Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source
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
Who is online
96 visitors
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.
So when do the death threats come from the right towards Ms. Hutchinson?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
This sentence would be ridiculous even if it were true.
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!
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.
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!
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.
I don't care who it is. Why not do things fairly?
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.
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.
Those who defend Trump at this point are pathetic people.
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.
Vic, you have spent the last 5 years denying that Trump has ever done anything wrong at all.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
More projection at work.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Be careful what you wish for.
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.
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.
It would be nice to hear a first hand account. Unbelievable that they didn’t just go to the sources to begin with.
That would be nice.........................There is presently no cross examination and it seems all one way "testimony". Supposedly they "interviewed" 1000 people.
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.)
When is the 'right' going to be honest? Tell the truth?
I hope so.
"...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?
Newsvine and then Newstalkers .....
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 agree on both counts.
It's partisan.
Omg…you didn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He is not alleged to have organized a coup. The allegation is that he attempted with a multifaceted scheme to steal the election.
Trump:
And in the last session we learned that Trump as a sitting PotUS:
What must this guy do before some recognize the need to hold him accountable?
Will never happen.
I'll have to remember that - "biased and demonstrably distorted" - that says it all
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.
I am simply responding to what you wrote. I am not trying to do anything. When you wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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!
Hi Betty. You are preaching to the choir here.
trumpster sycophants willing to lie to protect their insurrectionist hero. go figure.
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!
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.
It was Col Mustard, in the den, with a lead pipe
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.
We do not even know what these agents would say. I am very interested in hearing their testimony.
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.
So you have no idea who it is and went for a snarky response. Why even bother responding to a legitimate question?
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.
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.
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?
And yet you did. But your answer had nothing to do with the only question I posited. So, are you just trolling?
Lighten up Francis, it was a joke. Try growing a sense of humor.
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.
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
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.
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.
If you have so much, why lie?
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:
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.
Three individuals dispute her testimony
She is claiming that someone else's notes were her own. Don't you care?
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.
By whom and when?
Her testimony has been left to stand unscathed for 2 days already!
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.
It was noted hearsay. Ask your question to the person who supposedly told her that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The ketchup too?
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.
“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.
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,
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.
How long before the left Doxes this agent and their normal threats begin? I give it to Friday.
Have they ever found the SCOTUS leaker?
Did they even try?
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 ......
That's all important
And we can never let them have power again!
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.
I hope the American people have finally had enough.
I'm pretty sure they have. I this the other day:
Your usual projection, deflection, denial.
Until you prove me wrong - piss off yank.
Your usual copy n' paste.
My usual truth.
You have never stated a fact EVER.
You piss off.
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.
"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!
"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'
Your usual projection, deflection, denial.
My usual truth.
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.
Please cite your source.
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.
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.
They've operated that way for 6 years
Maybe someone should speak with Tony also.
That should have been done before putting her in front of TV cameras.
Totally agree.
When do Democrats tell the truth?
Because they don't have to. They totally control the committee. Whenever they have power they rule like their beloved uncle Joe.
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.
True. I guess I was just concentrating on the article that was seeded and could have worded that sentence better.
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.
I’ll have to wait and see if any of the statements above turn out to be true before I judge her credibility.
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
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.
And the TDS wheel goes around and around and around and .....
Captain meme strikes again .... pow .... zoom ..... to the moon!
They are always stupid. At least could be something funny.
[deleted]
It is spot on. Too bad for you.
This is funny....
Really? There is no evidence that Stalin said such.
Prove he didn't.
Meme counter-battery engaged:
The only person was murdered by a gun on Jan 6th.
And wackadoodles on the left are in deep, deep denial about.
Sad
[Deleted]
Get a new meme.
The Jan 6th rioters didn't have any guns.
So I guess right wing conservatives are always thinking about Joe Biden's supporters...
“…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.
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.
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.
Well someone told me you beat your wife so it must be true.
Only at chess. She won all of the other battles.
Not what I was told.
As one can tell from your avatar, you'll believe just about anything.
This is your best?
[deleted]
not exactly a difficult feat
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.
As an employee, she would also have taken an oath.
Really, do you even know what oath he is talking about?
Probably one of Donald's famous NDAs ... /S
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!
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.
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?
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.
So, you think that you exhibit 'unbiased intellect' by accepting anonymous claims over sworn testimony.
Ridiculous.
[Deleted]
Please provide a link to these 2 different oaths.
[DELETED]
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
When will be expecting any criminal charges for this hard evidence?
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)?
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 .....
Because you made the claim of hard evidence.
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 )?
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.
Projection, deflection and denial. Tiresome
You are free to leave.
[Deleted]
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 )?
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
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.
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?
Instead of answering my questions you deflect.
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.
Show me where I have made any negative statements against Barr. You cannot, you just made that up.
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:
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:
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 ?
So Rs are credible to you?
See how that works? Your games are silly.
i find them a Hell of a lot more credible, when under oath, i'll give you that much.
well, i do find you and your baseless beliefs, INCREDIBLE SH IT
I haven’t stated my beliefs.
Your mind reading skills are amazing.
It is your opinion. How can you possibly be giving me anything?
I will remember you trust Rs.
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?
[delet4ed]
I haven’t rejected anyones testimony or claimed anyone was lying.
[deleted]
[Have a nice night.]
Doesn't matter, just wait long enough here and someone will tell you what you think and what you feel.
Wait until you get someone to tell you what you wrote--even when you didn't!
Yeah, you have offered a healthy, objective view of this evidence:
No dear.
[deleted]
No such luck
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
Could've tripped out easy a-but I've a-changed my ways
You bet. Thanks
A chicken wing?
[Deleted]
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.
Democrats have become completely unhinged and irrational. They need to go before doing any more harm.
I think this time the American people finally got it!
That is what the polls are showing but as we can clearly see on NT there are some who still suffer from TDS.
There's a big difference between thinking and hoping, you are hoping.
The latest 3 polls to come out belie that.
We have a radical element here. I think I know why they have been tolerated.
You bet and I'll raise.
Any time you're ready.
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.
Not counting on that.
This needs to be driven home repeatedly until 2024 is over.
Democrats are responsible for:
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.
And how is that? Do explain yourself.
It would be a matter of confidence, guts and putting your money (in this case a self imposed suspension) where your mouth is.
Even those suburban moms are coming right back to us. We'll keep baby formula in stock and we'll keep gas prices low!
Ya, Ronin, they're coming back to the GOP.
Another was released this morning after I posted that showed otherwise. Hey, at least I'm honest.
Is FOX no longer part of the media? According to the much ballyhooed ratings they're numero uno in the MSM.
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."
Don’t forget:
- approval and support of the radicalization of our public schools
Here's one more related to the topic/ the committee:
"Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall".....William Shakespeare
And where do you place Liz in your 'Measure'?
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.
Now you are just throwing stupid shit out there. You should take a breather.
Outside.
Now you have my curiosity.
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.
Liz?
Political suicide due to massive TDS
Trumpturdians cannot seem to understand that Faux news ratings don't = TRUTH.
They're oblivious to reality.
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?
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.
I think Andy Borowitz just did a post of something about a squirrel trying to shoot him in Central Park
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.
Such trumpturdian projection.
It should be in the DSM
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR)
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.
Fits Trump to a "T"
Because more people watch them than the other cable news outlets?
I hear that pornography is popular too. Should we all be watching?
How's that Durham thing going?
Except that your list of things is hyperbolic and, when qualified by "Democrats are responsible for", untrue.
At least you didn't mention Brownshirts
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.
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.
No doubt
Favorite Group ?
Wow, discriminate all the time do you?
Probably only to piss you off
"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
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
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?
She swore under oath.
Looks like you are ready to trash her faster than the left trashed Monica.
You keep forgetting. I simply want her testimony corroborated.
That or the more likely scenario of playing both sides to keep your fans in line.
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.
I do too. So who was in the "beast" with the ex? Ask them.
No one was in the "beast", it was not used that day.
No need for corroboration with this crowd. If it’s bad for Trump, it’s automatically true ......
In the testimony the vehicle is identified as "the beast." She also used the name Mr. Engal.
From WOPO
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:
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 !
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
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.
Remember when they tarred & feathered people? Pelosi should go first.
And ridden out on a rail ....
Yep, followed by her trusted lap dog dog Adam "Shifty" Schiff!
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.
"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.
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 !
Agreed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
too bad barney wasn't packing a 12 gauge at the time...
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.
"Shifty" is waiting in the wings if needed.
Defendants and the weapon in their possession. Having weapons = "armed".
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!
Good luck getting that to stick in a court of law. Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the gun illegally.
Then what the fuck is he being charged with? Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the guns illegally.
Again, what is the charge for? Unless he is a criminal and is in possession of the guns illegally.
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"?
You asked me to define 'armed' and I did in great detail. Now you complain that the arms could have been stronger???
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, ... ?"
She had other testimony that was directly observed.
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.
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?
That is why all the truth should come out. The irrational rush to condemn Trump also continues.
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?
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.
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.
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
This whole session is about the Big Lie Snuffy. There is no deflection, this is the topic.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
The irrational rush. . .
WTF?
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.
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 ...?
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.
You're just repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
Insane
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?
Defending the indefensible
Nothing to understand
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?
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.
The reporting you are relying on is faux news.
Your first mistake
The rest is your same nonsense repeated endlessly
So foolish
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 !
"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.
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.
"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
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.
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.........
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.
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.
In addition, those agents most likely will not have or need the "coaching" given to the non hostile/adverse witnesses the committee calls.
"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
So are you claiming to be walking polygraph device and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are lying?
Or is it deflection?
I can't tell anymore.
If you are going to quote someone, at least quote the correct line from the correct person.
[deleted]
They need to swear under oath and testify IN PUBLIC, not behind closed doors.
Did I say anything otherwise?
Trump has zero credibility.
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.
Perhaps it wasn't cooked well done.
Yeah that just kills the case against Trump.
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.
It reminds me of the Steele Dossier.
I doubt her testimony was purposely corrupted with disinformation but the presence of anything she wasn't a direct witness to being proved false will start to discredit her entire testimony in the GOP public eye.
And of course that is the tactic ... focus on a perceived crack and amplify. What disgusts me is the dishonesty. Some people are hell bent on protecting Trump and are willing to torture logic and bend over backwards in a feeble attempt to do so.
Please show us what was true in the Steele Dossier.
We can wait.
Only two previous Presidents have dates on the calendar that became inextricably linked to their term in office. FDR and December 7th and George Bush and 9/11…both linked to heinous and horrific attacks on our own soil by foreign enemies.
Now we have 1/6, forever linked to trump and his heinous and horrific internal attack on our very system of governance. History will give him his comeuppance, indicted or convicted or not…even as his apologists continue in their quixotic tilting at windmills.
Trump said they cause cancer, anybody here posting want to say I'm a LIAR, and everything ive ever stated is a LIE, because TRUMP LIED TO ME and YOU and the WORLD !
We truly have become a country where ignorance does rule, and it is a sad truth that i feel compelled to say and admit, but it is what it is,
so im off to the bar, to drink and not worry bout these pathetic pawns, thought i'd get that off my Chess
What a legacy!
Perhaps you should add the day Nixon resigned.
“Perhaps you should add the day Nixon resigned.”
And without looking it up, how many could cite the day? No doubt a watershed moment, but a date not etched in our collective memories. 1/6 will forever be a sad moment in our history…how we recover from it in an effort avoid an even worse situation is yet to be determined and the outcome will define us for decades to come.
Only to the triggered really but that said, and much to the consternation of the haters here, a date that actually will be remembered forever ....
Happy Birthday Merica.
11/9/2016
Fahrenheit 11/9
The day the Russians elected Donald Trump president of the United States.
Per Politico, the committee never bothered to ask the SS what happened in limo before eliciting the public hearsay testimony from the witness. Seems they actively avoided finding out the truth
to ensure they could generate headlines and paint Trump as out of control and violent on Jan 6th.
This committee is doing everything it can to make it easy to discredit.
Purposely avoiding their due diligence and allowing hearsay testimony shows the committee’s lack of credibility.
Seems many can’t comprehend this and focus only on the witness.
What else has the partisan committee chosen to ignore?
The real purpose behind their formation.
Maybe if there were the required number of Republicans on the committee; and not a couple of Pelosi picked TDS driven puppets- the committee would be force to answer those very real questions.
Put a fork in him (he's done).