wish to argue an argument where for me to prevail, instead of Trump, i'll end up in jail, but, i DO LOVE being behind BARS, which reminds me, almost Mellon Collie HOUR    over n    OUT

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.2    one month ago
Her credibility was also vouched for by people extremely close to Trump

GOP representatives and aides are always vouched for until they step out of the talking points and start telling the whole truth. At that point the GOP sycophants abandon their former friends and allies because the fear of the Trump bus running over them is far more than anything liberals and progressives can do to them. It's like a commercial fisherman who makes a living fishing in privately owned waters being asked for their testimony that could threaten the owners of those privately owned waters by those who control the rest of publicly owned waters by them saying they'll revoke their right to fish in publicly owned water if they don't tell the truth. And if one of their fellows dare follow their conscience and speaks the truth they are abandoned almost before the words are out of their mouth.

There is virtually no incentive for right wing conservatives to tell the truth. They're beholden to, their power is derived from, the right wing conservatives who vote them into power and as long as dirty Donald keeps their constituents gullible and stupid enough to believe his big lie, to believe nonsensical Qanon conspiracy theories, then there is no reason for GOP representatives and aides to tell the truth. The only reason they might choose to do so anyway ,as many Republicans have in coming forward with their testimonies during this hearing, would be because they have a conscience and a backbone, something that is now exceedingly rare among the GOP.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5  Sparty On    one month ago

And the TDS wheel goes around and around and around and .....

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    one month ago

originaloriginal

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @6    one month ago

Captain meme strikes again .... pow .... zoom ..... to the moon!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
6.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    one month ago

They are always stupid.  At least could be something funny. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
6.2.3  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @6.2.2    one month ago

It is spot on. Too bad for you.

This is funny....

256

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.2.4  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.3    one month ago

Really? There is no evidence that Stalin said such. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
6.2.5  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @6.2.4    one month ago
There is no evidence that Stalin said such. 

Prove he didn't.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.6  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    one month ago

original

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.7  JBB  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.1    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @6.2.6    one month ago

Meme counter-battery engaged:

The only person was murdered by a gun on Jan 6th.

384

And wackadoodles on the left are in deep, deep denial about.

Sad

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
6.2.9  Sunshine  replied to  JBB @6.2.7    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6.2.10  Hallux  replied to  Hallux @6.2.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.11  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @6.2.6    one month ago

Get a new meme.

The Jan 6th rioters didn't have any guns.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.11    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.2.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.9    one month ago

So I guess right wing conservatives are always thinking about Joe Biden's supporters...

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.2.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.13    one month ago

“…right wing conservatives are always thinking…”

Only thinking to place blame, to look backwards, or to ignore the facts. Not an original thought to be found. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.2.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  afrayedknot @6.2.14    one month ago
Not an original thought to be found.

True enough, but they've got every reason to feel stupid which is likely why they're always so bitter and angry towards Democrats and the Biden administration which has clearly filled up the remainder of their minds shriveled down to almost nothing by corrosive right wing religious conservative ideology.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7  Hallux    one month ago

Ah who to believe ... the young lady who answered all the questions asked or the old guy who pleaded the 5th whenever he inhaled or exhaled. Carry on, but before you do ask yourselves why Pence did not want to get in the vehicle driven by one of Donald's sycophants.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.1  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @7    one month ago

Well someone told me you beat your wife so it must be true.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @7.1    one month ago

Only at chess. She won all of the other battles.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @7.1.1    one month ago
Only at chess.

Not what I was told.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.2    one month ago

As one can tell from your avatar, you'll believe just about anything.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.1.4  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @7.1.3    one month ago

This is your best?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @7.1.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.6    one month ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.6    one month ago

not exactly a difficult feat

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7    one month ago

Ah who to believe ....... a second hand account from an aide or two people who took an oath and are trusted to protect the the life of the POTUS.

Simple decision for anyone with a modicum of unbiased intellect.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    one month ago

As an employee, she would also have taken an oath.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @7.2.1    one month ago

Really, do you even know what oath he is talking about?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.3  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.2    one month ago

Probably one of Donald's famous NDAs ... /S

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @7.2.3    one month ago

Nope, the Secret Service Agent oath.    I wonder if they have a low level aide oath.    

I will protect the xerox machine and all the paper clips at all costs. 

So help me God!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.4    one month ago

Unless it was a low level aid or intern to Bill Clinton.

I promise to take my dresses regularly to the dry cleaners; buy new knee pads every month; not mention anything to my friends or family; and never get chapped lips.

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
7.2.7  Betty  replied to  Hallux @7.2.1    one month ago

Not the same oath. Look it up.

If you were accused by someone that said they heard that you killed your wife and kids or your dog and they locked you up for hearsay how is that a fair trial?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Betty @7.2.7    one month ago

This is not a trial.

Do you expect news sources to place their sources under oath before communicating credible findings to the public?

Think of this as a well-organized presentation of video and in-person under-oath testimony by mostly high ranking Republicans about their direct contact with Trump who are risking their careers to testify.

This is rather sound news (compared to the media) but comparing it to a trial is wrong.   These are hearings that have never been advertised as a trial and have no power to find Trump guilty.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    one month ago
Simple decision for anyone with a modicum of unbiased intellect.

So, you think that you exhibit 'unbiased intellect' by accepting anonymous claims over sworn testimony. 

Ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @7.2.9    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Betty @7.2.7    one month ago
Not the same oath.

Please provide a link to these 2 different oaths. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @7.2.9    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Betty @7.2.7    one month ago

Perhaps you don't know how this shit works. Here is what the seeder says:

"You make a claim and you have to provide the link." 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
7.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Hallux @7    one month ago
the young lady who answered all the questions asked or the old guy who pleaded the 5th whenever he inhaled or exhaled

The fact is she never claimed to have witnessed the Trumptantrum in the limo when he may have tried to grab the wheel and attack his secret service. She simply answered the questions asked which included relaying an event she heard from someone else. Of course we have to take that with a grain of salt, there is no real evidence that ever happened but should be something investigated. If the agent who was allegedly attacked comes forward and says that never happened I'd believe him.

"Engel and the SUV driver, an unnamed Secret Service agent, are prepared to testify before the Jan. 6 committee that the president didn't lunge at the steering wheel."

This of course is also hearsay, much like the initial claim of this incident. Until we actually hear what happened we shouldn't make much hay of it. It could be that they testify that he didn't do anything like what was claimed, or that he didn't "lunge" at the steering wheel but merely 'reached' for it, and perhaps he didn't try and choke Engel but pushed him away.

Regardless of how the facts around this incident fall, it's clear that the testimony about the things she did see and was in the room for show an unhinged outraged bitter narcissist raging at his loss and clearly, knowingly trying to cling to power through any means.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
7.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3    one month ago
Regardless of how the facts around this incident fall, it's clear that the testimony about the things she did see and was in the room for show an unhinged outraged bitter narcissist raging at his loss and clearly, knowingly trying to cling to power through any means.

And this much I do agree with.  Trump's behavior alone has ended my support of him and I hope it has ended the support of enough that he either decides not to run in 24 or he does not win the primary.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.1    one month ago
Trump's behavior alone has ended my support of him ...

Then why are you still trying to defend him?    Why are you focusing on utterly petty second-hand information that was delivered as such and questioning the credibility of the witness?   

Why are you not talking about the evidence delivered thus far?    This is serious business.   A PotUS should not be allowed to get a pass on sedition and, possibly, treason.   The evidence provided in these hearings is by R operatives.   I am talking about the first-hand testimony on video and audio as well as that from witnesses in person.   And all of these are Rs risking their political careers.

Instead of taking potentially challenged second-hand and largely ancillary information and using that to question the integrity and credibility of a person who stated that this was told to her and was not first-hand, why not focus on evidence that shows:

Trump, a sitting PotUS:

  • knew that his supporters were armed and demanded that they be allowed past the metal detectors so that his audience would look bigger
  • knew he was talking to an armed crowd yet encouraged them to march on the Capitol
  • encouraged his supporters who then engaged in an attack on the Capitol; breaking and entering and communicating an intent to kill the V.P.
  • knew his supporters threatened to kill Pence and whose response was that 'he deserves it'
  • allowed his supporters to continue their attack for three hours and who refused to listen to the pleas of staff, family and 'friends' advising him to stop them

Every patriot should be appalled that a sitting PotUS would, for the first time in history, engage in such outrageous acts.  And these are after engaging in a two-month Big Lie campaign wherein Trump:

  • lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).

What prompts someone to defend such an abysmal character who has acted against the USA, as PotUS, simply because his ego could not handle losing the election?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.3  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.2    one month ago
Why are you not talking about the evidence delivered thus far?    This is serious business.   A PotUS should not be allowed to get a pass on sedition and, possibly, treason.   The evidence provided in these hearings is hard evidence by R operatives.   I am talking about the first-hand testimony on video and audio as well as that from witnesses in person.   And all of these are Rs risking their political careers.

When will be expecting any criminal charges for this hard evidence?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.3    one month ago

Why are you asking me?    I have no inside information;  I am observing what is publicly available.

Seems to me your (over-used talking point) question is a tepid defense for Trump which weakly argues:  'if this was such good evidence then why has nobody pressed charges?'.

Instead of grasping for straws, why are you not concerned about what Trump did?   Do you personally condone what he did (see @7.3.2)?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3    one month ago

If I were master of time and space, I’d put Trump and Hillary in the same room, at the same time.    Trump at this moment and Hillary when she flipped out when she learned she lost.

Now THAT would be must see TV.

Bingeworthy as the kids today say .....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.6  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.4    one month ago
Why are you asking me?  

Because you made the claim of hard evidence.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.6    one month ago

What does my noting the obvious hard evidence have to do with the legal workings of the government?    

I do not control the justice department nor do I have insider information.

The evidence is demonstrably hard evidence (direct under oath video and audio testimony,  direct video of Trump, direct under-oath witnesses,  Rs testifying, not Ds).


Do you personally  condone  what Trump did (see  @7.3.2 )?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.8  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.7    one month ago

You don’t know what hard evidence is.  You are basing your opinion of treason on uncontested testimony, doctored videos, and hearsay from a biased source. This is called soft evidence.

When there is hard evidence I am sure charges will be forthcoming.

 

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.8    one month ago

Projection, deflection and denial.  Tiresome

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.10  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.9    one month ago

You are free to leave.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.8    one month ago
You are basing your opinion of treason on uncontested testimony, doctored videos, and hearsay from a biased source. This is called soft evidence.

You think these video are 'doctored'?   You think Trump on video is fake?    You think the testimonies are fake?

What evidence do you need to see the obvious?   A confession by Trump?   


Do you personally  condone what Trump did (see    @7.3.2   )?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.12  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.11    one month ago

Wow.  You are losing it.  You believe videos without full context , all testimony regardless of  no cross examination, and third party testimony.  Haha..too funny.  

Yeah that is a sensible and balanced position. /s

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.12    one month ago

Do you believe Bill Barr's testimony when he stated that he told Trump that there is no credible evidence backing up his allegations of election fraud and this allegations were bullshit?    Do you think this R former AG is lying under oath?

Do you believe Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers' (R) testimony when he stated that Trump wanted him to violate his oath of office and replace Arizona state electors?  Do you think Bowers is lying under oath?

etc. etc. etc.

Basically you are taking the position that most Trump defenders here are taking.   It is the nuh'uh denial of everything.   You just do not believe any of it.  It is all a charade.   The witnesses are all lying, the videos are all doctored, everything is taken out of context, ...

It is sickening watching this pathetic raw partisanship at play given support like yours is what buffers and protects Trump.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.14  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.13    one month ago

Wow.  Your Judge and jury. No reason for you to hear anymore.  Your due diligence is done. 

Do you have a preference for the Federal prison?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.14    one month ago

Instead of answering my questions you deflect.    

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.16  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.15    one month ago

So you like Barr now.  Before he had negative words about Trump he was a liar. Even though those where his spoken words also on video. Isn’t it funny how people react according to their biases.  What a hoot hey. 

It would do you some good to do some critical thinking. 

No deflection.  You said there was hard evidence provided by the Jan 6th committee and obvious criminal activity. 

Your position is clear.

Have a nice night.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.16    one month ago
So you like Barr now.  Before he had negative words about Trump he was a liar. 

Show me where I have made any negative statements against Barr.    You cannot, you just made that up.   

Your position is clear.

Yeah, the evidence shows a PotUS engaged in sedition if not treason.    Your position is to deny everything ... claim it is all fabricated, trickery, lies.   It is pathetic excuse making for Trump.


Trump, a sitting PotUS:

  • knew that his supporters were armed and demanded that they be allowed past the metal detectors so that his audience would look bigger
  • knew he was talking to an armed crowd yet encouraged them to march on the Capitol
  • encouraged his supporters who then engaged in an attack on the Capitol; breaking and entering and communicating an intent to kill the V.P.
  • knew his supporters threatened to kill Pence and whose response was that 'he deserves it'
  • allowed his supporters to continue their attack for three hours and who refused to listen to the pleas of staff, family and 'friends' advising him to stop them

Every patriot should be appalled that a sitting PotUS would, for the first time in history, engage in such outrageous acts.  And these are after engaging in a two-month Big Lie campaign wherein Trump:

  • lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.3.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.16    one month ago
So you like Barr now.
You said there was hard evidence provided by the Jan 6th committee and obvious criminal activity. 

Funny , how it took Bill Barr being under oath, to extract the damn TRUTH. 

So, all of these REPUBLICANS testifying are not credible to you ? Isn't there a lunar eclipse you should be hiding behind or something about now ?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.19  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.3.18    one month ago

So Rs are credible to you?

See how that works?  Your games are silly.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.3.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.19    one month ago
So Rs are credible to you?

i find them a Hell of a lot more credible, when under oath, i'll give you that much.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.3.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.19    one month ago
See how that works?

well, i do find you and your baseless beliefs, INCREDIBLE SH IT

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.22  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.3.21    one month ago

I haven’t stated my beliefs.

 Your mind reading skills are amazing.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.23  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.3.20    one month ago
find them a Hell of a lot more credible, when under oath, i'll give you that much.

It is your opinion.  How can you possibly be giving me anything?

I will remember you trust Rs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.19    one month ago
So Rs are credible to you?

If you are going to play stupid games then by the same token note that you all of a sudden reject the under oath public testimony of mostly high-ranking Rs who are putting their careers in jeopardy by coming forward.  

What do they have to gain by lying?

But, to you, they are all lying ... they are part of a charade with doctored videos and false testimony.

And you think that is rational analysis?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.25  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.24    one month ago

[delet4ed]

I haven’t rejected anyones testimony or claimed anyone was lying.

[deleted]

[Have a nice night.]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.22    one month ago
I haven’t stated my beliefs.

Doesn't matter, just wait long enough here and someone will tell you what you think and what you feel.

Your mind reading skills are amazing.  

Wait until you get someone to tell you what you wrote--even when you didn't!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.3.27  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.25    one month ago
I haven’t rejected anyones testimony or claimed anyone was lying.

Yeah, you have offered a healthy, objective view of this evidence:   800

Sunshine ☞ You are basing your opinion of treason on uncontested testimony, doctored videos, and hearsay from a biased source.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.28  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.10    one month ago

No dear.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
7.3.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.10    one month ago

No such luck

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.3.30  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.22    one month ago
Your mind reading skills are amazing.

i have ESPN, 2

can you guess what i am thinking Sunshine, cause it might be dark, and dirty, and we could play Hurdy Gurdy  Man. i'll be Jimi Olson Hendrix and you could play  Sunshine Superman and be like Don O van

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.3.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.3.30    one month ago

Could've tripped out easy a-but I've a-changed my ways

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.32  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @7.3.27    one month ago
Yeah, you have offered a healthy, objective view of this evidence:

You bet.  Thanks 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
7.3.33  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.3.29    one month ago
No such luck

A chicken wing?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.34  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.33    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
7.3.35  Betty  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3    one month ago

Actually, the tantrums she stated happened was after the fact, she said she wasn't there that she walked into the dinning area, why not get the person who was serving him to testify instead. She made statements of all hearsay people.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8  Sunshine    one month ago

Democrats have become completely unhinged and irrational.  They need to go before doing any more harm.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @8    one month ago
They need to go before doing any more harm.

I think this time the American people finally got it!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

That is what the polls are showing but as we can clearly see on NT there are some who still suffer from TDS.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

There's a big difference between thinking and hoping, you are hoping.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.1    one month ago
That is what the polls are showing

The latest 3 polls to come out belie that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.1    one month ago

We have a radical element here. I think I know why they have been tolerated.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.2    one month ago

You bet and I'll raise.

Any time you're ready.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.5    one month ago

Betting would be making a prediction. Accrued wisdom has taught me not to predict.

I've been alive for 26,571 days and would not bet a dime on being alive tomorrow.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

Not counting on that. 

This needs to be driven home repeatedly until 2024 is over.

Democrats are responsible for:

  • High gas prices
  • Soaring inflation
  • the imminent recession coming
  • US citizens still in Afghanistan after Biden abandoned them
  • The US being bent over by our allies and enemies. Is there anyone Biden is willing to stand up to besides Russia?
  • Crime rates increasing- from sea to shining sea
  • Our wide open southern border and the hordes of illegal immigrants crossing it
  • Covid 19 still being around. Biden promised to "shut down Covid". More deaths under his watch from Covid than Trump had under his. Biden said "No one responsible for so many deaths should be President" during the debates. So why hasn't he resigned?

Democrats are going to continue with their Jan 6th BS; and abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion rants. Their only hope is to divert voter attention away from their massive fuckups. The media is more than willing to do their share to carry water for them. It is up to everyone to make sure they fail.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8.1.8  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @8.1.3    one month ago
The latest 3 polls to come out belie that.

And how is that?  Do explain yourself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.6    one month ago
Betting would be making a prediction

It would be a matter of confidence, guts and putting your money (in this case a self imposed suspension) where your mouth is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.7    one month ago

Even those suburban moms are coming right back to us. We'll keep baby formula in stock and we'll keep gas prices low!

53endhxsl7xcij01poortltddo5t

Ya, Ronin, they're coming back to the GOP.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.8    one month ago

Another was released this morning after I posted that showed otherwise. Hey, at least I'm honest.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.12  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.7    one month ago
The media is more than willing to do their share to carry water for them.

Is FOX no longer part of the media? According to the much ballyhooed ratings they're numero uno in the MSM.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.13  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.9    one month ago

No, it's a matter of having a wife who has spent 20+ years going to GA meetings twice a week.

Moving on, perhaps a quote from Mother Teresa ...

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.7    one month ago

Don’t forget:

 - approval and support of the radicalization of our public schools

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.13    one month ago
"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."

Here's one more related to the topic/ the committee:

"Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall".....William Shakespeare

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.16  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.15    one month ago
Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall

And where do you place Liz in your 'Measure'?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8.1.17  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.15    one month ago
Here's one more related to the topic/ the committee:

What little integrity the Dems had left from the Mueller report and the sham and shameful impeachment hearings has been eradicated by their continuing deceit.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.18  Hallux  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.17    one month ago
What little integrity the Dems had left from the Mueller report and the sham and shameful impeachment hearings has been eradicated by their continuing deceit.

I see you are still oblivious to what an actual quote is.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8.1.19  Sunshine  replied to  Hallux @8.1.18    one month ago
I see you are still oblivious to what an actual quote is.

Now you are just throwing stupid shit out there.  You should take a breather.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.16    one month ago

Outside.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.17    one month ago
What little integrity the Dems had left

Now you have my curiosity.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @8.1.12    one month ago

Fox is number one among cable news networks.

They have to go up against the rest of the MSM; and all of the other leftist cable news networks.

Media also includes the printed media; and online media.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @8.1.16    one month ago

Liz?

Political suicide due to massive TDS

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.22    one month ago

Trumpturdians cannot seem to understand that Faux news ratings don't = TRUTH.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @8.1.18    one month ago

They're oblivious to reality.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.10    one month ago

Is that the nasty bitch who said the ending of Roe v. Wade means white survival or some other such racist ignorance?

Or just someone you want to shtupp?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.1.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.24    one month ago
Trumpturdians cannot seem to understand that Faux news ratings don't = TRUTH.

Well they're so committed to "truth" that they'd never lie or exaggerate... /s

 “He almost knocked me down. Thank God for a 78-year-old, I am in pretty good shape.” “I’ve been in politics 50 years, I’ve never been attacked like this.” - Rudy Giuliani

The man was taken into custody. Police were still investigating and it was not immediately clear what, if any, charges the man could face.

Rudy Giuliani slapped in Staten Island supermarket - Bing video

Hopefully video of Trumps limo incident is recovered so we can see whether it was as serious as claimed. I suspect it was more serious than some loyalists circling their wagons are now claiming and certainly more violent than the supposed "assault" on Giuliani.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.27    one month ago

I think Andy Borowitz just did a post of something about a squirrel trying to shoot him in Central Park

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.29  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.24    one month ago

Democrats can only listen to fake news 24/7. 

Thankfully for the left there is a multitude of fake news sources spouting what they believe for them to choose from.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.29    one month ago

Such trumpturdian projection.

It should be in the DSM

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR)

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
8.1.31  Betty  replied to  Hallux @8.1.12    one month ago

So if this is the case why are their ratings higher than all of our other channels? CBS NBC CNN

CBS and NBC were the first ones going on after the trial and with statements that she was lieing. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.33  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.15    one month ago

Fits Trump to a "T"

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.34  Thomas  replied to  Betty @8.1.31    one month ago

Because more people watch them than the other cable news outlets? 

I hear that pornography is popular too. Should we all be watching? 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.35  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.5    one month ago

How's that Durham thing going? 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.36  Thomas  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1.7    one month ago

Except that your list of things is hyperbolic and, when qualified by "Democrats are responsible for", untrue. 

At least you didn't mention Brownshirts

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @8    one month ago
They need to go before doing any more harm.

Go where? Back to where we came from? My family roots go back over 300 years, this is as much the liberal and progressives America as it is religious conservatives America. In fact, there are far more American citizens who are center-left than there are right wing conservatives who only make up about 36% of the population.

If you're strictly talking about Democratic leadership, that pendulum will always swing back and forth between the two ideological poles depending on who's in power at the time and not delivering on their promises, which both parties fail to do every time they're in power. You can't be all things to all people all the time, so inevitably those in power are blamed by those who aren't getting their backs scratched by the government, even those miserable fucks who claim they want government small enough to drown in the bathtub.

Democrats have become completely unhinged and irrational.

I have to admit, I have become "unhinged" from the right wing religious conservative universe that most right wing bigots inhabit. I spent decades in there and am sincerely thankful I got out when I did. But not being connected to such a deranged alternate universe ruled by bigoted white conservative Christians praying for the day their God comes and wipes out their ideological enemies can only be seen as a positive from anyone inhabiting actual reality.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
8.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.2    one month ago
I have to admit, I have become "unhinged" 

No doubt

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @8.2.1    one month ago

Favorite Group ?

 
 
 
Betty
Freshman Silent
8.2.3  Betty  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.2    one month ago

Wow, discriminate all the time do you?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.2.4  Thomas  replied to  Betty @8.2.3    one month ago

Probably only to piss you off 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"It is curious that the Committee would air the account without confirming from the Secret Service, particularly since Bobby Engel appears willing to testify. This is the danger of using witnesses to repeat third party accounts."....Jonathan Turley

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
10  Greg Jones    one month ago

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/06/29/the-trump-grabbed-the-steering-wheel-story-just-got-hurled-into-the-furnace-n2609497?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It appears they are going to hide behind "she is only repeating what she heard."

So the question before the house is suppose she is even lying about that?

FWX61w8WQAIRohA?format=jpg&name=small

She swore under oath.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago

Looks like you are ready to trash her faster than the left trashed Monica.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1    one month ago

You keep forgetting. I simply want her testimony corroborated.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    one month ago

That or the more likely scenario of playing both sides to keep your fans in line.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @11.1.2    one month ago

You see, unlike a few here or even President Trump, I prefer to address what a person is saying, rather than to attack them personally.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
11.1.4  TOM PA  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    one month ago

I do too.  So who was in the "beast" with the ex?  Ask them.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11.1.5  Hallux  replied to  TOM PA @11.1.4    one month ago

No one was in the "beast", it was not used that day.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    one month ago

No need for corroboration with this crowd.    If it’s bad for Trump, it’s automatically true ......

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
11.1.7  TOM PA  replied to  Hallux @11.1.5    one month ago

In the testimony the vehicle is identified as "the beast."  She also used the name Mr. Engal.  

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
11.1.8  TOM PA  replied to  TOM PA @11.1.7    one month ago

 

From WOPO  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.1    one month ago

Hearsay evidence with no way to prove or verify it is still just hearsay in the end and not to be trusted as reliable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.1.9    one month ago
Hearsay evidence with no way to prove or verify it is still just hearsay in the end and not to be trusted as reliable.

Correct.   She and Cheney both framed this as 'this is what she was told'.   Hutchinson clearly stated that she is recounting what Ornato told here (with Engel present) and that she did not witness this herself.

The important part of her testimony is what Trump knew. 

Trump:  

  • knew that his supporters were armed and demanded that they be allowed past the metal detectors so that his audience would look bigger
  • knew he was talking to an armed crowd yet encouraged them to march on the Capitol
  • encouraged his supporters who then engaged in an attack on the Capitol; breaking and entering and communicating an intent to kill the V.P.
  • knew his supporters threatened to kill Pence and whose response was that 'he deserves it'
  • allowed his supporters to continue their attack for three hours and who refused to listen to the pleas of staff, family and 'friends' advising him to stop them
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.10    one month ago

She would have nothing to gain and absolutely EVERYTHING to lose by lying about what she was told. There just is not a reason for her to subject herself to this imho. And i do not trust her source, as he was close to Trump, and if they can take a bullet for Trump, i believe they could change their story as well. This challenge of her testimony, is all the MORE REASON, to get her Boss, Guilianna, and ANY others in Trumps Hierarchy currently defying subpoenas to HAVE TO TESTIFY! They KNOW the TRUTH, yet still refuse, as we as citizens ,continue to lose, faith in our elected officials, and FOR DAMN GOOD REASON !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.11    one month ago

Just saw where Pat Cippolone the Trump Lawyer that had told yesterdays star witness that Trump SHOULD NOT go to the Capitol or there would be many possible crimes to answer to has been subpoenaed, GOOD

   

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago

Another innocent (useful idiot if you will) being used by TDS ridden shitbirds.

All members of the Jan 6th committee should be censured for pressing this sham.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.2    one month ago
All members of the Jan 6th committee should be censured for pressing this sham.

Remember when they tarred & feathered people?  Pelosi should go first.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.1    one month ago

And ridden out on a rail ....

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.1    one month ago

Yep, followed by her trusted lap dog dog Adam "Shifty" Schiff!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one month ago
It appears they are going to hide behind "she is only repeating what she heard."

How on Earth is that 'hiding'?   

She stated that she did not witness this.   She and Cheney flat out made it clear that this was told to her by Ornato.    If the story is false then that would be on Ornato and Engel for lying to her.   Regardless there is nothing here that suggests she is being anything less than truthful.

The hiding would be presuming witnesses who testify under oath in front of the world and with their political careers on the line (as Rs) and state things one does not want to hear are simply lying.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @11.3    one month ago

"She stated that she did not witness this."

With all due respect, if that is the case, then the committee had zero business calling her to testify and expecting her to be a credible witness. Hearsay, whether true or false, is still just hearsay as far as evidence is concerned, and is generally not allowed in courts except under certain specific instances spelled out under Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VIII. HEARSAY, Rules, 802 through 807. I doubt this case falls under any of those situations.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.3.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.1    one month ago

Are you not interested in obtaining the truth about this ? Cause this should call for the individuals involved to be brought in to testify, and i have my doubts, as this could open up many other avenues of questioning, and many other cans of worms. Though, i would like to see any and all testify, especially those not answering subpoena's and i just read where Pat Cipollone has been subpoenaed, and you know who could clear ALL OF THIS UP, Trump, but that coward won't !

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.3.2    one month ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.1    one month ago

100%.  If it happened, call the secret service agents and let them testify to what they saw.  Trying to establish a fact through rumors  is irresponsible and a disservice to the hearsay witness and the person who is the subject of the rumor.  

 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
11.3.5  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.3.2    one month ago
and you know who could clear ALL OF THIS UP, Trump, but that coward won't !

You would call him a liar regardless of what he said. 

Does he need to audition for the producer the Dems hired?  Lot of acting going on.  Has “pencil neck” done his performance yet?  

The last thing the Dems want is Trump fucking up their script.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.1    one month ago

Is it your opinion that this is the core of her testimony?    This was basically a sidebar.   The core of her testimony is about Trump knowing that his supporters were armed, that they broke into the Capitol, that Trump was informed of this by family, advisors and 'friends' and for three hours Trump refused to take any action to stop this attack.

So in regard to hiding, the witness and Cheney both clearly framed this as "what she was told" so there is no hiding.   It was stated upfront.

Feel free to disregard the hearsay as such, no problem, but going to the step of questing the veracity of this witness and her core testimony is baseless.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
11.3.7  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.6    one month ago

Defined the word "armed" please. You keep throwing that term around freely. 

The only person that was shot and killed was an unarmed pro Trump rioter by DC officer aka Barney Fife with a gun.

If you mean armed with flag poles, etc. Then do us all a favor and revisit the BLM and Antifa riots all across the US; and what see what they used as weapons. The DC Jan 6th riot was a slow day at the office as compared to those leftist Brown Shirt riots.

The committee interviewed (coached) this witness multiple times. This was not some new earth shattering "evidence". There was no evidence presented at all. Just  third party hearsay; and what she felt. 

Question her veracity? I question anything coming out of this Pelosi hand picked, TDS driven, partisan, shit show committee.

Republicans had better demand that the committee save every damn last interview, video, email (including Pelosi's and Bowser's), and any other piece of information they have garnered. They can appoint a new committee after midterms- and bar all Democrats serving on this one from being members. They can further be sanctioned and removed from every other committee assignment they have- including Pelosi.

Start the whole thing over presenting both sides of the story; and force Pelosi and Bowser to testify under oath. Would love to see them both arrested shackled; and be treated the same way those on the right that have defied the Jan 6th committee have. 

Let the chips fall where they may.

Personally I can't stand Trump. But if it comes down to choice between him and any POS Democrat for POTUS in 2024; then I will go with the lesser of two evils. Democrats don't deserve to be rewarded for what they put this country through for the last 6 years and counting.

 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.7    one month ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.3.9  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.7    one month ago
The only person that was shot and killed was an unarmed pro Trump rioter by DC officer aka Barney Fife with a gun.

too bad barney wasn't packing a 12 gauge at the time...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
11.3.10  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @11.3.9    one month ago

Too bad it wasn't a BLM or Antifa protester he shot. Then Barney would be condemned by the left for shooting an unarmed protester for no reason; and be facing charges from the highly partisan AG/DOJ.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.3.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sunshine @11.3.5    one month ago

"Shifty" is waiting in the wings if needed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.7    one month ago
Defined the word "armed" please.

Defendants and the weapon in their possession. Having weapons = "armed".

DEFENDANT WEAPON
ALAM, Zachary Jordan Helmet
ALBERTS, Christopher Michael Handgun (Alberts was arrested after the riot was over, at 7:25 p.m., on a street near the Capitol and was accused of having a firearm.)
BALLARD, Thomas John Police baton
BARNETT, Richard Stun gun, walking stick
BARNHART, Logan James Baton, flagpole, crutch
BLACK, Joshua Matthew Knife
BLAIR, David Alan Flagpole, knife
BROCKHOFF, Nicholas James Fire extinguisher
BYERLY, Alan William Taser
CALDWELL, Daniel Ray Pepper or mace spray
CAPUCCIO, Steven Baton
CHRESTMAN, William Ax handle
COFFEE, Luke Russell Crutch
COFFMAN, Lonnie Leroy Multiple firearms (Coffman is not charged with being on Capitol grounds; allegedly had two guns on his person, plus firearms in his truck parked on 1st Street SE in Washington D.C.)
COPELAND, Landon Kenneth Metal fence
CUA, Bruno Joseph Baton
DEMPSEY, David Nicholas Crutch, metal pole, "lacrimal spray," and "club-like object"
EISENHART, Lisa Marie Taser
FAIRLAMB, Scott Kevin Baton
FOY, Michael Joseph Hockey stick
GIESWEIN, Robert Baseball bat, "aerosol irritant spray"
GOSSJANKOWSKI, Vitali Taser
HARKRIDER, Alex Kirk Tomahawk ax
IBRAHIM, Mark Sami Firearm
JACKSON, Emanuel Metal baseball bat
JAMES, Aaron Shield
JENKINS, Shane Leedon Tomahawk ax, flagpole, desk drawer, and "stick-like objects"
JENSEN, Douglas Austin Knife
JOHNSON, Paul Russell Metal crowd control barrier
JONES, Chad Barrett Flagpole
JUDD, David Lee Firecracker
KHATER, Julian Elie Chemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
KLEIN, Federico Guillermo Shield
KRAMER, Philip Edward Snowboarding helmet, walking cane, Master Lock, climbing rope
LANG, Edward Jacob Bat, shield
LANGUERAND, Nicholas Traffic barrier, "stick-like objects"
LAZAR, Samuel Chemical irritant
MCABEE, Ronald Colton Baton, flagpole, crutch, and "reinforced gloves"
MCCAUGHEY, Patrick E. III Shield
MCGREW, James Burton Pole
MCHUGH, Sean Michael Bear spray, "metal sign"
MCKELLOP, Jeffrey Flagpole
MEREDITH, Cleveland Grover Jr. Firearms (Meredith arrived in Washington after the riot was over but was charged with having three guns in his possession.)
MELLIS, Jonathan Gennaro Stick
MILLER, Matthew Ryan Fire extinguisher
MINK, Jorden Robert Baseball bat
MUNAFO, Jonathan Joshua Flagpole
MUNCHEL, Eric Taser
NEEFE, Marshall Wooden club, "metal sign frame"
NICHOLS, Ryan Taylor Crowbar, pepper spray
OWENS, Grady Douglas Skateboard
PADILLA, Joseph Lino Flagpole, "large metal sign"
PALMER, Robert Scott Fire extinguisher, "stick-like object"
PERKINS, Michael Steven Flagpole
POLLOCK, Jonathan Daniel Flagpole, riot shield
PONDER, Mark K. Pole
POWELL, Rachel Marie Ice ax, "large wooden pole"
QUAGLIN, Christopher Joseph Shield, pepper spray
RANDOLPH, Stephen Chase Metal crowd control barrier
REFFITT, Guy Wesley Handgun
RODRIGUEZ, Daniel Flagpole, "electroshock weapon"
RODRIGUEZ, Edward Francisco Chemical irritant
SABOL, Jeffrey Baton, flagpole, crutch
SAMSEL, Ryan Stephen Metal crowd control barrier
SANFORD, Robert Fire extinguisher
SCHAFFER, Jon Bear spray
SCHWARTZ, Peter J. Pepper spray
SILLS, Geoffrey William Baton
SMITH, Charles Bradford Knife
STAGER, Peter Francis Baton, flagpole, crutch
STEVENS, Tristan Chandler Shield
SULLIVAN, John Earle Knife
TAAKE, Andrew Quentin Pepper spray, metal whip
TANIOS, George Pierre Chemical spray (Accused of attacking Officer Brian Sicknick)
TAYLOR, Russell Knife
THOMPSON, Devlyn Baton
WATSON, William Pepper spray
WEBSTER, Thomas Flagpole
WESTBURY, Isaac Shield
WHITTON, Jack Wade Baton, flagpole, crutch
WILSON, Duke Edward Pipe
WORRELL, Christopher John Pepper spray

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
11.3.13  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.12    one month ago

No Molotov cocktails? No concrete milk shakes? Again, compare it to the weapons used the leftist backed Brown Shirt riots. It was a slow day at the office.

The DC police were unprepared for the riot. Whose fault is that? That is what the Jan 6th committee is supposed to be asking. Whose fault was it that there were no preparations for a riot. That there wasn't enough security to handle the number of people that came to the protest; or even the small faction of them that rioted. Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser are in charge of security for DC. Yet not one of them are answering any damn questions. Pelosi declared herself off limits to the Jan 6th committee.

How are they going to fix the damn problem; when they are completely ignoring the lack of security that caused the damn problem to begin with!

ALBERTS, Christopher Michael Handgun (Alberts was arrested after the riot was over, at 7:25 p.m., on a street near the Capitol and was accused of having a firearm.)

Good luck getting that to stick in a court of law. Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the gun illegally.

COFFMAN, Lonnie Leroy Multiple firearms (Coffman is not charged with being on Capitol grounds; allegedly had two guns on his person, plus firearms in his truck parked on 1st Street SE in Washington D.C.)

Then what the fuck is he being charged with? Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the guns illegally. 

MEREDITH, Cleveland Grover Jr. Firearms (Meredith arrived in Washington after the riot was over but was charged with having three guns in his possession.)

Again, what is the charge for? Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the guns illegally.

REFFITT, Guy Wesley Handgun

Finally someone who was actually armed with a firearm. So who did he shoot? Is the Jan 6th committee going to release that information? Or is simply having it in your possession enough for the corrupt partisan DOJ?

That is it? Out of a couple of thousand of rioters that is everyone that was "armed"? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.13    one month ago
No Molotov cocktails? No concrete milk shakes? Again, compare it to the weapons used the leftist backed Brown Shirt riots. It was a slow day at the office.

You asked me to define 'armed' and I did in great detail.   Now you complain that the arms could have been stronger???  

That is it? Out of a couple of thousand of rioters that is everyone that was "armed"? 

Ronin, your commentary is pathetic.   You have absolutely nothing;  you would no doubt complain if there were thousands of rioters each armed with military grade assault weapons.  

I stated that this was an armed insurrection.   It was.   You whine that it was not sufficiently armed.  

If insurrectionists had all been armed with guns you would likely whine:  "what, no tanks, no RPGs, ... ?"   

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
11.3.15  Thomas  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.1    one month ago

She had other testimony that was directly observed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12  TᵢG    one month ago

So if the story told to the witness was incorrect (meaning:  the witness was told faulty information) and Trump did not lunge at the steering wheel (an allegation that simply shows his emotional state and is trivial in the context of the evidence thus far) that means that all the hard evidence and testimony of the committee is suspect?

The irrational rush to defend Trump no matter how insignificant continues.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @12    one month ago
So if the story told to the witness was incorrect (meaning:  the witness was told faulty information) and Trump did not lunge at the steering wheel (an allegation that simply shows his emotional state and is trivial in the context of the evidence thus far) that means that all the hard evidence and testimony of the committee is suspect?

No.  But what if the story the witness said she was told was never told to her in the first place and is only a fabrication?

A source close to former Trump Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Tony Ornato says he did not brief Jan. 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson on one of the major allegation she made to the committee Tuesday. 

Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified to lawmakers Tuesday that Ornato told her former President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that the Secret Service take him to the Capitol on January 6. Ornato further told Hutchinson, according to her, that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that.

However, a source close to Ornato told Fox News that Ornato watched the hearing yesterday and was shocked when Cassidy made the allegation about the steering wheel.

That is why all the truth should come out.  The irrational rush to condemn Trump also continues.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @12.1    one month ago
But what if the story the witness said she was told was never told to her in the first place and is only a fabrication?

What if the witness made up her entire testimony?   What if all the witnesses are full of shit?   What if ... what if ?

What if people stopped trying to defend Trump by grasping at straws and face up to the fact that Trump acted seditiously (at least) against our nation?    This feeble search for excuses to ignore the damning evidence presented by this committee is truly disgusting.

Why do people continue to defend the indefensible actions of Trump in his Big Lie campaign?

The irrational rush to condemn Trump also continues.

Irrational?   One would have to be entirely unaware of the hard evidence presented by these hearings to even get close to calling this irrational.   And even without the evidence, how is it possible for someone to be unaware of what Trump did during his Big Lie campaign?    How can anyone think that what Trump did should be simply accepted without consequence?

Rush?   Are you serious?   This work is long overdue.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.1    one month ago

Please don't deflect to the big lie, that has nothing to do with what I posted.  The committee called a special session just for this one witness and her testimony.  Now it seems that part of her testimony is false. What else in her testimony is false?  That's why I said all the truth needs to come out and they need to bring all of the participants in.

And yes, I stand by my "irrational rush" part because if part of this witness said is not the truth,  how can people truly believe anything that she said?  Who knows what else she said yesterday that is not the truth.  Yet there's a push to believe her testimony and a defense of what she said.  That IMO is irrational because we were not in the SUV with Trump on that day and we do not know what happened.  It is irrational to me to believe one person just because you want to believe them.  In this regard you are no better than Trumpsters who constantly defend what Trump did.  Let's get the truth out there and uncolored by partisan bullshit for once.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.2    one month ago
because we were not in the SUV with Trump on that day and we do not know what happened.  It is irrational to me to believe one person just because you want to believe them.

She, as stated, also overheard what happened in that SUV, so how would your word be worth more than hers, when she heard it from those Agents involved ??? And what advantage would it gain anyone, for her to LIE about hearsay, as she stated she was NOT IN THE SUV, just like YOU AND ME. It is like me stating all else you have stated is a LIE, if HER HEARSAY, is proven not true....  and 

this, " it is irrational to me to believe one person just because you want to believe them "  Is just TOO MUCH, from a TRUMP SUPPORTER, 

WTF, so many have taken the CULT LEADERS WORDS over THOUSANDS and TONS OF EVIDENCE PROVING HIS WORDS WERE LIES !  

WAKE UP PEOPLE    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.2    one month ago
Please don't deflect to the big lie, that has nothing to do with what I posted. 

This whole session is about the Big Lie Snuffy.   There is no deflection, this is the topic.

The committee called a special session just for this one witness and her testimony.  Now it seems that part of her testimony is false. What else in her testimony is false?

How absolutely petty.   There is no indication that she stated a falsehood;  she was clear that she was reporting what was told to her.   If she was lied to then that does nothing to affect her credibility.   

Further this is a tiny sidebar that is largely meaningless.   Yet you leap onto this and now question her credibility.  

It is sickening watching you, et. al. grasping at straws to defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.4    one month ago
Please don't deflect to the big lie, that has nothing to do with what I posted. 
This whole session is about the Big Lie Snuffy. 

It is truly disturbing attempting "rational" debate with ones who would discredit an entire testimoney over her answer to words she openly stated were overheard, and also were overheard by an overseer of Trumps Security, and he DID NOT DISPUTE the overheard words, and even if disputed, she never presented them as an irrifutable statement,just telling what, in her capacity and position, did overhear. wow

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.4    one month ago
This whole session is about the Big Lie Snuffy.   There is no deflection, this is the topic.

This seed is not about the entire session and the entire committee, it is about the two Secret Service agents who are willing to testify that the statement Hutchinson made.  My reply was only to this seed.  So yes you are deflecting from what I stated.

If her testimony was such a tiny sidebar, then why did the committee have to have a special emergency session just for her?  The committee has propped her up as a star witness and she's largely fallen flat.  Now even the Secret Service has come out stating the Committee did not reach out to them prior to yesterdays session.  If she manufactured one statement, how can you trust anything she said in yesterday's session?  You call it petty...   do you call others petty when they count up all the lies of Trump regardless if they were true lies, or misunderstandings, or exaggerations or anything else?  They were all lumped together as lies, did you call the people who counted those up as petty also?  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.5    one month ago
Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified to lawmakers Tuesday that Ornato told her former President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that the Secret Service take him to the Capitol on January 6. Ornato further told Hutchinson, according to her, that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that.

She didn't overhear the statement, she flat out stated that Ornato told her what happened in the SUV.  And there is reporting that he was supprised with what she said because he never told her that at all and is willing to speak to the committee about it.  Add to that the two agents who were in the SUV who have stated the actions did not occur and have stated they are willing to talk with the committee under oath about it.  All she did was say she heard from a friend who heard from a friend, but if the friend never told her that in the first place then either the friend is lying or she made it up.  Without corroboration you cannot believe any of it and it does put a cloud on any testimony she gave.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.6    one month ago
If her testimony was such a tiny sidebar, then why did the committee have to have a special emergency session just for her? 

Good grief Snuffy did you not even watch the session?   The sidebar is the recounting of what Trump did in 'the Beast'.   Her testimony is substantially more than this tiny tidbit.

Get informed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @12.1    one month ago

The irrational rush. . .

WTF?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.8    one month ago

We don't know the truth of that piece.  If she made that up , what else could she have made up?  That's why I'm saying we need testimony from the other people who were directly involved.  Until we know the truth, how can we trust what she has said?  With the information that has come out, she is not IMO a credible witness. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.7    one month ago
"Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told," Hunt tweeted. "Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath."

I have NO problem with ANYONE testifying, especially TRUMP, but, HE WON'T. WHY OH WHY do you  continue to look for the smallest tiny holes possible, in a feeble attempt to defend this indefensible POS ?

For clarification sake, overheard and being told by someone, if from one not directly saying those words, are still one stating words overheard, cause when someone tells you something, have you underheard those words ...? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.10    one month ago

Some people are incapable of acknowledging the truth due to confirmation bias.  

Anyone who thinks that this brings any of her testimony into question (including this story) is grasping at straws;  it is disgusting to watch.    She made it crystal clear that this is what she was told and that she did not witness it first hand and that neither Ornato or Engel has told her otherwise.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.10    one month ago

You're just repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Insane

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.15  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.12    one month ago

I would love to see Trump testify also but we know he won't.  You're just like a few others on this board, if I'm not shouting for Trump's head on a platter than I am defending him.  May I suggest,  pull your head out.  I've already stated in the past that I've given up on Trump but you don't seem to accept anything less than a constant screaming at the sky.  

My problem is the committee is doing what they can to discredit Trump, all in hopes that this turns enough people against Trump so that he cannot get elected again.  But it is being done in such a partisan fashion that it just continues to split the country.  Yesterday's session was billed as a bombshell session, yet there is a piece in there that we don't yet know who is lying.  And as I've said, if she made up one accusation how do we know if she made up anything else she said?  That discredits everything that she said until there is evidence submitted to provide her other points correct.  Why is that so fucking hard to understand?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.15    one month ago

Defending the indefensible

Nothing to understand

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
12.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.13    one month ago
Some people are incapable of acknowledging the truth due to confirmation bias.  

Pot / kettle...           If a person makes up one story, how do you believe anything they tell you unless you have evidence to show it's truthful?  

She made it crystal clear that this is what she was told and that she did not witness it first hand and that neither Ornato or Engel has told her otherwise.

You are wrong,  she stated that Ornato told her what happened.   I could ask you to get involved as well as you are ignoring what she said.  Her testimony is that she was told this by Ornato,  and there is reporting that Ornato never did tell her that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.17    one month ago

The reporting you are relying on is faux news.  

Your first mistake

The rest is your same nonsense repeated endlessly

So foolish

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @12.1.15    one month ago
if she made up one accusation how do we know if she made up anything else she said?  That discredits everything that she said until there is evidence submitted to provide her other points correct.  Why is that so fucking hard to understand?

Lets look at this Snuffy. She stated she was TOLD something. What would motivate her to LIE about something she was TOLD, knowing it COULD be refuted ???? What wouldbe her motivation to LIE about this. She stated with much conviction HER FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS, and stated up front this WASN'T one of them. Do you see that she would GAIN NOTHING and risk an AWFUL LOT, by LYING ?   So, i am believing her until proven WRONG, and not by the Trump lackey that allegedly told her, for i believe he is the one that had called from the WH and had attempted to get Pences' Security Detail to insert Pence into the Limo and OUT of the Capitol, thankfully Pence stayed, and performed his Constitutional Duty, despite EVERRYTHING TRUMP DID TO STOP THIS ! 

.

And on another Note, EVENB IF SHE was found to have LIED about EVERYTHING, if her statement about Trump Knowingly telling the staff to toss their metal detectors and allow armed insurrectionists into his Riot, where he sent them, after enflaming them, to go "save" their country, causes the ACTUAL TRUTH TO BE COMPELLED OUT OF THOSE HIDING FROM SUBPEONAS , we mighty actually get the full story for once, for as we both agree Trump WILL NEVER COME CLEAN or TESTIFY, because he would SELF INCRIMINATE HIMSELF IN A NY CRACK SMOKING MINUTE !

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1.19    one month ago
And on another Note, EVENB IF SHE was found to have LIED about EVERYTHING, if her statement about Trump Knowingly telling the staff to toss their metal detectors and allow armed insurrectionists into his Riot, where he sent them, after enflaming them, to go "save" their country, causes the ACTUAL TRUTH TO BE COMPELLED OUT OF THOSE HIDING FROM SUBPEONAS , we mighty actually get the full story for once, for as we both agree Trump WILL NEVER COME CLEAN or TESTIFY, because he would SELF INCRIMINATE HIMSELF IN A NY CRACK SMOKING MINUTE !
Which is why these SS agents NEED TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC UNDER OATH JUST AS MS. HUTCHISON DID.  
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.20    one month ago

"Which is why these SS agents NEED TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC UNDER OATH JUST AS MS. HUTCHINSON DID."

Said agents have already publically stated they are prepared to testify under oath.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
12.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.21    one month ago

The Jan 6th committee just has to have the balls to call them.

So far they haven't let anyone testify that doesn't further their "get Trump at all costs" narrative. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.21    one month ago

"Said agents have already publically stated they are prepared to testify under oath."

Get back to me when SAID AGENTS Testify in public under oath just as Ms. Huthinson did IN PUBLIC

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @12.1.22    one month ago

Agree 100%. I do not expect to see them allowed to testify. It would upset the already previously established narrative the inquisition/committee seems to have agreed on.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
12.1.25  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.24    one month ago

And they are going to have to be invited. You don't just walk into a "hearing" on Capitol Hill and sit down and start talking.........

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
12.1.26  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.23    one month ago

Why wait?  What difference does it make to you?  You are only capable of your trolling responses and call them stooges of Trump regardless of the testimony. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.27  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.23    one month ago

That's up to the committee, not the agents. I doubt they will be allowed to testify either way. See post #12.1.24 above.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.1.25    one month ago

In addition, those agents most likely will not have or need the "coaching" given to the non hostile/adverse witnesses the committee calls.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.27    one month ago

"That's up to the committee, not the agents. I doubt they will be allowed to testify either way. See post  #12.1.24  above."  

BULLSHIT

They're lying so they won't testify under oath IN PUBLIC

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @12.1.26    one month ago
That is all you and your 'friends' are capable of dear.  
 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.31  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.29    one month ago

So are you claiming to be walking polygraph device and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are lying?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.27    one month ago

moving-goalpost.gif

Or is it deflection?

I can't tell anymore.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.33  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.30    one month ago

If you are going to quote someone, at least quote the correct line from the correct person.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.33    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.31    one month ago

They need to swear under oath and testify IN PUBLIC, not behind closed doors.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
12.1.36  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.35    one month ago

Did I say anything otherwise?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
12.1.37  Thomas  replied to  Snuffy @12.1    one month ago

Trump has zero credibility. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
13  magicschoolbusdropout    one month ago

Two Secret Service agents are prepared to testify before Congress that then-President Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, a source close to the Secret Service tells Fox News.

The explosive new allegations were made on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

2 against 1, which side will democrats take ?

Hmmmmmmm

This jan. 6th NBC Run big screen "reality" show is still going on ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @13    one month ago

Moronic

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
13.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    one month ago
Moronic

Your doing okay !

Not much to say at all, but at least your still ticking.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.2  Sparty On  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @13    one month ago

It’s “has anyone one got talent” Washington DC style.

And the answer is no.    No real talent on that committee.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
13.2.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Sparty On @13.2    one month ago
 No real talent on that committee.

The NBC Jan. 6th Committee directors do what they do for TV shows :

Okay honey.....you...... show more shock,

you......over there.....show concern......

Dude in the corner.....not enough concern on your face.

etc., etc., etc.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
14  Revillug    one month ago

I guess we can cross "lunged at steering wheel" off the list of reasons to send Donald Trump to prison.

It should be easier to verify if he threw his hamburger at the wall.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
14.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Revillug @14    one month ago
It should be easier to verify if he threw his hamburger at the wall.

Perhaps it wasn't cooked well done.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.2  TᵢG  replied to  Revillug @14    one month ago

Yeah that just kills the case against Trump.  256

If the only possible crack in this testimony is trivial then the Trump supporters will all focus their energy on this trivial point and try to discredit the core testimony of this witness.   Forget truth, just protect Trump.

Even so, there is nothing yet on record to counter her testimony so there is no reason to believe what she said is not true.   Further, what she said is that this is what she was told.   So this was clearly framed as hearsay by her and by Cheney.