Aide describes Trump lunging for steering wheel, demanding to go to Capitol on Jan. 6 - CBS News
One should carefully watch and listen to the testimony. Start at 02:08.
Hutchinson and Cheney made it crystal clear that this was what Hutchinson was told by Anthony Ornato (Trump's Chief of Operations) in the presence of Robert Engel (Head of Trump's Security Detail that day and the agent in the car with Trump per this story).
Hutchinson was told of the incident by Anthony Ornato, a senior Secret Service official, minutes after it happened in the presence of the agent Trump allegedly attacked, who appeared to be shaken up, she testified.
This is not Hutchinson stating what happened as a first-hand account, but rather her recounting what she was told. In her testimony she made it clear that she was NOT a first-hand witness and that she learned of this incident when told to her by Ornato.
Seems to me that if Trump's Chief of Operations tells you what ostensibly took place in 'the Beast' with the agent in question sitting right there and not objecting, one would be inclined to believe that they were being told the truth. Especially since they have never changed their story with her.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
At the sixth public hearing of the House Jan. 6 committee, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, described the scene in the presidential vehicle as then-President Trump demanded to go to Capitol Hill and his security detail refused. Watch a portion of her testimony.
Tags
Who is online
433 visitors
I would like to hear Robert Engel's testimony.
It was crystal clear in the article posted on NT that information was told to her by a third party. The rest of her testimony was first-hand knowledge but that was ignored by some on NT and they continued to be stuck on one of the least important things that she said under oath.
Agreed. This is a relatively minor point and the Trump defenders are jumping on this as if this is significant and pretending (dishonestly) that this in some way brings her entire testimony into question. It is pathetic.
It's because they have nothing to attack the substance of the testimony (under oath) that she gave with much of it being from republicans...
BINGO
"...but rather her recounting what she was told."
Her RECOLLECTION of what she was told. There's not one second available to listen to that.
So what is your point? Everything that a witness states is necessarily based on recollection.
She stated that this is what she was told. So if this is not the case then Ornato lied to her and Engel (the agent in the car) refused to correct the lie. Or are you saying that Hutchinson, with her lucid description, somehow created / misremembered a fantasy that she thinks is real. Or that for some reason she just invented a ridiculous lie?
You, like others, are grasping at straws over a relatively minor point while ignoring what Trump did.
As well as testimony from Ornato as it's been reported that he was shocked with her testimony as he never told her about any such incident by Trump. Both are willing to testify to the committee under oath that Hutchinson's testimony about Trump is not true. Sure would be nice to get all the truth out of Washington for a change.
Why do you presume Hutchinson and all of the other R witnesses we have seen are NOT telling the truth?
And yes Ornato and Engel testimony is something we should secure.
Where did I talk about other witnesses from other sessions? I've said nothing about them, the only witness that I have stated reservations about believing them is Hutchinson.
Here:
So do you think all the other witnesses were being untruthful?
Oh fuck... a general statement about the bullshit in Washington and you ASSUME I mean the fucking witnesses. Give your imagination a fucking rest...
In discourse one starts with the immediate context and works upwards.
The immediate context is this testimony. The context above that is the hearings. All of Washington would be a higher context.
So truth, unless you have an argument to the contrary, was delivered by the R witnesses. There is truth, "for a change", right there in context.
If you are going to continue to make assumptions then we cannot have an honest discussion.
I have made no assumptions other than normal English protocol. Now end this meta.
Oh we're done
Thank God!
Why do you believe that God had anything to do with it?:
Praise Jesus!
If she swore an oath, then God is around there somewhere.
[deleted]
3.1 is locked before it gets worse
Running with hearsay evidence that is denied by the people there as the big blockbuster is such a J6 committee move.
It's like it tries to discredit itself.
You think that this small portion of the hearing was the focus of the hearings? That this tidbit was the 'blockbuster'? Absolutely wrong!
I suggest you watch the full hearing and not opine out of ignorance.
ou think that this small portion of the hearing was the focus of the hearings? That this tidbit was the 'blockbuster'? Absolutely wrong!
You just seeded an article about it, not me.
ggest you watch the full hearing and not opine out of ignorance.
Remember, you chose this to highlight, not any other part of the hearing. Your own actions prove you wrong
In response to the nonsense raised by those like you who are trying to spin this into discrediting the witness.
See above. Think.
Lol. How many articles on this site now highlight this story? How many headlines did it generate yesterday? But sure, it wasn't a focus of the coverage. It's just a "small part" that progressives seem to exclusively focus on.
u who are trying to spin this into discrediting the witness.
Think before you answer. Nothing I wrote "discredits the witness." That's her testimony on this point is hearsay is undeniable. There's a reason our legal system looks unkindly upon it.
You can't wish that reality away.
If you think pointing out the reality of her testimony "discredits her" blame the committee for eliciting that testimony without being able to offer actual evidence to back it up. Telling a story that get immediately debunked by liberal news outlets isn't a good look for the star anti Trump witness.
But generating headlines is the point of this committee. They believe their job is to excite the democrats who already hate Trump and generate anger to keep the checkbooks open and their interest peaked.
If their case is as strong as they think it is, they need to bend over backwards to make it look fair. Let the Republicans have representatives they want. Let someone actually cross examine the witnesses. Put moderate Democrats on the committee who are not so easy to discredit as famously partisan liars and election deniers. Then release all the testimony, not just the snippets that make Trump look bad. .
And most importantly, when you have a "blockbuster witness", don't put a bullseye on her credibility by having her testify to something so easily discredited. The hour of headlines it generated isn't close to worth the damage to the committee.
You are the ones focusing on this part. Or should I say faux news?
She stated that this was what Ornato told in the presence of Engel (the agent in the car) and neither have ever changed their story to her.
You, et. al. jump all over this relatively minor tidbit and pretend as though:
Yet all this testimony by her and others is conveniently ignored by you, et. al. as if none of what Trump did matters to you.
If you can't understand what's posted on this site, google is your friend.
[deleted]
I am responding to the predictable crap by Trump apologists. You, et. al. taking a trivial portion of her testimony and pretending that this harms her credibility by reporting on what she was told and that this is the core of her testimony.
It is pathetic watching partisans continue to try to defend Trump.
No one has defended Trump on your seed. It is possible to criticize other people without defending Trump in a sane world. Again your emotions are effecting your perspective.
You really should let it go.
Anyone who attempts to pretend that this clearly stated recounting of what was told to Hutchinson harms her credibility and thus the credibility of the hearing is defending Trump.
And is doing so on a trivial portion of her testimony. And even this portion might indeed turn out to be what happened. But she simply stated what she was told. If she recounts what was told to her by the Chief of Operations in the presence of the Head of Security detail who was the agent in question and both men have yet to correct their story to her, it is very reasonable for her to believe the story to be true and thus have no reason to refuse to disclose what was told to her while clearly stating that this is only what was told to her and that she did not witness it.
Cease with the personal crap Sunshine.
Again, you want to ignore the seeds about this, the headlines featuring this and now pretend it's trivial. Who do you think you are fooling?
this is the core of her testimony (absurdly wrong)
Right, the core must be all the other testimony that didn't generate headlines, seeds on this site etc.
at she has made a false statement or is lying (baseless)
How the hell can you know if her statement is false? Were you in the car? She offered testimony, that is essentially a rumor, alleging Trump behaved in a certain way. If he didn't, her testimony is wrong.
What proof do you have her story is accurate?
he alleged rebuttal witnesses do indeed rebut this and are credible
You are correct. Liberal news reporters could by lying and their stories could be false yet again. Altohugh this would probablty be the first time they told a falsehood in favor of Trump. Miracles do happen.
. Do you have information that the secret service agent and limo driver are not credible witnesses?
I am assuming you will not question anything the SS agents will testify about. Ha ha
Nothing wrong with questioning the credibility and testimony of a witness. In fact it is part of our judicial process.
Again, the reason I posted this seed is to make it super simple for anyone with an ounce of integrity to actually listen to what Hutchinson said.
The dishonest spin on her testimony focuses on this largely insignificant sliver and pretends that a) she was discredited (totally false) and b) that this was the core of her testimony.
It is blatantly dishonest.
Why would you make such a stupid assumption?
For cause. There is no cause here ... this is partisan spin at its worst.
[deleted]
[deletee]
Cut the histrionics.
This is indisputable:
(1) As this seed, others like it and a google search will demonstrate to any honest person, liberals pounced on this allegation and turned into headlines across media sources.
(2) Pointing out that hearsay testimony is hearsay testimony is not dishonest. Hearsay evidence is inherently unreliable and disfavored by Courts for that reason. Pointing that fact out is not dishonest.
All your partisan handwaving and condescension won't change that reality.
Okay, Sean, you continue to persist with bullshit meta.
I have told you multiple times why I seeded this video. The purpose was to make it easy for people to get informed. And it was obvious from the other seeds that people either are ill informed or they are purposely pretending to be ill informed.
And I never suggested it was. I have specifically noted that the hearing clearly framed this as hearsay ... full disclosure by them.
Read this in my editorial:
At this point, either discuss the topic or leave.
[deleted]
you being willfully ignorant, does not a discussion make. How do you NOT see that her testimony was firsthand except for that which was disclosed as what she was told, this hearsay so to speak. Her testimony of her first hand accounts of her, HEARING TRUMP , state to F the metal detectors as they were not there to harm him, and then send an armed Inserection to stop the legitimate transfer of power, is just plain FCKD UP and Far more important than another hissy fir by Don Boy, but if you want to say this discredits her, that is your decision, but actually Sean, i see it discrediting you.
One thing is settled. Who is harder on China?
I very clearly understand.
YOU do not.
Now that's a good one, LoL.
No
The SS agents want to testify behind closed doors
Let them do just like Ms. Hutchinson did. Testify in public
I am very curious to hear what Engel and Ornato have to say under oath. If they were to contradict Hutchinson then that would be very interesting.
Trump defenders are just amazing
... 'sickening' is my word.
Soon as Republicans take control of the House and Senate I am sure they will be happy to discuss impeaching Brandon; and if they can get Garland to be impartial for a few minutes and do his damn job- locking him up as well.
Delusional