Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KakS8YmwTc
C-Span - January 6th Committee Fourth Public HearingYes --- thank you for reminding me why I offered this thread. I hope some will share what they thought about today's hearing.
Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss pulled certainly pulled at my heartstrings.Sharlee
I'm glad you asked. I think Trump believed the lies that Giuliani and Eastman told him. He actually believed he could overturn the election. He even used those lies to pressure and intimidate other state officials to change their votes and to create fake votes.
Those votes were to be used on Jan.6 to replace the real votes. They even lied and intimated the Georgia Secretary of State to find enough votes to make Trump president. When that didn't work they made a video of ballots boxes that were legally sealed and then lied they were fake illegal ballots that were brought in. Then they intimidated an election worker and her mother to play their game to the point where they are still being harassed by Trump's Mafia
Those same lies were used on Jan. 6 when he called in his troops. He then used those same lies to motivate his people to storm the capitol and change the certification process in his favor.
Trump supporters want a cross-examination of witnesses, but there is
1 1/2 hours of recorded conversation where Trump is pressuring and threating Brad Raffensperger to find the votes. And that is a smoking gun witness that cannot be cross-examined. It is pretty much like the Nixon tapes. They are cold hard facts that can't be denied..
Where we go from here I don't know, but I do know Trump and his lies caught up with him. You keep saying this is not about Trump, but the reality is it is about him. The title of your forum asks will you be tuning in. And my answer yes, not like the people on this forum and Fox News who think it is all B.S.I am just curious, has anyone from the Babbitt family been heard from? I am thinking not...the panel doesn't want those particular heartstrings pulled. It doesn't fit with the narrative.
ab: You can't handle the truth about Trump, can you? You are still playing the What About Game. Below is the link that tells you everything that you wanted to know about Ashlie Babbitt, but were afraid to ask.
I'm glad you made it to page 2 of this forum. I could not reply to you about my reference to black people. Would you like me to call them colored people, African Americans, people of color, or what?
Your hero Trump even calls them The Blacks, in his rallies, he says, "We love the blacks" but I guess that is O.K. I call them black people out of respect, not out of malice.
And now here is Ashli Babbitt:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ash … olent-pastMaybe they should hear how a veteran was easily manipulated into breaking her oath to protect the constitution. How the angry and violent woman decided to break into the Capitol and get shot and die in the name of a proven lie.
IslandBites. That's good enough for me. Thanks.
No. She died in vain and wrapped in a lie. That's sad.
Hi, ab, They have not been heard as of yet. Sadly, I don't think they were even interviewed by the committee. I have watched each hearing, and I can honestly say it thus far is biased. The committee is made up of 9, with only two being Republicans. The witnesses are being asked questions, but there are no cross-questions. So, we are seeing only one side asking the questions, and only bits and pieces of what the witnesses might say if asked opposing questions.
I feel Ashlie Babbitt was killed needlessly, she was no threat to the policeman that shot her, and was unarmed. And here is what was determined after the investigation into her death.
" The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter." https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/depa … li-babbitt
Hopefully, at some point, this investigation will address her death. Her death was not necessary, she did not pose a threat to the officer, and was unarmed. In my opinion, we had an officer that was not trained well and panicked. This was a tragedy, and perhaps (in my view) the worse that occurred on that day.
Soooo, is that a confirmed "NO" on the Ashli Babbitt question?
What I can't handle PP, is this one-sided, lopsided, partisan, unjust farce of a hearing and on top of all that - you offer up a scathing story of Ashli's personal life, that has nothing to do with happened to her on Jan. 6?
I see how this works, don't tell me what I can't handle!
Again, there are still more unanswered questions than answered and there will be no getting to the bottom of it, if all of those involved, can't even begin to consider the big picture.
Yes, I personally thought your use of "black people riots" was offensive, but whatever, in these screwed up, twisted times that we find ourselves in.ab:
So let me see if I have this straight. The witnesses are high ranking republican state officials who under oath have said they would not break their oath to the constitution to accommodate Trump's lies. So you think that under cross-examination by republican's, somehow, something will be uncovered that will exonerate Trump of everything he has said and done?
What you are ignoring is the smoking gun of the recorded conversation of Trump pressuring and intimidating Raffensberger to play Trump's game.
That conversation cannot be cross-examined and can be used in a court of law as evidence.
What's sad is that she was killed unnecessarily that day and that more value is placed on people's feelings, than on that fact.
Hells bells ladies, slow down a bit. The road to forming a belief, (aka facts, truth), or an opinion, has guard rails for a reason. I'm on that road with you, (mostly), but this stuff about the Babbit shooting—as blaming the officer, is nuts. You guys should stop it.
Consider the very basics of the situation, without any qualifiers of the purpose of either one. The officer's was to protect and serve, (in this case, people we think should be protected, right?), and Babbit's purpose was to break through barricaded doors and a visibly armed defense behind the barricade, to gain forced entry.
Consider the videos and images of the moment that I think we all have seen. Now, without any of the defensive or accusatory 'details' of either side, consider the moment. The reality I see is that at that moment, I would also shoot. Ms. Babbit had full control of her choice of action. She made a bad choice. That isn't intended as a negative or crude statement, it is simply reality. If you think it isn't, that's a thought you should just let go of.
GALucky that all the officers with guns did not open up on the many hundreds that entered the Capitol on that horrific day. I would think all felt threatened. Only one protester was shot. Many officers were attacked and beaten badly, I would imagine all the majority felt threatened. Yet, did they choose to use the option to shoot their attackers?
Have you watched the video? Yes, Babbit had control over her choice and was breaking the law. So did all the hundreds that broke into the Capitol. it does make one wonder if she was any more of a threat than others that had become very violent. Yes, the officer claimed he felt threatened, so I guess her death is a slam dunk.
However, in my view, there is room to ask, was her death necessary?
At any rate, “to each his own".Were I at home, and someone is breaking in the windows to gain entry, I would shoot in a heartbeat. Personally I see no difference, except that there were thousands trying to get in.
I see your logic, but hundreds were already in the building and fighting with officers. This woman was coming in a window, yes breaking the law, and I would assume the officer had the legal right to shoot her. But, was she a threat, she was not armed, and a woman...I think watching the full tape will show that before Ashli climbed through that window there were three police that were trying to stop protesters from entering at that window. In minutes without any one of them being attacked they stepped aside, stood visibly on the side, and watched the protesters ram the door, and then Ashli tried to climb through the window, and quickly being shot.No verbal attempt to deter her, just BOOM!
This huge crowd did not lay a finger on the three police that stepped aside... So, were they all that threatening?
Yes, if someone was climbing in my window and would not stop with a verbal command --- I would shoot. I would realize this person meant me harm. Wonder why the three other police did not find it even necessary to draw their guns? Hopefully, you will watch the tape Then tell me did anyone in this group appeared to be a threat to the police that they came face to face with.
In my view, ( please note this is my view) the cop that shot was scared and felt threatened. I feel sure he would not have shot her if he were not scared.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/nation … l/2491343/
" The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter." https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/depa … li-babbittLet me preface an answer by saying that I think we as a country have gone way too far in protecting criminals in the commission of their crime. Their health has become more important than anything else, and one result is the massive crime rate we have developed in the last 50 years.
In the case of Ms. Babbit, there is a riot in progress. Immense damage is being done, cops are being attacked and it is truly a riot in progress. IMO (and I understand most will disagree) this is unacceptable and must be stopped. In addition you will have a really hard time convincing me that cops in the middle of a riot are not, and should not be, afraid for their lives.
Finally, I would submit that if the water cannons, rubber bullets, tear gas barrages and other non-lethal but very forceful methods of crowd control had been used country wide instead of watching riots happen the Capitol riot would very likely have not happened. That we allow violent riots country wide gives the rioters a definite sense of safety...but that does not extend to the police tasked with stopping it without hurting anyone and outnumbered hundreds or thousands to one.Wilderness,
"Let me preface an answer by saying that I think we as a country have gone way too far in protecting criminals in the commission of their crime. Their health has become more important than anything else, and one result is the massive crime rate we have developed in the last 50 years"
Agree totally.
"In the case of Ms. Babbit, there is a riot in progress. Immense damage is being done, cops are being attacked and it is truly a riot in progress. IMO (and I understand most will disagree) this is unacceptable and must be stopped. In addition you will have a really hard time convincing me that cops in the middle of a riot is not, and should not be, afraid for their lives."
Simply agree... As my comment shared, I feel the officer that shot Babbit was scared and felt threatened. I would imagine on most days he would have been chatting and welcoming tourists. So, I would think he would be very scared.
I don't think the Capitol police were in any way ready for a riot, and perhaps should have been due to the threats that the FBI has claimed to have received about Jan 6th pending trouble. I am with you, violence is violence, and we have laws. We just much of the time look the other way.
I truly believe if National Guard was thee in good numbers, we would not have witnessed a riot. It has been reported Trump did want troops at his rally. Hopefully, this is touched on in the upcoming Jan 6th hearings. I would like to know if many in his administration are being truthful about Trump's request for 10,000 NG troops to protect rallygoers.
This does need to be addressed.Not by this committee, I'm sure.
Perhaps in December we'll get a committee actually looking at ALL of that riot, not just what Trump supporters did. If so, I wonder if it, too, will hire professional media experts to "explain" it to the public.I will hold onto hope that this committee will address trump's request for troops. Gosh, they need to or this is a very unfair investigation.
This entire investigation is appearing to be one-sided thus far. I have watched the hearings, and I do wish there was one on the committee to cross-examine these witnesses. I would like to have more context provided to what the witnesses have provided.
At any rate, I think we need to watch all the hearings and learn as much as we can about that day. Yes, I would like to see all witnesses cross-examined out of fairness.
I might also add, that I have learned very little from the hearings that had not leaked prior to the hearings. Much has been riveting coming out of the mouths of the witnesses, but without full context, it leaves me wanting to hear more.
Hold on, again. To be clear, of course, this is an "each to his own" issue. I only offered an opinion. But look at your response, it is entirely defensive, using the "details" that turn a non-political question into a political one.
It is a political question once an understanding is reached as a starting point. What's your baseline, in the moment described, would you shoot?
GAI offered my view in regard to pretty much agreeing that the policeman did feel scared, and threatened. I actually offered a source that helped me come to that conclusion. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/355 … ost4250224
"Lucky that all the officers with guns did not open up on the many hundreds that entered the Capitol on that horrific day. I would think all felt threatened."
I was truly saying --- lucky this could have been worse. Not been defensive. Note words horrific day. Does this indicate I was being sarcastic? You totally missed my context.
Yes, your comment was opinion-oriented, and so was my
response. I shared what I thought the others officers were feeling, and that the majority of the officers reacted differently than the officer that shot Babbit. Is this not true? That's just an observation on my part. Did you note the? mark?
I did add -- "However, in my view, there is room to ask, was her death necessary?"
This is just a gut response, an opinion.
My "to each his own" was in reference to the officer's different reactions to the violence.
In no way do I feel my comment was political. I think you missed what I was sharing, and perhaps did not follow my other comments on the subject.
In a previous post, I said I would shoot, out of fear. Many individuals might not. Many on that day did not shoot or we would have had a blood bath.
My mistake, I should not have just assumed you were reading all my comments on this subject.I'm only offering a critique of what I read from your replies, not a criticism of you making them. I did follow your link, and the sequence of your replies to follow your context.
You do clearly say the officer's action was legal and that Babbit was wrong. But then you add rationales that should be unnecessary. Instead of he did it: because he was scared or he feared for his life or he wasn't properly trained, etc. All negative connotations directed at the officer's action. Is the first thought, before any after-the-fact details come up, that he was a professional that tried to do the job asked of him, an unreasonable starting point?
To the Babbit 'yeah buts, I understand that you are sympathizing with the tragedy of her death, certainly, it was an unnecessary one, but in the context of responsibility, it appears you offer them to mitigate her responsibility for the officer's actions. Would you do the same if the intruder bursting through the barricade was a big brawny thug-looking guy?
I am not insensitive to the tragedy of her death, nor the strength of her beliefs, but they aren't relevant to my point that to use those as motivations or mitigations to shift blame is nuts in an instance so starkly clear as this one.
We have seen the lead-up. We have seen the actions of all the 'tip of the spears' penetrating different areas. We saw the heaving mass of bodies trying to force through the barricade, and we saw it happen. What possible reason is there for an "investigation" of the details of her actions?
I think any 'Babbit' mitigations are efforts to suggest we shouldn't believe our lying eyes, because . . . .
GA"You do clearly say the officer's action was legal and that Babbit was wrong. But then you add rationales that should be unnecessary."
(Should I not be the judge of that?)
I offered my common sense view, ( the officer's action was legal and that Babbit was wrong and breaking the law). Then I added my thoughts. Contemplating what I had learned from reading the final report on the investigation of the officer's actions. Yes, an investigation was conducted, and the officer was cleared. He claimed he felt threatened. His words, not mine. I surmised when one feels threatened, that emotion could be accompanied by fear.
What you feel may be unnecessary, I felt perhaps insightful and hoped to hear others' views. Which worked out well, you shared your thoughts on the shooting. I respect the. the point you are trying to make, and thank you for your comment.
I don't see Babbit's death as black or white, I looked for grey.
Some of the views I share were naturally "could be possible's." -- Fodder for conversation.
I was not looking for an A+.I think we already know why Babbit went through that door window. She was caught up in the moment, the emotional heart of the mob stoked the zeal of her beliefs.
GA
"Let it go"? How can it be let go, when contact hasn't even been made? Maybe all of your questions have been asked and answered GA, but mine have not.
How can there be a fair "hearing" when the one person that died that day, at the hands of a police officer, (not saying that he was gunning for her in particular, I wasn't there, I am sure it was mayhem} isn't even represented?
Because it doesn't fit the narrative, that's why.I planned to be there that day. If I had heard that the Capitol building was open and that people were walking in, I may have been tempted to enter in. I could have gotten caught up in the moment. Not planning on hurting a soul, just ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I will admit it, I am imperfect!
That could have been me, I could have died that day! I have thought about it often since then.
I can easily see how it happened for so many people that were there that day.
But, those that weren't there, have it all figured out, have all the answers and say, let it go.
A Trump supporter died that day, but oh well!!That could have been you? Roaring past law enforcement trying to stop you, barricades and armed guards placed before you, and you might have burst through that door too?
I got nothing for that. I only offered a view. It seems it is not one available for you.
GAI never said that I would be roaring or bursting, I was attempting to make a point, but obviously I've failed.
Was your point that you would have participated? If so, would you participate at the level Babbit did?
GA
Wait a minute. This thread started because of the heartfelt response for a mother and daughter who were working on ballots that Trump and company accused them of being fake, but were actually legal.
Trump and company harassed these ladies not only at the election counting site but also at their homes causing them and their families to leave their homes. The people and the media expressed their heartfelt thoughts for what those people are still going through.
Then along comes the Trump supporters on this forum and they play the What About Game, comparing Ashli's Babbit being shot while storming the capitol to the plight of what Trump and Company has done to those two ladies lives, all in the name of finding extra votes for Trump.
Ashli Babbit had a cognitive choice as to what she was going to do that day. There was no choice for those two ladies and their lives are miserable for what Trump and company did to them all in the name of "find me 11,000 votes.Sorry to interrupt feelings with death, my bad!
What was in the suitcases? Were they ballots? Why were ballots put inside suitcases? Where did the ballots come from? Did putting ballots inside suitcases meet with the voting ballot storage and control laws of the state of Georgia? If they were ballots inside the suitcases, who put them there? From where were the ballots collected? What sequence of ballots were in the suitcases? Were they mail in or absentee ballots? Each has different handling and recording requirements. Is it possible to get those particular ballots and verify their validity? That would put an end to any speculation that they were just ballots dug up for biden. It would provide the truth.
The point is with a one-sided, biased committee there are many important questions that won't be asked, and the public will not know the truth about any subject the committee is investigating.
Nobody knows the truth behind the ballots in these suitcases. Democrats will make sure nobody ever knows.If you had watched the hearing on Tuesday you would know the answers to these questions. There were no suitcases. There were no fraudulent ballots. Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state and Gabriel Sterling, the secretary of state's chief operating officer both testified. Raffensperger calmly explained how each claim of fraud was not accurate. The suitcase full of ballots conspiracy theory was thoroughly debunked.
Did putting ballots inside suitcases meet with the voting ballot storage and control laws of the state of Georgia?
From where were the ballots collected? What sequence of ballots were in the suitcases? Were they mail in or absentee ballots? Each has different handling and recording requirements. Is it possible to get those particular ballots and verify their validity?There were no suitcases. They were the standard boxes used to store ballots. You really should watch video of the testimony on how those ballots were handled. A complete timeline was provided.
RMN Stop it. You didn't watch the hearings. If you want questions answered watch the hearing proceedings on any news channel other than Fox, OAN, and MAGA news. If you don't you are going to get left out in the cold.
That would put an end to any speculation that they were just ballots dug up for biden. It would provide the truth.
Nobody knows the truth behind the ballots in these suitcases. Democrats will make sure nobody ever knows.
It won't. Not even if Trump himself tell all of you he lost fair and square.
Most of the world do know.
Trace your thoughts on this; the unanswered questions, back to the genesis of those thoughts. Surely, (or not so surely?), you would see her actions as illegal. Once again, before you address or rationalize her choice to take illegal actions, consider, within the reality of the moment, as depicted, what you as the officer would see confronting you, would you shoot?
GA
No, I may have marched, as stated, I may have entered the building.
I may have taken a few pictures, as many did....
I was listening to talk radio that day and many calling in, stayed for the speech and then left. Some had planned to march to the Capitol Building and decided not to do so because there were many instigators getting loud and some in the crowd were getting rowdy.Their guts told them, it was time to leave, I've always made it a practice to listen to my gut, I would have most likely done the same. My point is that I can see how so many, got caught up in the moment and in over their heads very quickly.And I can see that too. I have defended that group of folks before, that was never my point. I think it's wrong to use support of her 'cause' to cast any doubts on the officer's actions. Or to legitimize her actions.
GaThis was my initial question and statement GA. I didn't bring her up to cast any doubts on the officer's actions:
"I am just curious, has anyone from the Babbitt family been heard from? I am thinking not...the panel doesn't want those particular heartstrings pulled. It doesn't fit with the narrative."
I got my answer, no, they have not been heard from.
It was at this time that I shared my, "there but for the grace of God go I" confession. I see now, that was a mistake. Although sharing it in an attempt to give these people a face, with an identity and a story - rather than just the image which has been promoted and projected of "an angry mob" (period)
Live and learn, especially here in the forums.I think I understood what you meant, (and the same for Sharlee), but I was, then and now, so pissed, (no polite word covers it), at the whole thing. (speaking to the rally event). From Pres. Trump to the crowd standing there listening, they were idiots, but two different kinds of idiots.
I can call them idiots because I see the folks at the rally, the ones there for the speech as 'my people.' Folks like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and Pres. Trump aren't. I might disagree with the fervor of most, but I can sure as hell empathize with them, ('my people').
I didn't know about that earlier mass of Proud Boys, so as I watched the president fire up the crowd, into a frenzy that turned them into a mob that only needed a spark to turn them into a mindless mass, I got more pissed. The spark came and "my people" invaded the Capitol.
That is so wrong*. Maybe that taints my reading of responses. Maybe I was overly sensitive in this case. Or not. Let's leave that to the word gods to figure out. ;-)
*For the 'anti-my people folks, no, it was not a damn Coup or Insurrection attempt. And I don't need a dictionary to define what I saw.
GA
ab: I'll bet you were listening to Fox or some other MAGA news outlet. Their guts didn't tell them it was time to leave, Trump did after they did their damage. He called off his troops after he was satisfied with their loyalty to him.
Actually, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (he had a radio show before he died) and people were calling in in real time, with firsthand knowledge, stories and experiences. Again, straight from the horse's mouth, but I know how you choose to ignore anything and everything which doesn't fit your narrative.
ab: It' not a matter of fitting a narrative or ignoring things It's a matter of the truth. You learned from Rush Limbaugh, that the people left on their own accord.
The truth is they didn't leave until Trump told them to leave. That is on as many videos that you would like to see. Limbaugh saw it, he just didn't want to make it sound like Trump was in charge. That's called a half truth.Just FYI PP, I don't lump you in with the "Summer of Love" rioters/looters/attackers and killers, just because you are left of center AND YET you continue to lump every Trump supporter that showed up in D.C. on Jan. 6th {or didn't} with those who took things too far.
I know what I heard on that day, as people were calling in. It was a positive, uplifting speech, no one was directed to do anything violent by the President, some simply chose to. (End of Story)
For non-Trumpers still doubting about "the suitcases".
BJay Pak, the former US attorney for the North District of Georgia, said his office found that the alleged "suitcase full of ballots" was an official lockbox.
Pak said his office conducted its own investigation and found that the "suitcase full of ballots" was an official lockbox where ballots were stored to be kept safe. The boxes were kept under the tables, he said.
Pak said there was a "misunderstanding" and the partisan poll watchers, assigned by each respective, were told they were done counting ballots for the night and were told they could go home.
"Once they realized the mistake, someone from the secretary of state's office had indicated 'no, no, no, we're not done for the night. You need to go ahead continue counting,'" Pak said.
Pak said they brought back the official ballot box and the poll workers started counting the ballots from the lockbox that was initially packed up.
"Unfortunately, during the Senate hearing, Mr. Giuliani only played a clip that showed them pulling out the official ballot box from under the table," Pak said.
"In actuality, in review of the entire video, it showed that it was an official ballot box that was kept underneath the tables," Pak added. "Then we saw them pack up, because the announcement they thought they were done for the night — once the announcement was made that they should continue counting, they brought the ballot box back out."
---
“One of the specific things, one of the things that was very frustrating, was the so-called suitcases of ballots from under the table.”
Sterling testified that, in fact, there was no suitcase shown on the video.
“They’re standard ballot carriers that allow for seals to be put on them so that they are tamper-proof,” he testified.Pak should produce the results of his investigation for the committee to review.
The issue of poll observers, who testified under oath, they were told to go home then ballots were continued to be counted without the poll observers.
Where is the committee on this issue?RMN: See for yourself. This is BJay Pak's testimony.
https://youtu.be/9YHmiLFY9bI
Poll workers Ruby Freeman and daughter Wandrea “Shaye” sue Giuliani and OAN for defamation of character. They accused them of ballot tampering. When in fact it has been proven there was no evidence supporting their claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … acy-theory
Here is the poll workers testimony:
https://youtu.be/ZBV0OtXxWo8PP,
You are missing the point.
There are many questions not being asked about this situation.
There are no questions regarding the ballot control.
How were they stored?
How was it determined who got which set of ballots to count?
What was the procedure for counting the ballots?
He said he conducted an investigation.
How was it conducted?
How many people were involved in the investigation?
What was done during the investigation?
Individuals involved in this investigation need to be interviewed.
The results of the investigation need to be made available.
Yeah, the poll workers got a bad time, filed lawsuits and they'll make money.
The main point is to find out what happened. Did the committee interview the poll observers, who, under oath, testified they were told to leave, with ballot counting still taking place?
I've been involved in elections in more than one state. In my experience, ballots are stored in a separate location from where the counting takes place. A poll worker goes to where the ballots are located, a person makes them sign for the ballots putting the number identifying the container and time taken. When they are finished, the container is returned, the time they returned the ballots is then recorded.
I wonder what the Georgia state law are regarding the storage and counting of ballots? Were they followed?
This man's testimony didn't answer any important questions in my mind, it only raised more questions.
A ballot container should have been brought before the committee to be inspected and the procedure for counting the ballots should have been discussed.
Again, with a one-sided, biased and politically motivated committee, they are not after the truth, they just want to put on a show. Kudos to the harassed poll workers, they were a big part of the democrat show.
What about the issues in other states? Too bad they don't get to be part of the show.PP
I forced myself to watch BJay Pak's testimony.
It only left me with more questions.
He openly admits that ballot counting stopped, the poll watchers were sent home, then the counting resumed, but he never mentions that the poll watchers were notified of this and given an opportunity to come back as the ballots were counted.
This is huge.
Why weren't the poll watchers notified that recounting of ballots had resumed?
This leads me to conclude many ballots were counted without poll watchers there and it appears to have been intentional.
This is definitely a scenario where fraud could have occurred.
MORE investigation needs to be done to get to the bottom of this.
It also confirms my belief that this committee is a show trial of biased, one-sided politically motivated individuals in the democrat party.
It also confirms my belief that the democrat party fears the truth.I have been saying this all along. This so-called "Hearing" is getting us nowhere; with each new day, we are left with more questions than answers.
I get it now. You play two games when it comes to protecting Trump. You play the What about game to make false comparisons to use as distractions and you play the What if game, to make it look like the witnesses need to be cross-examined by a pro-Trump republican committee.
There is a 1 1/2 hour recorded phone conversation where Trump is pressuring and intimidating The Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,000 more votes. That in my books seals the deal. Trump is guilty of trying to overturn the election results. He calls it stop the steal, while he was actually trying to steal the election. That can be used as evidence in a court of law and cannot be cross-examined.
You feel the hearing is a dog and pony show and everyday you are left with more questions than answers. Here is a question for you. Based on the evidence presented thus far, did Trump try to steal the election from Biden? As simple Yes or No will suffice.No, Biden stole it from Trump.
(Ducking for incoming)And I can make just as strong a case, based on my own facts and personally held beliefs for Mr. Trump being the anti-Christ. Oh and that lizard aliens really run America of course.
Wow, you went straight to nuclear, I've got nothing.
Well the upside of trumpism is that we can all have our own reality right? Whenever we don't agree with or like what someone else says we just call it false. But how are you reconciling all of these members of the Trump administration / team who are now testifying in the hearings? Treasonous liars? If Trump returns I'm sure they will all be jailed and possibly executed right? He obviously chose many "bad" individuals to be part of his administration, was this his own lack judgment? Or or what? I mean obviously all of these people are lying under oath, correct? Why are they doing it? Who is coordinating them? How and why have all of these Republicans who were in his administration lead to testify against Mr. Trump?
Careful with that 'Lizard aliens' talk. You never know who they are.
GA
?? Of course there are no answers, for this is not a hearing at all. It is a media show, carefully orchestrated and produced, with the goal of hanging Donald Trump and anyone who dares to follow him.
Answers are not necessary or desired, only what it takes to raise negative emotions in the public about Trump.Wilderness: Did Trump try to steal the election from Biden? Yes or No.
I apologize Mike, I can't help myself. I read this and quickly clicked away so I wouldn't, but I wasn't strong enough. I had to come back. ;-)
Come on Wilderness, say it. Say it! Yes or No? ♫ Do you love me, will, l you love me forever ♫
GAGiven Trumps ego, I think he was unable to understand he lost. Therefore the answer is "no"; he attempted to force a legal election.
You, of course, will take the opposite tack in that he attempted to circumvent the law and "steal" it, but that was not what he thought he was doing.
Does intent and motive count? Or does your spin ignore that in favor of assigning your own motive to other's actions?Wilderness; How do you know what he thought he was doing? I believe he knew, he had lost the election. but he was driven by people who told him he could overturn the election and get away with it.
It was willful ignorance on everybody's part, except those who told him he lost the election, but I don't think that mattered to him as he continued trying to steal the election from Biden.
https://georgiarecorder.com/2022/06/16/ … -criminal/I say that because his enormous ego, an ego that I think didn't allow him to admit defeat.
What is your reason for thinking he knew he had lost and tried to overthrow the legal government (that lying "experts" told him so doesn't count; as you point out, he was told different by people obviously {to him} telling the truth)?Is that committee interested in the massive voter fraud that occured in your country because of the mail-in ballots? Are there any independent numbers on how many votes were counted through the post office? Were there any honest "experts" that monitored that source?
Our president it trying to get the voting machines to print each persons vote so that people can prove who they voted for. The left is against this, of course, since they learned from the US elections how utilizing voter fraud could get them back into office.
"wilderness, how do you know what he {Trump} thought he was doing?"
That's priceless!
No one can possibly know, with the exception of the left!
Only they know what he is thinking, what he is planning, what his intentions always are. Only they get to be his judge and jury.
Wilderness, is Trump so stupid to not know what "lost an election" means?
As dumb as he is, he still should have known better.
Why should the entire nation have to submit to his childish and fragile ego?Is Biden so stupid he thought he could inject trillions of dollars into the economy without inflation? In the face of hundreds of years of experience saying the opposite?
We didn't submit, did we? He is not President; ergo, we didn't submit to that ego.
All explained here:
https://youtu.be/xGmXoPI_mgU
I don't think that the Georgia officials could be any more clear?Sorry, it's NOT explained. The Georgia officials could be more clear.
Still don't know about Georgia's laws regarding handling the ballots and the counting procedure, etc
The only thing of value in the video was the recount. I wanted to hear more about how it was conducted and who was involved. Was there any type of oversight by either of the parties during the recount?
Still, many questions need to be answered.
The bottom line with this J6 committee is that the vast majority of Americans don't care about the committee. The liberal media and democrats are finally realizing it.
"Politico Reporter Says Congressional Democrats Told Her Jan. 6 Is Not a ‘Top Tier’ Issue: ‘Nobody Gives a Bleep’
"Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan said Wednesday that two Democratic lawmakers told her the Jan. 6 committee hearings are not a “top tier issue” for their constituents.
Swan joined Chuck Todd on Meet the Press NOW on NBC’s newest streaming service NBC News NOW.
Todd asked Swan, “Does the Jan. 6 hearing break through at all?”
She responded inflation and other economic issues are weighing more on the minds of Democratic voters than the Capitol attack.
“I don’t think it does,” she said. “I have talked to two separate Democratic members of Congress in the last couple weeks about Jan. 6, obviously I can’t say who. And both of them have said, offhandedly, nobody gives a bleep about Jan. 6.”
Swan said the conversations were relative to how the coming midterms will play out. She told Todd."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newspoli … uxbndlbingViewership for Thursday’s coverage of the House Select Committee’s hearing on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was the most-watched prime-time program since President Biden’s State of the Union address March 1.
ABC’s coverage of Game 4 of the NBA Finals was second for the week.
Beat out the NBA finals? I'd say people are interested.I disagree, most people are not watching the January 6 hearings.
"Majority of Americans didn’t watch Jan. 6 panel’s hearings last week: poll
A majority of Americans tuned out on the House select committee hearings on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot last week, a new poll released Wednesday found.
While 62% of Americans say they did not watch the panel’s second and third hearings held last week, 58% say they have heard or read about them, a Politico/Morning Consult survey showed.
Of the 39% who did watch, only 11% say they did in full and 28% say they saw “some.”
Among the 58% who say they heard about the hearings on June 13 and June 16 are 23% who say they heard “a lot” and 35% who say “some” — 42% were split evenly among “not much” or “nothing at all.”
https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/majority- … week-poll/
I still don't get it from you guys.
Yes, there could be more pro Trump representatives on the committee.
But, Is it legal to attempt to change out certified electors with electors selected by the legislature that reflect the vote for the opposing candidates, irrespective of the popular vote tally? Is that not required to be divided based on the popular vote, winner take all except in Maine and Nebraska?
Republicans have attempted this in several states during 2020, is that acceptable to you?
Do you people know what that means? There are a few states whose legislatures are attempting to obtain the authority to overrule the popular vote when ever their preferred candidate loses. Is that Democracy or has it morphed into something else? The legislature does not select the President, the people (voters) do. What is it about the Right where they must insist on controlling everything over and beyond adhering to the democratic processes?
I don't care what anyone says, Pense did not have the power to nullify the process of accepting certified electors in his count of the vote on J6. It is silly for the Right to think that the power to subvert the entire democratic process will lie with just one man. The fact that Trump attempted to goad Mr. Pense into doing such a thing is unforgivable.
You righties can keep dredging up conspiracy theories, ad naseum. You still have no proof and as far as I am concerned, no audience of credible people, anyway. Your intuition or thoughts do not rise over your heads. You are more than content to win at any cost, even when based on a cheat or the eternal lie.
I won't tolerate despotism and tyranny, disguised as disappointed patriots. I WILL fight over the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. We, as a nation, went to foreign shores in an attempt to preserve such for others, I am certainly prepared to do what is necessary to preserve it here at home.
Happy July 4 in advance to allRMN: The NY Post is a rightwing rag and I place no credence in it.
The proof of a conspiracy theory (to eliminate Trump as a Presidential candidate or as President) is in this committee, the 4th attempt by Democrats to bury a political rival. Four times now they have tried - if that isn't pretty plain conspiracy I guess I don't know what one is.
This is more than about politics, Wilderness. This is about the very structure of the system. Why are you so easily taken by this assualt on our very political system?
Trump crossed many ethical lines, far more than any of his predecessors. Why do you excuse him at every opportunity? Are there not better and less soiled GOP candidates?
Think about it, what President has ever stood in direct opposition to processes as prescribed in the Constitution? Gore lost by under 600 votes and yet he did not make the kind of national tantrum that Trump has.
If this is what you conservatives call leadership, then America best days are behind it.LOL Our "very political system" was never in danger.
I don't excuse Trump's failure to accept the election. But I DO think it wise to at least attempt to understand why he failed so badly, and even more importantly, why those rioters broke into the building. Personally, I think the rioters did what they did because we are training the people that there are no consequences to rioting, but that will never be addressed.
When have we ever had a major election with at least some demands for a recount? Happens all the time, and we proceed with them. This time, though, even as we acknowledge illegal ballot acceptance we ignored it. That doesn't excuse Trump's temper tantrum, but it is something to think about for future elections.
Actually, our best days are behind us - that would have been just prior to the pandemic. Pray that we can return to them in the future, after getting rid of that pitiful excuse as a leader currently in the White House. Trump made some errors (IMO), a few of his concepts were faulty, and he did have that tantrum at losing, but virtually everything Biden has done has hurt America and Americans.I also think our political system is not in danger. I think that system, and the Consitution that dictated it showed their strength. Both have been pushed to their limits in this years-long 'Trump crisis', and both held their limits without breaking. They were tested to the extreme by both sides and they held.
I hold the Democrats just as responsible as they say Trump is. An indictment of the Democrats is not defending Trump. However, I can't be as charitable as you are with the "tantrum" description. Our system stopped him just as it did the Democrats' previous attempts to misuse their power.
In a world of 'three strikes and you're out' the Democrats were "out" but Pres. Trump gave them a fourth strike and this time he gave them the rope to hang him.
As for your Biden thought, it's hard to disagree with it. And any 'whataboutisms' won't change that perception.
GA
"I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress." - Trump to then Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue.
I am pleased to see someone post pertinent witness information. A clear quote from the hearing. The thread has imploded on itself, so I am glad you have brought it full circle.
There are many revelations coming out of the hearings. In my view, the quote you offered, indicates Trump knew he had lost the election and was willing to create lies and feed them to anyone that would listen.
Context matters --- and Trump's words to Donoghue were clear and could not be misconstrued.I took the time to rewatch yesterday's hearing on Cspan last night. I think Americans should be watching, and taking into account all these witnesses are under oath. At some point (in my view) we all need to consider that these hearings are producing a lot of information that has been kept behind closed doors.
Sharlee: I'm sorry, but now I have to say this. So now you have come over to the other side, since Trump's cons have been exposed. I'm glad you finally realize what happened.
In my opinion, this is what happens when a master con-artist is elected who has no government experience. He conned his way through four years without any regard to his presidential oath, for the constitution’ or the laws of the land. And now it is finally catching up with him.
It's obvious when Trump tried to con-Pence into switching election slates, he didn't know the constitution prohibits that because he was “conned “by his own people. But they were just doing what he wanted them to do. I call it willful ignorance on everybody involved in that con.
When he tried to con his DOJ people into saying that “the election was corrupt.” He didn’t know the constitution prohibited that as well nor did he care. But to a con-artist, laws, and people trying to convince them otherwise, don’t matter.
I don’t think he is done yet, typically, when the con has been uncovered, the con-artist does two things. He attacks those who uncovered the con and he plays the victim to those who still believe him...stay tuned."Sharlee: I'm sorry, but now I have to say this. So now you have come over to the other side, since Trump's cons have been exposed. I'm glad you finally realize what happened."
It is odd you still do not realize, I am in no box... I keep an open mind, I do not join in any form of group type think. I look at situations bluntly and try to look at all sides. I am governed by common sense and try to look at anything I come up against fairly.
I never was on a side, I still am not on "a side". In the case of Jan 6th from day one, I stated I am against violence of any form. I in no way condoned the riot. I left the blame at the feet of the rioters.
I have watched each hearing, some twice. I look at the riot separately from Trump's fraud claims. Yes, it has become clear Trump, with mistruths certainly did anger his followers. However, thus far, it was still the followers that broke our laws by attacking the Capitol and threatening our Congress. Did Trump break laws with his mistruths, most possibly he may have? Thus far Trump has not been charged with breaking the law.
However, in my view, he will be punched by the loss of trust from the many who trusted him.
I think this investigation will prevent him from running.
Not sure in all our conversations, you ignored the views I shared on Trump's character. I have never claimed him a man of good character. I have only made the claims that I felt him a good problem solver, and a man that saw problems before they brewed into larger problems, and worked to solve problems. It would appear his poor character, in the end, has done him in.
ab, I think you know I voted for Trump and had my own reasons for supporting his presidency. I feel he was one of the very best presidents we have ever had at problem-solving and having the backs of all Americans. I fully support his America Frist Agenda and found he kept his promises...
I defended him throughout many situations that I felt were very unfair, such as the Russia Russia Russia, the DNC, and Clinton's plan to ruin him with made-up lies. I have always looked at the trumped-up media accusations as fake news, due to being able to research the context, and discover that much of what they promoted was twisted context.
However, should I turn away from what these witnesses are saying under oath?
I have said several times I feel the committee is biased, due to only having two very liberal mined Republicans. I feel all witnesses should have been crossed examined. However, I asked myself, would they lie under oath?
I am still keeping a corner of my mind open, due to the hearings are not over as of yet.
I ask, where in the world do we go from here with what we are hearing from these witnesses?
I feel Trump did start a movement, a movement I myself appreciated, and supported. And will continue to support the ideologies of that movement.
All of the testimony has come from Republican after Republican under oath. Many from Mr. Trump's administration. Are you saying they're all lying??
No doubt Sharlee, there's a lot that has been presented, I am not suggesting that you turn away, I would never do that! But, at the same time, we must consider that not one "witness" is getting cross examined.
Do they not "hear" arguments typically in a Hearing PP?
ab: If there was cross examination in a hearing, who is going to decide who is innocent or guilty without a judge and jury?...the public? I have not found anything that mentioned cross-examination in a congressional hearing.
I know that Trey Gowdy started this notion on Fox News. I also know that he was the chairmen in Hillary Clintons hearing on Benghazi and there was no cross-examination. That hearing went on for two years."ab: If there was cross examination in a hearing, who is going to decide who is innocent or guilty without a judge and jury?...the public? I have not found anything that mentioned cross-examination in a congressional hearing."
The judge and jury are all of us that have watched these hearings, and yes, AB has a good point. We are seeing one side, are we not?
Does it not leave a taste of unfairness?Sharlee: Trump is the other side when it comes to trying to convince his DOJ's to lie about election corruption. Pence is the other side when it comes to switching the slates. The recorded conversation between Trump and Raffensberger can't be cross-examined and is the smoking gun.
In my view, those are the three damming pieces of evidence against Trump. Everything else are actions that Trump and others took to solve the problem of him not being elected, which could lead to criminal charges.
What good would a cross-examination do, other than try to place the blame on others than Trump. In my view. He brought this on himself by trying to solve the problem of not being elected.
By the way, Trump's great problem solving skills where he appointed three conservative justices, just resulted in the overturning of Roe."In my view, those are the three damming pieces of evidence against Trump."
Yes, all have been damming. As I said full context would leave no doubt. this is why it would have been very smart to have a cross-examination. It would give a very clear picture of a full meeting or communication. Asit did in Hillary's Benghazi hearings. Did she not hold her own pretty good under the cross? Did not more come out feeling all bases were covered?
You need to look at both sides in regards to Trump appointing three Justices. There was another side, that has been fighting for this day for many years. We have a winner and a loser in this case. Do we abandon Democracy due to this one Supreme Court decision, or can we hope our democracy goes on to right perhaps mistakes?
We have enjoyed Democracy and learned to live with, yes, things we don't support. Is Democracy not worth some of the discomforts?
You do realize for many reasons I supported pro-abortion. So, I too was very disappointed when the SC even took it up. What I value more is Democracy.
Is our Democracy threatened by our newly formed makeup of the SC --- I don't know as of yet. I will try to stay out of predicting, and handle problems as they arise. I pray this court upholds the Constitution and goes not become political. IF they prove to, I will have a big problem with that.Sharlee:
"Did she not hold her own pretty good under the cross? Did not more come out feeling all bases were covered?"
Sure all bases were covered, but did it change any minds?, I think not. If you care to read the proceedings, here they are
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/politics … index.htmlAS I said I watched the Clinton hearings. I offered you the link to Cspan where I did watch them. Not just bits and pieces, but all the hearings.
I am not sure if she changed minds. In some cases, she changed my mind on certain things. There are people out there that have very fair open minds. And are not totally party driven.
Yes, credit where credit is due. Thank you President Trump!
That's good that Trey has considered it as well, he has actually practiced law. I, on the other hand, only had a short stint as a legal secretary, a lifetime ago.
Seven Republicans and five Democrats make up the House Select Committee on Benghazi. After 18 months of mostly behind-the-scenes work the committee bursts into public view with a highly anticipated interview of Hillary Clinton. The hearings were very contentious. And Hillary was very much crossed examined, by the Republicans on the committee.
The hearings can be found on Cspan, and are a reminder of just how contentious those hearings did get.
It was said Hillary held up well under cross-eamination.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-1/ … azi-part-1
As I said, I do have a big problem with no cross-examining I had hoped our Congress would find this a problem, and address it. But they have not. The hearings are being conducted somewhat like a trail --- presenting witnesses and publicly questioning them. So, I do see the importance of cross-examination.
The witnesses are quoting a duly appointed president, one would think it fair that these witnesses be questioned, for complete context of the situation the president's statements were made. We are just hearing a few words, from hour-long meetings.
What we are hearing is damming, and yes, it would be fair to hear the other side.Sharlee: You are hearing the other side. I would venture to say all the witnesses so far have been high ranking republicans who worked for Trump.
They have already been cross-examined in the preliminary investigations. If you watch the questioning in the videos, you will see that. So what your are going to have is republicans questioning republicans who have already been questioned.It is evident many are questioning the makeup of the committee, and that there is no cross examination. I think it would have been smarter to have a fair balance on the committee and cross. I think more would walk away without a doubt.
I realized many years ago we are all different, and come about thoughts and beliefs as individuals.Sharlee:
This is why it happened:
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected McCarthy's selection of Jordan and GOP Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana to serve on the committee, she would have accepted the Republican leader's other three picks. Instead, McCarthy pulled the rest of his proposed members from consideration. Pelosi ultimately selected GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois to serve on the panel.
Jan. 6 Committee adds previously unscheduled hearing for Tuesday to reveal 'recently obtained evidence'
Jan. 6 Committee was not expected to hold another hearing on Trump and Capitol attack until July
The Jan. 6 Committee announced Monday that it will hold a hearing 1 p.m. ET Tuesday to reveal "recently obtained evidence," in an unexpected move after the committee planned to push hearings until July.
A press release from the committee did not detail what that evidence will be or what witnesses may be present.Yes, it would have been better to have a balance on the committee but the republicans wouldn't participate. So now other Republicans are testifying to what happened - the ethical ones.
Not true that "Republicans wouldn't participate".
They weren't allowed to choose their Representatives.
Nancy Pelosi hand picked Cheney and Kinzinger.Democrats proposed a 911 style commission. Mr McCarthy turned it down. Even Mr Trump has recently called them stupid for doing so. They've made their bed at this point. Besides, you have two staunch conservatives on the committee. If you don't think so, go over each of their voting records thoroughly.
Not true that "Republicans wouldn't participate".
They weren't allowed to choose their Representatives.
Nancy Pelosi hand picked Cheney and Kinzinger (RINOs)The commission was to have five Democrats and five Republicans. McCarthy refused it and as a result you have the select committee.
https://news.yahoo.com/mccarthy-opposes … 51040.html
Also, do you have examples of liberal or democrat leaning votes that Ms. Cheney or Mr. Kinzinger have taken? Upon looking at their record I see them voting along conservative lines more consistently than others in the party actually.It is not about liberal/democrat or republican anymore. She voted to impeach Trump. That's enough for them.
Funny thing, they are the real RINOs.Because they wouldn't play ball with Nancy.
Cheney and Kinzinger have made it crystal clear that they despise Donald Trump and yet they are the two supposedly representing his best interest!?That's the defective mentality of the MAGA crowd. No one in Congress, let alone the Comittee, is supposed to "represent Trump best interest". They are supposed to investigate and get to the truth of what happened.
As long as it is at his expense! Correct?
"Defective mentality". Tread softly.Yes, and they should have dotted all Is, and crossed all Ts. They should have had every witness crossed examined, and also backed up every bit of second-hand information.
The January 6th select committee is not a trial. It's a fact-finding endeavor. Because 2 conservative Republicans (as evidenced by their long voting records) want to delve into the details of that day it means they are some how liberal now?
Not a trail? So, do we only need to see one side? And do we need to hear unverified secondhand information that ultimately slanders a former president?
If this aid has lied under oath, I expect her to be arrested and punished.
I also want to see those on this committee punched if they purposely promoted her lying under oath.
They at this point need to put up the evidence that they spoke with the men this aid involved in her testimony. All have said they will go under both to dispute her story.
"Fact-finding" are you kidding? All I have heard was information I already knew, and now second-hand possible slanderous lies. This seems to be another Democratic witch hunt. Thank God these secret service men have stepped up, and hopefully, more will step up, to tell the truth.I agree, it's all been one-sided. All of the witnesses have been from Mr Trump's own administration.
Are you willing to ignore Hutchinson's testimony is unraveling? And at this point I am willing to say Hutchinson's testimony was pretty much the only information that I have not known about long before the hearings (except the fund raising bit).
The committee needs to clarify this mess quickly. If they don't I presume the three secret service men are being truthful, and she lied under oath
I will wait to see what the committees say. If they ignore the accusations of the secret service, I will assume this woman lied under oath.
I will also have doubts about the entire investigation... They needed to be more balanced, and cross-examination needed to be done. This has been all one-sided. And thank God for this Hutchinson's testimony is now under scrutiny.The committee had taken some 20 hours of testimony from Ms. Hutchinson prior. They've had quite a while to investigate anything and everything she's ever said to them. We all know that they knew exactly everything she was going to say at the hearing. The committee consists of quite a few highly skilled lawyers. I find it hard to believe they'd put on a witness that could be so easily discredited. I think her testimony was the bridge too something much more. In my opinion the tease of the mob like threatening messages is going to tie in.
I don't know, I'm just having a hard time understanding why this obviously bright young woman who was clearly a rising star in Trump world would toss it all away? And the alleged lie she told? Totally inane. As the hearing was going on and I heard this testimony, I immediately thought who cares if he was confrontational? It has nothing to do with anything. It seemed out of place.
Why lie about something so ridiculous? I mean if you have the opportunity and desire to lie under oath in front of the country why not really do it up?
I'm waiting for the rest of the story."The committee had taken some 20 hours of testimony from Ms. Hutchinson prior. They've had quite a while to investigate anything and everything she's ever said to them."
So did the three men that claim she was not being truthful lying?
Or did they not even check out her story? I am not going to assume they did. They certainly have not stepped up today with any form of explanation, which they owe Americans at this point. A simple statement to did they vet her, and her story.
"I don't know, I'm just having a hard time understanding why this obviously bright young woman who was clearly a rising star in Trump world would toss it all away?"
Not sure about any of that. She was an aid, that was not taken on the Trump team when he left the White House. I don't care to discuss her, due to knowing nothing about her.
Why lie --- to make Trump sound like a mad man... I also am waiting for the rest of the story from the men that have said she is lying.
If this is not straightened out, I have no intent to watch the rest of these hearings. In fact, I intend to hit Cspan and watch all of the previous hearings over and listen very closely.She could have lied about something so much more substantial if she was committed to lying. Grabbing a steering wheel??? Has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Again, I think there is going to be a gotcha moment on this one for someone. Liz Cheney purposely asked her this question, to elicit this testimony. Somebody just fell into a trap I think.
No one is challenging the fact that that Mr. Trump wanted to lead the armed mob of rioters to the Capitol.
I care about that much more than I do his temperament.The gotta moment is once again that another investigation has blown up in their faces.
Most likely this woman, trump will sue her for slam dunk slander. I will not be surprised.So again, you already decided she lied and that means the rest of the witnesses too. Thank God, right? Ok, got it.
SMHRep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla.,
committee member said that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato "did not have as clear" of a memory when he testified to the committee.
So it appears that Mr Ornado has already given testimony. It should be interesting to see if he has developed new memories since that time and of course if he received the mob like message to stay loyal.
ab: This is what happened.
This is why it happened:
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected McCarthy's selection of Jordan and GOP Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana to serve on the committee, she would have accepted the Republican leader's other three picks. Instead, McCarthy pulled the rest of his proposed members from consideration. Pelosi ultimately selected GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois to serve on the panel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNBe-Wt6Q4
January 6th Committee Sixth Public Hearing
The surprise hearing witness is Cassidy Hutchinson, assistant to former White House Chief of Staff Mark MeadowsI think today's hearing will change minds.
Just to stir the pot, I propose some speculation: How many of the; 'I'm the most MAGA conservative candidate in the party' Trump-backed candidates will change their strategies, and how many will double down.
GAI think most of them will double down, counting on the blind MAGA crowd to get them elected.
Well of course, especially since Mr Trump immediately assured the Maga base that he barely even knows who Cassidy Hutchinson is....so she's obviously a liar. Looks like he's probably going to have to disown Ivanka while he's at it.
But seriously, those mob boss threats at the end. I'm a little afraid for her.Yes, for her and for many of the witnesses.
HP MAGA crowd is quiet today. I wonder why.
The MAGA crowd is "quiet", what do you mean? What are you needing to hear?
Cognitive Dissonance plays a big role in supporting Trump. There are his supporters that will be in denial that he did anything wrong. If they accepted the truth, they would feel bad for supporting him and they will not allow themselves to do that. It's all about feeling good. They would rather be in denial and feel good and in their minds they made the right decision.
NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander tweeted, “A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/stat … with-trumpSharlee: Somebody is lying. And if that is the case, somebody will be lying under oath..
PP -- This is unfortunate, you do know I have been watching the hearings and felt the evidence has been very conclusive and damaging to Trump. I have also shared I wished they had someone to cross-examine. I was very afraid of this happening.
Today's witness was very damming, even though some of her information was second-hand. I found her credible, being under oath, I trust she was truthful.
I do respect Peter Alexander, I feel he is a good journalist, an honest journalist.
Now what? I would hope the committee will address this tomorrow. For all, we know they spoke with the two main characters that were in that car with Trump. I would think they backed up her account with the two men that were in that car or the committee will lose face, and the other testimonies will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
I am very much losing faith in our Government altogether.
I did not expect this, I need to hear from the two in that car.
My God, what next? Do you know if the driver and the secret service were questioned by the Committee?Sharlee: The article below is from Peter Alexander and Allan Smith. It states that Hutchinson got her information about the car incident from
Tony Ornato. However Ornato is willing to testify under oath, that what Hutchinson said about lunging and grabbing the wheel is not true.
Secret service people are known to protect the president, no matter what the cost. Like I said, somebody is lying. I hope it is not Cassidy. It's not clear when and how would Ornato testify?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … -rcna35775" The Secret Service released a statement after the hearing on Tuesday. "
The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today's testimony," the statement says.
Engel and the driver of the SUV who gave Trump a ride back to the White House from the rally on Jan. 6 are prepared to testify under oath that "neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel," NBC News reporter Peter Alexander tweeted, citing a source close to the Secret Service. And Ornato "denies telling Cassidy Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail," CNN's Shimon Prokupecz tweeted, citing a Secret Service official."
It all was damming, and hopefully, the information was verified by the persons that witnessed these actions firsthand. So, if she would lie about the limo incident, why would I believe her testimony, unless now it cooperates with first-hand testimony? Do we not need facts any longer, but just what someone steps up and said second-hand? Is this really fair?
The waters are muddied, I am now unsure if any of these witnesses have been truthful.
The committee needs to clarify Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, and release the testimonies of both parties that were in that limo when Trump was being returned to the White House on Jan 6th. I believe they would have had to have interviewed the Driver, and the secret service agent to
verify Ms. Hutchinson's testimony. CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-stee … k-meadows/
"Later on Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that three agents who were with Trump in the vehicle dispute that he “assaulted or grabbed at the leader of his security detail or that he grabbed for the steering wheel,” according to one current and one former law enforcement official familiar with the agents’ accounts. Various outlets also reported that Ornato and Bobby Engel, the lead Secret Service agent in the vehicle, are willing to testify to the committee disputing Hutchinson’s account."
Sorry, I am not at all sure this woman was truthful, and if she lied under oath, I feel she should be punched under law.
If this is just another second-hand witchhunt --- the buck needs to stop here. I am so disgusted at this point not sure any of these witnesses have shared any truth. We needed to cross as we had in the two impeachment trials. We have so many problems, did we really need another BS witch hunt?
There is an immediate statement from the Secret Service, and the agents involved in her testament are willing to call her a liar. Why would I at this point believe anything she said unless the committee pulls in every person she recanted secondhand info from?
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agents-de … 30345.html
"After the hearing, the Secret Service released a statement that said it intended to respond to Hutchinson's testimony. "The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today's testimony," U.S. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement to CBS News.
A source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle.
They do not dispute that Trump was irate or that he demanded to be taken to the Capitol, in the language that Hutchinson related to the committee."
We need to hear from every person this woman shared second-hand information with her. If the committee can't back her stories, I do not believe a word she said.
That was a second-hand account. Anyway, it was the less damning thing she said today. I supposed they asked her that (and the ketchup events) to show his character/temper. But honestly, that wasn't important considering the rest of her testimony.
So I say, meh.
In any case, if they have to clarify or rectify, is good that they ask. So no one can muddy the waters.IT all was very damming. However, It appears that both men to whom she recanted information are claiming her story is untrue.
The committee needs to clarify Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, and release the testimonies of both parties that were in that limo when Trump was being returned to the White House on Jan 6th. I believe they would have had to have interviewed the Driver, and the secret service agent to
verify Ms. Hutchinson's testimony. This is the main reason the committee should have allowed cross-examination. and if second-hand testimony was allowed, that second-hand testimony needed to be proven with first-hand testimony.
.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ed-mysteryIslandBites: I agree with you. It was significant about establishing Trump's character, but it was not significant in view of Trump's plan to overturn the election. Maybe the committee won't even bother to pursue it any further. But it could become "a he said, she said" that the GOP could exploit.
https://youtu.be/qmSkZN9G3Nk?t=30
'I Don’t Think The American Public Has Seen Anything Yet'
Former Republican Congressman and former advisor the Jan. 6 committee Denver Riggleman weighs in on the bombshell testimony today from Cassidy Hutchinson and previews what more the committee could reveal in future hearingsDo you suppose that we will hear from the Secret Service or is a given that we will not?
I think the Secret service will have to respond. Hutchinson's accusations were crushing for Pres. Trump, (my opinion, of course), and if her testimony cannot be affirmed I think it will be equally crushing for the Democrats.
I will hold onto my perception of the testimony, (that it was credible), until it is proven not to be. The character assassination was expected. Surely the Dems knew it would come and have collaboration. If not . . .
GAShe described what she was told had happened in the limo that day by another White House aide, Tony Ornato. I would rather not have hearsay brought into a hearing but how does this go to her credibility?
My perspective is that the testimony was so damning that if a big piece of it, (the Beast and magnetometers), proves not to be true it won't matter that it is a hearsay claim, it will still be seen as her claim and will undermine acceptance of the rest of her testimony.
Because I view her testimony as, generally, supported by past testimonies, I am expecting it to be collaborated in the coming hearings. If not sooner by the Secret Service.
Reason says an inaccuracy in hearsay recitations does not negate other non-hearsay stuff, but political reality says a stumble there will turn into a headlong fall. It will taint the entirety of her testimony.
GAAs I see it does not since she declared it to be hearsay. It does not negate her credibility. It negates the credibility of whom the hearsay arrived from giving false testimony to her.
Your logic says that a rotten apple won't spoil the barrel. I say it will. That 'old adage' is an old adage for a reason, it's true.
Reasoning that it shouldn't taint her testimony because she isn't 'lying' she was lied to won't even break the surface of public perception.
In this case, it could be a deserved taint. I have no doubt, (as proven by the professional 'TV' presentation), that her testimony was diligently structured, (not necessarily a bad thing), and even practiced, so no one could be unaware of its potential impact.
If that thought is correct, and the hearsay is false, then they, (committee and witness), deserve to be tarred and feathered for such a purposely deceitful presentation. Otherwise, I think they are moving in for the kill.
Being wrong is one thing, being purposely fooled is another. I don't like being fooled.
GAAre you saying 'She' purposefully fooled whoever? In other words she lied on purpose? Or is that just a perception and not reality?
I tell you the moon is purple. Under oath you tell the court I said the moon is purple. Now, it turns out the moon isn't purple. Did you lie thus loose your personal credibility? I say no.
I understand the apple thing, but that is public sentiment as I see it and not reality.The pivotal word was "if." There is no inference, either way, with that 'if'.
After that 'if', was my view of reality. The 'technicality' of not lying won't mean beans to the public perception, The public hears her say it and sees the Democrats presenting it. If it turns out to be false, even my charitable hesitancy to pass judgment will be too strained to hold. I would find it very, very, hard to believe the Committee did not know this and by going forward were purposely trying to fool me.
Public perception is the political reality, and that's the reality of the public's view. In short, for this issue, being 'technically' safe won't find a space in the public's mind. Probably won't hang around my mind for long either. I'll be too pissed to care about that 'technicality'.
GAYes the old unfounded adage perception is reality is what you apparently speak of. I don't like nor want to fall in that rabbit hole.
No rabbit hole to go down. The adage wasn't about the philosophical question of existence and reality, it was about our real reality. The one formed from our physical senses.
In the political arena, what we hear and see goes through whatever bias filters each of us has as we form it into perception. Nothing deep about that. Almost every political campaign either of us has ever seen operates on that principle. A few minutes of recollection should bring some examples to mind.
GAOkay, got it. But a long way from my original reply to Faye's comment as I see it. That was,
Faye: She described what she was told had happened in the limo that day by another White House aide, Tony Ornato. I would rather not have hearsay brought into a hearing but how does this go to her credibility?
Me: As I see it it does not since she declared it to be hearsay. It does not negate her credibility. It negates the credibility of whom the hearsay arrived from giving false testimony to her.
The only way I see it that her credibility is threatened is if Ornato denies that is what he said specifically or denies he said anything. Then it is he said / she said. That is where the veil of doubt comes along seeking to justify the bias that she is not credible.
If that is the case then I will negate that part only of her testimony not because it is false, but because it is questionable. I have no party bias in the game. I will still take the remainder of testimony as credible.Sorry to butt in here tsmog but this has nothing to do with "party bias" or skin or whatever "in the game" and everything to do with, what the heck is going on?!?
After several prime time showings of Dem Court, pretty much covering the month of June, we hear that we will see them again, in July; they need time to look into other matters and into new evidence coming in fast and furiously. Suddenly, there's breaking news...here in the forums, here at the end of June! Back to the "Hearing" room we go, for yet another episode of Dem Court and for what? More hearsay. More embellishing of the story line.
What a joke!Whatever . . . that has nothing to do with my reply to Faye regard credility.
ab: You don't know whether it will be hearsay or not. That is wishful thinking on your part. It is not a joke about Trump and what he did. That's what this committee is really about.
I keep repeating this because it is very important. There is no hearsay and embellishing of the recording between Trump and Raffensberger where he said find me 11,000 more votes. It is indisputable evidence that can't be denied.
You have it now. The 'credibility' we are talking about is that in the eyes of folks that want to disbelieve. You don't have that want or need, but the folks that must accept her testimony do. For you, if this statement is false it will be only a blemish, for the folks I'm speaking of it will be taken as a vindication.
GA
This committee had the responsibility to present facts, the truth, not second-hand information.
Three things could have happened --- she just out and out lied to the committee. And they did not verify her information from the three men involved.
The committee told her to lie, and she consented to lie.
Or the Driver, the 23 the 23-year secret service man, and this
Antony Ornodo all are lying.
What is factual, the Dems have been on TV all day saying they believe Hutchsen, and feel she is credible --- so what does that have to say about the three men that have stepped up and said she was
not telling the truth.
What is factual the Secret Service has put out a statement that they will cooperate with the committee, and it well appears that the offer thus far has fallen on deaf ears.
What is a fact, we have not heard any statement from the committee that they will speak with the persons this woman quoted second hand.
It appears some are not willing to look at just what we know. And thus far what I know, she very well may have lied, and this is a problem that needs to be clarified before the next hearing.
Otherwise, I hold no confidence in what this committee is presenting. We need the other side to have the chance to question and investigate testimony.
When I listened to this woman, I believed her, But I also felt, truely believed her testimony was vetted, and checked out with every person she quoted.If Mr Ornato testifies that he received one of the messages about staying loyal to Trump world, will your view change?
1, 2, 3 or the source is lying.
Have we heard directly from them? Maybe I missed it. But you already thanked god for them.
What is a fact, we have not heard any statement from the committee that they will speak with the persons this woman quoted second hand.
You should check your facts. They did as soon as "the source" appeared. Plus various members of the Committee appeared on tv to welcome them to testify under oath again.
What if Hutchinson was not even called to testify as a witness, does that change what Trump tried to do? He tried to overturn an election under false pretense.
He created a riot that ended up threating the lives of attendees of the certification process, and allowed armed insurrectionist to destroy government property, including deaths and injuries on both sides.
I believe Hutchinson's testimony was to show Trump's character and intent and purpose of his plan to overthrow the election. Whether the hearsay is true or not is insignificant in the big picture.
Even if Hutchinson loses her creditability, it does not change what Trump tried to do. I can see Trump supporters want to see the whole thing come crashing down like a house of cards, but all one has to do is look at the videos of Jan 6. and hear the testimony from his own DOJ people. Is there enough to prove criminal intent? I think switching real voting slates to fake ones would be, but I'm not a lawyer.Stay on track Mike. My responses have nothing to do with Trump. They have nothing to do with his 'big picture', (your view of Trump's involvement), but everything to do with the Committee's big picture, as painted by the presentation of her testimony.
Surely you don't think your big picture is so overwhelmingly true that a purposeful deceit, as this will be if her testimony is proven untrue, is meaningless?
GAGA: I am on track about Trump. That is what the committee is about, not about whether she lied about the SUV incident or the Ketchup on the wall.
What happens if she is proven to be a liar, does that negate everything that has been uncovered about Trump? We know for sure, she took the oath. What did we see about the secret service guys?,,,nada,
Until we see them take an oath in front of the committee, all we have is hearsay that she was told from Ornato. We can speculate to the cows come home.Yes, you were on track, about Trump, but that isn't what the exchange we have here is about. It is about the impact and validity of a claim. Trump doesn't have anything to do with this point.
Remember where this started. I'm not claiming anything about her claim, I simply talking about its impact. The damage it does to Pres. Trump if true, and to the Democrats presenting her if it is false.
GAYes, it has been all very relieving. However, now it is tainted. It makes me doubt what I have heard, and anything more they have to present.
This committee needs to step up and immediately clarify this woman's testimony with testimony from the three men she spoke of.
Otherwise, they can hang it up. My God this is truely slander against Trump. He says it's not true, the three men involved say it's not true.
HOW? If she made this up, she slandered a former president. So you feel if it is proven she lied, we should believe anything she said?
I am not sure of your logic, is she credible in your eyes if she lied?
This always happens doesn't it? It's a credible witness, until it's not.
It's first hand information until it comes out that it's hearsay. It's video evidence until we find out that it's video evidence pieced together.
This "Hearing" is no different than any other witch hunt we've been caught up in since the day Trump announced that he was running.
A lot of people, including Republicans, never wanted him in D.C. and they will do everything within their power structure {which is massive} to end him and insure that he never makes a return.She clearly stated where the information came from. She clearly identified Tony Ornato who recounted the incident also in front of Engle who didn't comment at the time the story was being recounted. Wouldn't he have piped it in at that moment to say hey it really didn't happen that way?
If we don't we can assume she lied... It's that simple for me.
Do you have any interest whatsoever in getting a complete story or does just one side of the story suffice?
With each new piece of information introduced into this "Hearing", the public is often left with more questions than answers, is that okay with you?Well so far the only "side" that has been flushing out the facts are Republicans from inside Mr Trump's own administration.
Did you feel that Mr. Pence should have been hanged on January 6th? Mr. Trump said he did.You wouldn't have read anything that I've ever written, so I wouldn't expect you to know that I admire Mike Pence, always have, since my Tea Party days, which he was involved in by the way! So long before he was V.P., I have been a fan of Mike Pence.
NO FAYE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MIKE PENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG!
What is your problem? Are you just here to stir things up?ab: I think it's Hanged when referring to killing someone with a noose. Otherwise, you use hung.
"The past tense of hang in almost all situations is hung. You hung a picture on the wall, or you hung out at the mall. Only use hanged when referring to someone being sentenced to death via hanging."hmmmm...in the old westerns, they always hung em high, I missed the part where they hanged em high.
But, whatever, completely ignore my point, that's typical for you.
P.S. I was a Cruz supporter, Mike Pence being added to the ticket convinced me to take a closer look at Trump, I was not a fan, it took me some time to come around. Again, I've written about all of this.
When I realized what was being done to Trump from all directions throughout a corrupt Washington D.C. and MSM, I was way passed "coming around" to becoming fully engaged.
I not only fight for the smallest most helpless individuals, I fight for what I BELIEVE IN, not for what's dictated for me to accept or else....
That's fine, if everything is on the level and corroborated, if every t is crossed, every minute of video has been shown (not just bits and pieces) I will have the evidence I need to make up my own mind on what happened and what didn't happen on Jan. 6th. It took me a long time to come around on Trump. I didn't accept him just because the maga crowd did and I didn't loath him because the establishment crowd does. It took time.
"The United States Secret Service has been cooperating with the Select Committee since its inception in spring 2021, and will continue to do so, including by responding on the record to the Committee regarding the new allegations surfaced in today's testimony," Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement to CBS News.
The Secret Service has provided dozens of hours of testimony to the Jan. 6 committee so far, dating back to spring 2021.
Both Ornato and Engel have appeared before the committee on the record and behind closed doors, at the committee's request.Cassidy Hutchinson’s attorneys provide @NBCNews
the following statement on her behalf: “Ms. Hutchinson stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath, to the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.”
I was going to post something interesting about Ornato. When Pence refused to get in a Secret Service car... "I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."
Then, I just read this:
And also watched this interview.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/anthony-o … 3111237553
So Ornato better clarify under oath, and he needs Engels to back whatever version he has, to have some credibility.Really wondering why this would even have been brought out at the hearing. Whether Mr Trump lunged at his driver is really irrelevant. The committee has to have some other reason/motive for this information being a part of the hearing . I'm having difficulty recalling exactly but did Miss Cheney ask Cassidy Hutchinson directly about the event in the car being told by Mr. Ornato? Was this testimony elicited or it was somehow spontaneous by the witness?
Maybe so he get back to testify under oath so they can ask about other details? Rep. Murphy seems to imply that Ornato (purposely) didn't have ‘as clear of memories’ possibly because he is one of the witnesses that was warned by Trump people.
"LIZ CHENEY: As we've all just heard, in the days leading up to January 6th, on the day of the speech, both before and during and after the rally speech, President Trump was pushing his staff to arrange for him to come up here to the Capitol during the electoral vote count. Let's turn now to what happened in the president's vehicle when the Secret Service told him he would not be going to the Capitol after his speech.
She was asked directly about this by Ms. Cheney. You know that the committee knew exactly what her answer would be. I find it hard to believe that this group of highly skilled lawyers on the committee would make such a rudimentary mistake of asking a question to elicit information that hadn't been thoroughly checked out."Rep. Murphy seems to imply that Ornato (purposely) didn't have ‘as clear of memories’ possibly because he is one of the witnesses that was warned by Trump people.".
I sure would like to know if he received one of those messages.This is from Rueters;
Liz Cheney must have known there was going to the possibility of witness tampering.
At the end of about two hours of testimony, Representative Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the nine-member House panel, presented possible evidence of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Cheney showed messages to unidentified witnesses advising them that an unidentified person would be watching their testimony closely and expecting loyalty.
Republican Mick Mulvaney, who served as Trump's chief of staff before Meadows, tweeted: "There is an old maxim: it's never the crime, it's always the cover-up. Things went very badly for the former President today. My guess is that it will get worse from here."Liz Cheney must have known there was going to the possibility of witness tampering with Cassidy's testimony.
This is from Rueters;
At the end of about two hours of testimony, Representative Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the nine-member House panel, presented possible evidence of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Cheney showed messages to unidentified witnesses advising them that an unidentified person would be watching their testimony closely and expecting loyalty.
Republican Mick Mulvaney, who served as Trump's chief of staff before Meadows, tweeted: "There is an old maxim: it's never the crime, it's always the cover-up. Things went very badly for the former President today. My guess is that it will get worse from here."How I see it, and what is being reported by many respectable media outlets this morning --- the committee did not vet this woman's information, they took her at her word.
There is new information on the note that she presented, and claimed she wrote.
"The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”
Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Meadows, testified publicly that she was sure she had written the note and that it featured her handwriting."
https://www.aol.com/news/cassidy-hutchi … 50038.html
Not sure what today will bring. However, it well appears this young woman's information was not vetted, and the committee needs to walk back some of her testimony, which they very well might.
I will walk back, and give them time to respond before sharing my thoughts on the quilt.
Resisting the urge to argue with the Republicans reflexively defending Trump & downplaying Cassidy’s testimony.
He’s ALL yours, folks. Enjoy. Those of us who knew him & worked under him have warned you. It’s on you for continuing to support him.
- Alyssa Farah GriffinThe other side refused to participate. What I can't believe is that there are people who ever put faith in Trump from the moment he slithered down that escalator. That they still do is deplorable.
Greg Gutfield has the perfect column about this.
*WARNING Do not read the following unless you have a sense of humor.
"Greg Gutfeld: Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the January 6 Committee about something she 'didn't see'
So about that steering wheel story. It was a bombshell, all right, minus the shell part, just like all those other anti-Trump bombshells.
At the Jan 6 hearing yesterday, a star witness no one ever heard of testified about something she didn't see, which right there makes her testimony as legitimate as smoke signals from Liz Warren. So what's the gist? That is then President Donald Trump was being driven back to the White House after the January 6 rally. He demanded the car pull over, so he could snack on an injured dog on the side of the road. Yeah, it was a Pekinese, which he then slathered in ketchup and devoured with his bare bloody hands. Donald Jr. was laughing in the back seat. Yeah, well, she was told that anyway.
Actually, she was told that on the way to the rally, Donald Trump stripped naked, declared himself the King of Siam, and then proceeded to randomly type out all of Shakespeare's plays on a Smith Corona word processor he borrowed from his good friend and mentor Adolf Hitler, who isn't really dead but lives in a shampoo bottle in Mar-a-Lago pool houses. Yeah, maybe that's a bit much.
But her claims are even less believable. She claims she was told that Trump actually tried to grab the steering wheel from a Secret Service agent. The verb used, "lunge," he lunged. Yes, lunged, the thing my personal trainer makes me do, by holding my daiquiri out of arm's reach, about eight inches.
But yeah, Trump apparently crawled out through the back window of The Beast. The Beast, which is the codename for the presidential limo, as well as Hillary Clinton. Shuffled across the roof, then slid down in through the driver's side window to grab the wheel while screaming, "screw the guns, let Jesus take the wheel." Sounds real, right? Good thing we have a Republican there to keep it all on the up and up. I kid.
But it's odd how Liz Cheney has become the vindictive ex-wife that Donald Trump never knew he had. She's now a screech owl with a fake serenity of a Stepford wife. Guys don't remember, "The Stepford Wives"?
Anyway, so the people who spent four years telling you Trump was so out of shape, he that he had one foot in the grave and the other on a packet of mayo, now want you to believe he can slither around a moving vehicle like he's Jackie Chan. Still, the press inhaled the hearsay like it was parfait.
CNN: The president is in real trouble, not least for assaulting his Secret Service agent.
MSNBC: This is where I confess that I cannot recall ever having heard another example of a president trying to physically hijack his own motorcade.
CNN: To grab the steering wheel. I mean, is dangerous, dangerous act and then whatever to grab the Secret Service agent. I mean, this is beyond... That Trump was the wrong man for the job.
MSNBC: That's going to stick for a lot of people. You know, the President of the United States, you know, attacking a Secret Service agent.
Attacking! The media hasn't been this excited about an attack since, you know who? Jussie, you're back. Of course, like Smollett stinky tail, just wait it out the story comes apart like a cheese steak dropped in a hot tub. I told him it was a cheese steak.
EMILY COMPAGNO: Oh, my God.
SOUTH DAKOTA GOV. KRISTI NOEM: Oh, gosh.
Sorry, Governor.
SOUTH DAKOTA GOV. KRISTI NOEM: Yeah.
First, our very own David Spunt, which is the past tense of spat, confirms that on background, both men implicated in this anecdote dispute the lunge, and it's not just us, NBC's Peter Alexander also says a source close to the Secret Service says, "both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the driver, are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the... wheel." Then there's ABC's John Santucci, sources tell him the Secret Service will push back against, "any allegation of an assault" or "Trump reaching for the... wheel." Nor did he suddenly grow eight-foot rubber arms like he was in The Fantastic Four.
Finally, CNN admits, yes an official denied saying an agent told Hutchinson this story. Yes, even CNN. I mean, when you lose CNN, you know, you lose CNN and its remaining 12 viewers. Actually, it's one viewer, but it goes by the pronoun they.
There's more dispute over what Hutchinson claims, something about a note she says she wrote but didn't, maybe, I don't know. We could go into it, but we'd get a more believable driving story from Paul Pelosi. It's all cloaked in overwrought theater and not even good theater like you see on Broadway, but community theater, like a play your Aunt Margaret has the lead in, Margaret. Which is why the hearing is a joke.
It was a one-sided charade that undermines everything presented. It's why no one watches it unless it's force-fed to them by the media. They thought a heavily produced special created by an ABC producer with surprise cameos featuring people you never heard of would blow your minds. But it failed, like a remake of "The Love Boat." Even testimony from Charo can't save them. I'm old.
Honestly, how much of this guy do you need to see? You know, if I were cynical, I'd say he's a useful idiot, a glutton for strange new respect from his temporary liberal pals. He always looks like he's about to burst into tears. What does Kinzinger mean in German anyway? Karen?
You know, he should save that face when he gets a job driving Liz Cheney to MSNBC. Yeah, poor Liz. A fatal attraction level stalker who just can't get over President Trump. Which reminds me, Donald, hide the bunny. These references, they're so old. Mm. I get them, though, and that's all that matters.
Watching it reminded me of that game we played as kids, where you sat in a circle and whispered something to the person next to you until it went all the way around the circle, and by the end it was totally different than what was whispered at the start. I think it was called Spin the Bottle.
But that's what hearsay is, and I'm not even saying it's false. Why bother when the committee is false in the truest sense of the word? It's the big red bow on the box of corruption brought to you by the same clowns that created hoaxes for six years. It prepped hearsay, steeped in heavily produced propaganda. Seriously, I keep waiting to hear a director yell, "cut, let's do that again with a little more feeling Adam."
And it's designed not to uncover truth, but to distract you from the real truth the crime, inflation, immigration, all the things this administration fails us on, on a massive scale. But we see through it like a condom stretched over a flashlight. I don't know how I know. But the fact is, we know Trump, we know Trump has a temper. I still remember the wedgie he gave me after I replaced his Diet Coke with Pepsi. I've never been lifted that high in my life. I'm so happy. The fact is they created a show trial but forgot to bring the show. And now their honesty is on trial. To which I say, lock them up.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/greg-gutf … -committeeI love Gutfeld's sense of humor, he has brought funny back to late night.
Although he isn't anything like Rush Limbaugh, you have to give him time, in order to appreciate his unique personality/sense of humor/style, it was the same with Rush!
I am with Gutfeld, this "Hearing" aka: show trial, is one big joke!!
Are you familiar with the Mark Kaye show Mike? Check out his radio production of 'The Trump and the Furious'. You can find it on YouTube.
Too funny!!!AOL --- https://www.aol.com/news/cassidy-hutchi … 50038.html
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”
Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Meadows, testified publicly that she was sure she had written the note and that it featured her handwriting."
It would seem all this woman's statements need to be investigated. before the committee presents any more witnesses. It's becoming clear,(and being reported by several media outlets) that her testimony was not checked out for truth.Sharlee: It's interesting that you post one part of the article that supports your agenda, but you left out this part of your article.
"But parts of Hutchinson’s testimony involving Trump’s car ride back to the White House after his Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse have been validated by others. One person close to the Secret Service said that “there are very important pieces of the testimony that are out there that [agency officials] have no issue with. … We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees.”
Trump indeed wanted to go to the Capitol after the rally and was barred from doing so by the Secret Service: “He was not pleased to hear that, but there was no escalation of any type of assault on that,” this person said.
"Hutchinson testified that she did not directly witness the alleged altercation and was clear that her knowledge was second-hand. Instead, she told the panel that after Trump’s Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, she returned to the White House where Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato relayed an account from Bobby Engel, Trump’s head of security, who was also in the room."I was just trying to bring up the fact that another piece of her testimony was questionable. I think we all know she admittedly was careful and admittedly claimed her testimony was gleaned as second-hand information. She was very astute and careful to state that she"overheard" or gave statements that she claimed she was told by". I feel she was clear in that regard.
The post you responded to was just a clear-cut report with actual names, on another piece of her testimony that someone was disputing, claiming that the note she offered as her own, was not her memo but his handwriting, and a note he composed.
I have read several reports that the two secret service men that were in that car claimed they would testify under both that her story is not true. It would be best to hear from these women, and they can give testimony on anything that happened on the ride back to the White House. ( the Secret service also has put out a statement they will completely cooperate with the investigation).
I am unsure of the rest of the article due to the very paragraph you added
"But parts of Hutchinson’s testimony involving Trump’s car ride back to the White House after his Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse have been validated by others. One person close to the Secret Service said that “there are very important pieces of the testimony that are out there that [agency officials] have no issue with. … We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees.”
Please note there are no names added to this statement. We have heard from the two agents in the limo, they are willing to testify. These anonymous persons were not in the car. I don't care for unsubstantiated reports.
I feel when making such a statement the outlet needs to need to produce names when making such an accusation.
If you note the paragraphs I quoted give names, these people are willing to step up in the light of day, offer information, and stand behind the information.
As has been done in this paragraph ---
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”
Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Meadows, testified publicly that she was sure she had written the note and that it featured her handwriting."
It would seem all this woman's statements need to be investigated. before the committee presents any more witnesses. It's becoming clear,(and being reported by several media outlets) that her testimony was not checked out for truth."
Your paragraph mentions faceless people, with second-hand information. This is not the kind of information I find credible. I find it gossip, and actually unfair.
So, this is the reason I did not add the second-hand information, it lacked names. It seemed to me the journalist was biased and found it necessary to toss in a bit of unconfirmed feed for liberals. It is very clear this goes over big with some.
ME, not so much.It's actually kind of cool - Engel tells Ornato who then tells Hutchinson who tells a biased committee who shows it to the world. Only 5 "people" in the chain - surely that will promote Truth and Reality without question! (Sarcasm, in case it didn't come through.)
Just think of how many people we could jail if the actual eyewitness was not required to testify, only someone who heard the tale third or fourth hand. Ever play "telephone" with a group of people?Just think of the complete picture we could have if those in Mr Trump's inner circle would stop defying subpoenas and taking the fifth.
Just think of how many current testimonies would be denied under a committee that wasn't biased or one sided. Imagine how it would have gone had a defense been permitted instead of just finding people (all of whom hate Trump) to tell a story.
One must ask (at least I do) just why MSM is involved, right from the early planning down to putting this dog and pony show on Prime Time. If it is Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth we're being shown we don't need to have it shoved down our throats by experts in spinning the truth into what it isn't.finding people (all of whom hate Trump)
I guess after working for him, knowing his true self and learning all of his actions, they have no option but to hate him, huh?That is, of course, their decision. I doubt I could work for the man (personally I don't like him), but apparently thousands do just fine, albeit with a "middleman" between them and Trump.
One can only imagine. I for one am done with this committee, my attitude changed with Hutchensin, and the fact it looks as if these three secret services will not be called to testify. Just taints the committee's way of pursuing thestamony. I mean has or will any of it be vetted?
In response to Herschmann's claim, a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee said, "The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson's account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building."
"The note memorialized this," the committee spokesperson said. "But Mr. Trump did not take that action at the time."
Is anyone challenging the central material facts of her testimony: that Donald Trump and Mark Meadows were perfectly aware that there were armed people in the crowd on Jan. 6.?
For example, the truly important and central assertions have not been challenged.
When she said that Donald Trump was aware that there were people armed and he was frustrated that they were being kept out of the main crowd of his rally because of the metal detectors. And that he wanted the metal detectors out so his people could get in. He wasn't afraid of these people because they weren't going to hurt him. That's an extraordinary revelation. I've heard no challenge to that or anything else she said.IT is once again this woman's second-hand information. She claimed to: overhear a conversation. I have not heard that statement being shot down by anyone.
Although there was this morning --
https://www.aol.com/news/cassidy-hutchi … 50038.html
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a Herschmann spokesperson said. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann.”
Hutchinson, who had served as a top aide to Meadows, testified publicly that she was sure she had written the note and that it featured her handwriting."
So what is true and what is not? Her testimony is tarnished, and the committee needs to clarify, and prove they vetted her testimony.
Otherwise, this leaves a huge shadow over everything she said, and the investigation itself.
Like I thought, the reason for the surprise hearing was mainly the threats made to some of the witnesses. Also, is apparent that they caught some that maybe lied or omitted information when they testified. Her testimony made some people to come forward to clarify/correct previous testimony. More people will do too.
Why It Was Critical To Hold A Surprise Hearing For Hutchinson's Testimony - Rep. Adam Kinzinger
https://youtu.be/b-kPUFN5cVE?t=108Based on this statement from Liz Cheney, I think the committee knew there was the possibility of witness tampering. If the Engel and Ornato are given the opportunity to testify and they don't come forward, that pretty much tells the story.
"While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness—and we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern," explained Cheney, vice chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
"Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they've been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony,"
Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House aide, told the House January 6 committee that she was contacted by someone attempting to influence her testimony, three sources familiar with the hearing
Hutchinson's security was a grave concern of the committee leading up to their hearing. It was part of why they kept her identity secret leading up to the meeting.And that is as illegal as attempting to influence the vote of a Supreme Court Justice. Want to bet they won't try to find, and punish, those influencing Hutchinson, but not those attempting to influence Kavanaugh and the others?
Classic Trumpism. Another classic is Whataboutism, but I don't think they'll be able to use that one this time.
The House Jan. 6 committee announced Tuesday that its next public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 12 at 10 a.m. Eastern.
The committee has not yet announced a focus, or if there will be any witnesses.
Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff said on "Face the Nation" Sunday that the committee will be "following additional leads".
Could it be Sarah Matthews?
After Hutchinson's testimony, Sarah Matthews, who served as deputy press secretary in the Trump White House until resigning shortly after the January 6 attack, tweeted that "anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson's role or her access in the West Wing either doesn't understand how the Trump [White House] worked or is attempting to discredit her because they're scared of how damning this testimony is."
Matthews has been subpoenaed by committee and has agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. The former White house aide has been subpoenaed to testify at a public hearing as early as next week, according to sources.I am sure someone will surface with a tale to tell.
" Sarah Matthews, who served as deputy press secretary in the Trump White House until resigning shortly after the January 6 attack, tweeted that "anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson's role or her access in the West Wing either doesn't understand how the Trump [White House] worked or is attempting to discredit her because they're scared of how damning this testimony is."
It is true that some of the media are seeking to discredit her. However, I don't think we need a co-worker to vouch for her. We need to hear from the two secret services that were in the limo with the president on Jan 6th to clarify Hutchinson's teastamony. This could easily put an end to what is being reported in regard to Hutchinson's testimony.
It sounds like the committee is trying to say "look here, not there' with Ms.Matthews. I certainly do not doubt Hutchinson's work role or that she had access in the West Wing. The committee needs to back up and just clarify her testimony with those that were in the limo and can offer first-hand testimony. All they need to do is take testimony from the two servicemen she
claimed her account of what happened in the limo.
No need for a personal reference on Hutchinson. In my view, her testimony is damming if not substantiated by first-hand witnesses.
The committee is now trying to muddy the water with --- look over here -- not over there.
These two secret servicemen are willing to provide sworn testimony. Time for this committee either produce a previous testament from these men or let them testify live in a hearing, as they did with Hutchinson.Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to testify before the House January 6 Commission in a private meeting on Friday, Fox News has confirmed.
Reports had indicated that Cipollone was subpoenaed for an interview that would be transcribed.
Cipollone was White House counsel under the Trump administration. His interview comes after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the committee that Cipollone was concerned that if Trump's January 6 rally led to a march on the Capitol, it would create legal exposure for possible criminal charges such as obstruction or inciting a riot.Cipollone met with the committee for nearly eight hours on Friday.
Cipollone took 70 minutes' worth of breaks from the interview with his counsel in a separate conference room throughout the day. His appearance Friday is the result of months of negotiations between his lawyers and the January 6 panel about what topics can be discussed. He had previously met with the committee informally in April.
"The Secret Service is doubling down on its denial of an alleged altercation between former President Trump and his security detail on Jan. 6 of last year, providing a rare defense of Trump’s actions that day amid mounting evidence that he tried to orchestrate a coup from the White House.
The extraordinary anecdote of a clash in the presidential SUV — recounted last week in public testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson — has received outsized attention in the days since then.
The narrative has sparked a quick denial from the agents involved, prompted Trump loyalists to attack Hutchinson’s broader credibility and frustrated Trump critics who want to focus on the bigger picture, not least of all Trump’s desire to join hundreds of supporters in marching on the Capitol to contest his election defeat.
Through backchannels, the Secret Service has confirmed Trump’s eagerness to join the protesters at the Capitol, a number of whom would go on to storm the building in a violent effort to block Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory.
“There’s a lot of what Ms. Hutchinson said that is true. Certainly [Trump] wanted to go to the Capitol, that much we know. He said that publicly, he reiterated that inside the car,” a source close to the Secret Service told The Hill on Tuesday.
But the agency has also pushed back on Hutchinson’s account that Trump lunged for the SUV’s steering wheel, and then toward the neck of Secret Service agent Robert Engel, after being told he was going back to the Oval Office — and not to the Capitol — following his defiant speech on the Ellipse.
Those acts of aggression, Hutchinson said, were relayed to her at the White House shortly after the rally by Tony Ornato, who upset Secret Service tradition by temporarily serving as Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations. Engel was in the room during that conversation, she added, and did not dispute the details.
Both Ornato and Engel, who remain active Secret Service agents, have said they are willing to testify under oath to dispute Hutchinson’s narrative, even as they have refused to speak publicly about it. The unnamed driver, the agency has signaled, is also denying her account.
“Ornato is a red herring,” the source said, noting that he was in his office at the time and not at the rally.
“There are three people in that vehicle: Bobby Engel, President Trump and the limo driver,” the source said, and both agents are “saying that did not happen.”
In denying Hutchinson’s second-hand account, the traditionally taciturn Secret Service has stepped into a firestorm of political controversy, lending ammunition to Trump’s allies, who are playing up the dispute in an effort to discredit all of Hutchinson’s testimony.
“The sham committee’s star witness is already discredited less than 24 hours after her testimony,” said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.). “It was all hearsay.”
Yet in the context of the broader charges accumulating against Trump — including the explosive allegation that he sent an armed crowd to the Capitol to block the peaceful transfer of power — the Secret Service dispute is largely a diversion.
“It’s really important to remember for people to focus on what is legally significant, and not get distracted by the drama of stories about things like throwing plates of ketchup or whether the former president actually tried to grab the steering wheel and assault the head of the Secret Service crew,” said Catherine Ross, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University Law School."
“None of that is material to the question of whether he should be indicted and whether he could be convicted.”
Hutchinson is not the only one under scrutiny. In the days since her testimony, a number of Republicans have also emerged to question the credibility of Ornato.
One aide to former Vice President Mike Pence pointed to Ornato refuting a Washington Post account of a conversation in which Pence national security adviser Keith Kellogg warned against Ornato acting to remove the vice president from the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“Those of us who worked w/ Tony know where his loyalties lie,” Olivia Troye, a former Pence adviser and high-profile critic of Trump, wrote in sharing the article. “He should testify under oath.”
Alyssa Farah, a former White House director of strategic communications, also complained that Ornato denied a conversation in which she said she urged him to warn the press before chemical irritants were used to clear a park near the White House in 2020.
“There seems to be a major thread here… Tony Ornato likes to lie,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) one of two Republican members of the committee, said on Twitter, pointing to Farah’s tweet.
Members of the select committee are also downplaying the disagreement over the SUV episode, racing to Hutchinson’s defense and pointing to the numerous, damning first-hand accounts she also delivered during last week’s hearing.
“The committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the select committee, told ABC News’s Jonathan Karl over the weekend. “And so we look forward very much to additional testimony under oath on a whole range of issues.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of the investigative panel, delivered a similar message.
“She has nothing to gain by stepping forward and telling the truth. And Trump World has everything to lose by the truth,” Lofren told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Lofgren said Ornato has already talked to the committee behind closed doors under oath. And “if he wants to come back and clarify his prior information, he will also be under oath.”
“I think it’s a mistake to focus on whether or not he was lying to Ms. Hutchinson when he relayed that story,” she quickly added. “The fact is the president knew his crowd was armed.”
The attacks on Hutchinson, some coming from lawmakers who are themselves implicated in the investigation, have energized Trump loyalists amid gripes from the former president that the Republicans’ decision to boycott the probe has left Trump with no defenders on the select committee.
Banks had been tapped by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to serve as the ranking member of the investigative panel. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused to seat him — along with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — after Banks vowed to use the position to investigate Biden’s response to the Capitol attack. Biden was not president at the time.
In response to Pelosi, McCarthy pulled all five of his GOP picks from the panel, allowing the Democrats’ nine selections — all of them fierce Trump critics — to run the show unimpeded.
“This is the Russia hoax playbook,” said Banks. “Democrats’ media allies are simply repeating their outrageous and evidence-free accusations.”
Hutchinson’s legal team has said she stands by her account, emphasizing that she provided testimony under oath — four times behind closed doors, and then again publicly last week.
“Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told,” her lawyer, Jody Hunt, wrote on Twitter last week. “Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath.”
https://www.aol.com/news/secret-denial- … 08264.htmlSeriously? This is what you think is worth 1,000 words of copy? Ignoring all the rest, are we?
To be honest, I am now very much concerned about this woman's entire testimony It's odd how you feel I did not believe "all the rest". I certainly made or have made mention of the other witnesses that the committee presented. I found all other witnesses very credible giving firsthand information, with the benefit of having others that we're able to confirm their testimony due to being in the room and hearing the same thing. Plus there has been no one coming forward to call their testimony untrue.
So, yes, it is well worth 1,000 words to bring this article to any HP users that are interested in these three men continuing to stand by their first-hand information in regard to what went on in that car. Why, have you found it so easy to ignore them? So, hypocritical, but worth a good laugh.
I would assume when you say "we are" you are speaking for others here? Not really sure this is appropriate, but I am sure there are a few here that have ignored the secret service men that claim this Hutchenson is not being truthful... You see in my view, the liberal mind is predictable and does seem to work pretty much the same. So I think most likely you can speak for a few here. But maybe not all.
It would be interesting to know why you feel this woman's word is any better than three secret service men?
"Every Trump investigation the Democrats have pursued was 'What abouts'." A whatabout is when one party states a grievance and the other party offers an example of the first party doing the same thing. There is no equivalent to Jan. 6. (or two impeachments, or losing the popular vote twice, or 4,000 lies while holding the highest office in the land, or refusing to participate in a peaceful transfer of power, or fulfilling your role as a current president by attending your successor's inauguration.)
https://youtu.be/8XNWsLAM1bI
C-SPAN - January 6th Committee Seventh Public Hearing
Scheduled for 7/12/22, 1:00 PM"Consider how millions of Americans were persuaded to believe what Donald Trump’s closest advisors in his administration did not. These Americans did not have access to the truth... "
IslandBites: I agree with you, half of this country won't even watch the hearings because they have been led to believe by Fox and MAGA news, it is a dog and pony show. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But in my view, Trump and his supporters who still believe the election was stolen are suffering from willful ignorance and I really feel sorry for them. Because as you say, these people did not have access to the real truth.Yes, I agree. It was a quote from Liz Cheney.
I'll add, they dont want access to the truth. Like you said, willful ignorance (maybe most of them, some just agree with what was done.)
"It makes me doubt what I have heard" There is nothing in these hearings that any reasonable person didn't already know and abhor about Trump and the role he played in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Former President Donald Trump tried to call a member of the White House support staff who was talking to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The support staffer was not someone who routinely communicated with the former President and was concerned about the contact, according to the sources, and informed their attorney.
The call was made after former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified publicly to the committee. The White House staffer was in a position to corroborate part of what Hutchinson had said under oath, according to the sources.Secret Service deleted text messages ahead of Jan. 6 riot, says IG
The inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified lawmakers that the U.S. Secret Service had deleted text messages on Jan. 5, 2021 and on the day of the Capitol riot itself after they had been formally requested by investigators.
“The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6,” Cuffari continued.
The letter said DHS officials had told the OIG that the could not provide records directly to the inspector general until they were reviewed by lawyers.
“Second, DHS personnel have repeatedly told OIG inspectors that they were not permitted to provide records directly to OIG and that such records had to first undergo review by DHS attorneys. This review led to weeks-long delays in OIG obtaining records and created confusion over whether all records had been produced,” he added.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … t-says-ig/It stinks.
If you look at it from an objective point of view it's clear as water that the riots on the 6th of January was a coup d'état.
The US has organized many coups in different countries which led to war crimes and dictatorships.
But if a coup d'état happens in the US (starting with a campaign to put a layer of doubt on the rightful winner of the election followed by agrasive verbal violence against politicians and an assault on the main government building) people try to downplay it by calling it a demonstration gone wrong.
But no, it's simply a violent and illegal coup, an attempt of a power grab by the losing party and head figure Donald Trump.
If it was not Trump's idea to put the violent coup in place, he should have acted on the 6th and called back his supporters at the moment they entered the Capitol. But he didn't and he let it happen. And this means he approved it.
Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, an ally of former President Donald Trump, testified behind closed doors before the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, for nearly eight hours on Friday.
Byrne played an active role supporting efforts to question and push baseless claims about the 2020 election, including attending a meeting in mid-December at the White House to discuss strategies to overturn the election.
That meeting with Trump also included former national security adviser Michael Flynn and his lawyer Sidney Powell, as well as some White House staff. It focused on ideas to block Joe Biden's certification as president and discussed the prospect of seizing voting machines.Objective?!? There has been nothing objective from the left since the day Donald Trump made the decision to come into D.C., upsetting their applecart.
To this day, the focus must remain on digging something.....anything, up on Trump, so as not to have us look to closely at the pathetic excuse for a President, we have been saddled with.
What an embarrassment he is, so we must keep searching for all hearsay, innuendo and yes, lies are fine too, from a time long past, so that the focus remains on everything but the coffin being closed on us!
Time to move on from this and attempt to get back to fixing this country of ours ASAP!Time to move on? The assault on The Capital is one of the biggest "events" in modern US history. It was a failed coup d'etat and you want to move on!
You want to dismiss terrorism, threats to politicians, the gallows for Mike Pence outside The Capital and move on!
No. This was a highly dangerous day for the democracy of the US. And Trump did nothing to stop his loyal followers. He had plenty of time and saw the images live. So why did he not tweet and calm down the crowd?
He was the only person in the US to stop it from happening, but he did not. He let t happen. Why? Why did he not stop the assault?Do you think the handful of instigators, there for one reason and one reason only that day...to incite the crowd, would have responded to a tweet? Seriously?
It is heartbreaking that one person died that day, a staunch Trump supporter.
I don't think that anyone anticipated that unarmed people would be shot at!
Have they touched on that, in the "Hearings"?
Yes, I repeat, it is time to move on from this.
But, alas, we will not, because that would leave too much time for the people to digest what a horrible hand we've been dealt, with the fiasco that is Joe Biden.
Give me mean tweets any day of the week over what we are stuck with now!It is speculation to say if the crowd would respond yes or no.
But Trump did not even try! Why not?
If you are in a position to prevent a disaster and do nothing you are complicit in the disaster.
Biden is not the theme of the discussion. To finger point to him and his wrongdoings does not make 1/6 better. (I will probably agree on many things what Biden is doing is a disaster, but that's not the discussion)I must [point something put, and I have thought about this from the day it happened. I don't feel Trump would have ever suspected
there would be no violence that day, or he would not have wanted to walk with his supporters to protest.
The entire Capitol protest was blown into something it was never meant to be. After the fact, we now know two trouble-making gropes came to make trouble, and they did. Many were arrested, and those that broke the law were charged.
This small bunch of agitators did not shoot a gun, they did not even do that much property damage.
Trump did tweet, and he did make a statement on TV.
I have seen no proof that Trump planned or even thought a riot would occur when he told his supporters to match peacefully to the Capitol, My God he was going to march with them and was angry when the secret service would not let him.
This is a sick witchhunt, no insurrection occurred or was one planned.
IT was an unlawful riot, that ended in one support being shot, some broken windows, and minor types of vandalism.
So, sick of the lack of common sense that many people have bought into.Hi Sarlee,
thank you for your honest answer.
I think that even if Trump never suspected it (Which I doubt.) he still had the means to stop it as he could follow the assault on The Capitol live. But he did nothing at all, and did not condemn it directly afterward in strong words.
The problem is because he advocated a fake election result he didn't and couldn't intervene. It was his stand against the election result that resulted in the people going violently into the building. He tweeted constantly over the election fraud, and people believed him. So when people attacked The Capitol they did this because they had the same belief in the fake election result as Trump. Concluding Trump was with them in spirit and caused the atmosphere to rise to such a point that people started to attack The Capitol. Donald Trump was unable to call them back as he had created the motivation. The belief that the election was a fraud. It was the result of a lie he constantly repeated. And therefore he is guilty of sedition imo.
I can not see it as an ordinary riot, because it was not an ordinary street shop or house that was forcefully broken in. It was the most important political building in the US that was attacked. Therefore it's a political act and not just a robbery or vandalism. It is an attack against democracy.
How many more dogs and ponies are scheduled to be shown, before we can put them and this big show, to bed?
Wow... this is still being dragged on?
I guess even the "news" has gotten tired of it, I hadn't heard anything about it in a couple of weeks.
There is a calm, a sanity that comes with ignoring MSM "news"... but even I catch the highlights and headlines most of the time.Welcome back ! Yes, it would seem it still has O2 here on HP. Although I don't see much of this being talked about on social media.
Too much more to talk about, the economy, crime, and all the rest.
What have gleaned from the hearings I did watch was once again hearings about --- "Trump said this, or I heard someone say this".Thank you, thought I'd drop in to see what was new on HP...
Not much...
So is it about blaming Trump after all.... or as the NSA says... that the new threat to America is Americans?You got it, not much. The forum is all but dead. As always it's about stirring up hate before the Nov elections.
The ratings on these hearings are very poor, and I expect will get even worse.In my opinion, the J-6 committee needs merely an audience of one: Merrick Garland
For all you naysayers out there who think the Jan. 6 committee is a dog and pony show. After doing research on the framers of the constitution, here is what I learned.
The framers were afraid of two kinds of threats to the newly formed union: The threat of tyranny from higher levels of governments, foreign powers or monarchs, and the threat of mob rule.. Therefore, they designed the constitution to be able to protect against these types of threats at both levels.
The senate would have members who represented the states. They were aristocratic, elite land owners who had connections with foreign governments and entities and could forewarn of threats at that level.
The house of representative would be made up of folks who represented the newly formed states and could forewarn of any mob rule.
The third level was the 2nd amendment which gave all the people the right to bear arms against any type of threat by forming a well regulated militia. At this point the Continental Army had been disbanded. Therefore a well regulated militia was needed.
Fast forward to Jan. 6 and you have a former president who can't accept the fact that he lost an election. He summoned a mob, some of whom were armed, with the intention of obstructing the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president They did this by trying to interrupt the certification process and replace real electoral votes with fake ones. Thank God, he was not successful.
If this would have been during the time of the framers, the 2nd amendment would have given the right to the people to bear arms, form a well regulated militia and take out this insurrectionist mob who was a threat to The Constitution of The United States of America.
Make no mistake, Trump is guilty of mob rule with the intention of obstructing the peaceful transfer of power to the next president. If Trump had not been there on Jan. 6, there would be no mob rule. They only left after Trump told them to go home. Therefore, he was in full control of the mob. The rest of this is academic..
Please correct me if you think I am wrong. Just a note.. The 2nd amendment is just an artifact left over from those early days of protecting the union from tyranny because they did not have a formal military.
We are still are stuck in the notion that we need everybody to bear arms and form a well regulated militia to protect us from tyranny. Even though we live in modern times. But that is another story for another time...Stay tuned.
What have gleaned from the hearings I did watch was once again hearings about --- "Trump said this, or I heard someone say this".
That wasnt what you said before.
I guess it depends on who is the person you're talking to, huh?
Love it Ken!
We have sold our home and are currently 'unsettled', deciding what comes next! Like you, I hear bits and pieces of this and that, here and there. It is adequate!
But, my true interest and passion right now, a scheduled trip to the Fla. Keys.
Hope all is well with you.You as well, enjoy the trip.
I live in Florida.
One of the few places where the "Left" has not made much of an imprint.
Similar to how the winters seem to have a lack of effect down here.
So long as both winter weather and Left-wing lunacy is kept at bay, there is still a State within the United States I'm willing to call home.
But I'd be fine leaving and never looking back, plenty of sane places with good weather left in the world.
The committee announced Friday that it would hold the hearing on Thursday, July 21 at 8 p.m. ET -- the panel's second prime-time session.
Former Trump White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews is expected to be a witness.
The committee is also likely to lean heavily on video clips from the deposition of Pat Cipollone, Trump's former White House counsel.Okay let's forget Biden for a moment {if only we could} who made a plea for the National Guard to be present that day and who thought it wouldn't be necessary OR knew it would be necessary, but wanted the chaos?
A government memo about the events leading up to Jan. 6, statements from Pelosi’s office and the Pentagon and testimony from the former House sergeant-at-arms show Trump did not request 10,000 troops ahead of the rally.
This has been fact-checked six ways to Sunday
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 929215002/I read this
"May 12 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.
According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congre … 021-05-12/
I wonder if the Jan 6th committee has interviewed Miller? Seems he has pertinent information.
Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.
Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.
Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congre … 021-05-12/
Who's job would it have been to pursue the troops the president felt were necessary?The decision on whether to call National Guard troops to the Capitol is made by the Capitol Police Board, which is made up of the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol. The board decided not to call the guard ahead of the insurrection but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun, and the troops arrived several hours later.
There’s still no record of any such authorization being made, or of Pelosi standing in the way. The D.C. National Guard reports "solely to the president of the United States," per its website.
"No congressional official, or body, has the authority to activate the National Guard to the U.S. Capitol. Only the president," added Jane. L Campbell, president and CEO of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. "If the president calls the National Guard to the U.S. Capitol, no congressional official has the authority to decline its service."
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542Writers Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix, in an article published by Just Security, argue that the National Guard was "restrained" by the Pentagon because of fears that then-President Donald Trump would "invoke the Insurrection Act."
"One of the most vexing questions about January 6 is why the National Guard took more than three hours to arrive at the Capitol after D.C. authorities and Capitol Police called for immediate assistance," Goodman and Hendrix explain. "The Pentagon's restraint in allowing the Guard to get to the Capitol was not simply a reflection of officials' misgivings about the deployment of military force during the summer 2020 protests; nor was it simply a concern about 'optics' of having military personnel at the Capitol. Instead, evidence is mounting that the most senior defense officials did not want to send troops to the Capitol because they harbored concerns that President Donald Trump might utilize the forces' presence in an attempt to hold onto power."
In terms of Mr.Miller:
Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of the Defense on Jan. 6, told the Department’s inspector general that he feared “if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.” In congressional testimony, he said he was also cognizant of “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner” and that “factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/79623/cris … january-6/Trump is guilty of mob rule with the intention of obstructing the peaceful transfer of power to the next president. If Trump had not been there on Jan. 6, there would be no mob rule. They only left after Trump told them to leave. Therefore, he was in full control of the mob. He told them when to march to the capitol and fight like hell and then he told them when to leave.
Mob rule is one of the threats the framers of the constitution were afraid of and Trump has violated the constitution in that regard. Trump had fake electoral slates standing by to replace the real electoral slates.
Therefore, he wanted an insurrection and a revolution. More than likely he didn't even know what he was getting into. He was ill advised by his own people, but he should have known better.
But that is what you get with a master con-artist who has no knowledge of how the constitution and the government work. He took an oath to uphold the constitution, but he didn't on Jan. 6"They only left after Trump told them to leave. Therefore, he was in full control of the mob"
Your logic is sadly lacking. While the first sentence is true, and the assumption in the second may be true, the logic of the therefore does not follow. Correlation does not equal causation.
You cannot even prove that the rioters heard Trump's message, let alone that it was what convinced them to leave.Wilderness:
Then why did they leave right after he told them to leave?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_JxN9C … hannel=CNNI have the hangup of assuming Trump would in no respect have wanted to go to the Capitol with his supporters, if he thought he would be in danger, in the middle of a riot.
In no respect do I feel he planned any form of insurrection? The Democrats and the media have clearly concocted this insurrection BS.
And all once again due to Trump's words.You cannot even prove that the rioters heard Trump's message, let alone that it was what convinced them to leave.
Are you sure?
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/ … Yu0zhXgnFwI don't see anything in your link proving rioters (all the thousands of them) heard Trump tell them to leave. Or even one of them. Was it supposed to?
Question --- Do you feel Trump would have wanted to go to the Capitol with the protesters if he thought there would be violence, would he as an older man put himself in that kind of danger?
When I look at the situation and use a bit of common sense, I would say he in no respect thought his supporters would attack the Capitol.
So, how would he be responsible for what they did?
One could certainly say his words for many months provoked anger in some, but is he responsible for others' actions?
Is this a crime?His "words" were lies though. His words were debunked by his own staff, the DOJ and 62 judges. Willful ignorance is not a defense.
I'd say he is vulnerable to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and obstructing a congressional proceeding.Were they lies to him, are you sure of that? He seemed very much obsessed with his fraud accusations. how can anyone prove he did not believe fraud had occurred?
It is clear many on his staff told him they saw no fraud and reminded him "they felt no fraud was being found". But others around him were bringing him accusations of fraud. Willful ignorance is not a defense. However, one standing by a belief is no crime...
In my view, there are no charges that can be proved against Trump in a court of law. This is not a congressional hearing where hearsay, and innuendo could be used . In a court of law, one needs facts and
evidence, and most importantly a crime.
Thus far this committee has not produced anything in regards to evidence of a crime in my view.
The FBI saw no conspiracy, and Wray made that claim under oath.
They will not call it an insurrection.
Did he obstruct anything, no, in the end, there is no proof Trump pre-planned an insurrection? My God, he wanted to walk with them...
Has he sought to fool anyone? One would need to prove he did not believe what he was saying. He is still sharing the same opinion, he has not changed a word. He claims the election was fraudulent. This is no crime.There’s a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. There’s a difference between not knowing the truth and not wanting the truth.
The problem was not that the president was stuck in a bubble, unaware of reality. Rather, the testimony has highlighted the degree to which Mr. Trump was overtly hostile toward reality: He intended to perpetrate a fraud, which necessarily meant ignoring those who presented him with facts that stood in the way of his wishes.
Bill Barr helped explain why. Noting what would happen when he told Trump “how crazy some of these allegations were,” the former attorney general said, “There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.”
How is he going to get around the idea of willful ignorance? The only way would be to claim that he's mentally impaired/incompetent? What is left to assert as a defense?I don't know if it is possible to prove he does not believe what he believes. To this day he does not relent in his belief that the election was stolen.
If i were adamant in my belief that the moon was made of green cheese despite all evidence that indicate that this is not correct, my belief is irrelevant in regard to so outlandish a statement.
NASA has sent probes there, astronomers have examined the lunar surface by telescope, and soil was brought back from the Apollo missions that says the moon IS NOT made of green cheese. So, who am I to say otherwise without a lick of proof to support my statement, does my position have merit merely because I say it and believe it?
Everybody in a position to know denies the veracity of my belief, so what is the basis for my clinging to it except for stubborn ego or to incite and manipulate others for a specific purpose. I am not terribly interested in anything that Trump believes that he can't prove.
That line of reasoning opens the door to endless excuses and denials. Rational, adult people do not operate this way. Trump will need to do better than this if he expects to get off of the hook.Beliefs are a funny, odd, and at times exasperating thing aren't they? Cognition begins as a fetus at 34 weeks, yet the capacity for memory does not occur then. From my understanding for a belief to form not only must there be cognition, yet memory also. It is closer to age 3 - 4 that a child forms beliefs, believing, and begins to construct a belief system.
It is between the ages of 14 - 16 that one might say a belief system is formed that will shadow the person for a lifetime. So, in other words, though Trump believes the election was stolen, it is based on that shadow formed when age 14 - 16. That causes one to wonder what constitutes his belief system while a factor may be his reliance on the philosophy of the Power of Positive Thinking of Normal Vincent Peale, of which Trump was a student of early in life along with his father.
Enough rambling . . .Interesting information, I learned from your post. However, back to point, can one be charged criminally for what he believes?
It seems this is the bottom line. This Jan 6th committee building their case against Trump on what people have told him in regard to the election, and the legal information he was given up to the riot. Again a Trump case is all about words. What he was told, what advice he should have listened to. My point is, can he be charged with anything due to it seems he believed, and still believes the election was fioxed?
The committee is relying on Trump's tweet, where he tells Twitter users about the Jan 6th rally, and his words asking people to come, and that it "will be wild".
I keyworded Trump's tweets for the word "wild"... He used the word toms of times to express himself. He has a history of sticking that word in many tweets.
This committee is trying to prove Trump planned the Capitol protest. Thus far I have seen no proof of that.There is more than enough evidence to indict Mr. Trump.
His criminality is proven not by the words of his enemies, but by the sworn testimony of Republicans he himself appointed or hired, including his own officials and staff, his attorney general William Barr, and Republican election lawyers and campaign personnel.
The evidence indicates Trump committed three major felonies.
First, he corruptly tried to obstruct a joint session of Congress.
When Mr. Trump tried to get Vice President Mike Pence to illegally throw out some states' electoral votes, he was attempting to obstruct the proceedings.
His purpose was corrupt. He had no honest basis for thinking the election was stolen, because every fraud claim had already been investigated and rejected by his own supporters, including Mr. Barr, White House staff, and GOP election officials in Georgia, Arizona, and other states.
At least 62 judges, including Mr. Trump's own appointees, rejected every one of his election challenges.
Second, Mr. Trump incited a riot. He gave an inflammatory speech urging extremists to "show strength and fight like hell" and unleashed his horde on the Capitol, where they threatened to kill or hold hostage those Trump deemed enemies. The mob understood his speech as "presidential orders," as one rioter told prosecutors.
Even after the mayhem, Mr. Trump expressed gratitude to his mob. "I know your pain," he told those who had brutalized the Capitol police and wanted to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. "We love you. You're very special."
Third, Mr. Trump attempted election fraud. In a recorded call, he demanded Georgia's secretary of state generate thousands of non-existent pro-Trump ballots. "I just want to find 11,780 votes," Mr. Trump told him.
These are serious crimes.
Innocent ignorance comes from an absence of knowledge. Mr. Trump had an abundance of information and knowledge. He chose to ignore all of it. He wasn’t just ignorant to the realities of the 2020 Election, he was “willfully ignorant” and chose to knowingly ignore all of the facts that his advisors implored upon him.My common sense tells me to agree to disagree. I don't think he will be formally charged with anything. And I think the hearings made little to no splash. I mean Roam is burning and most Americans are in the fire, not being able to pay their bills.
At this point, I am more concerned about all that is current. Such as Biden making a fool of himself in the middle east, and the Saudis twisting the knife to just show him their power. Much expect our gas prices will go up, and our economic state to usher us into recession.
Biden will need to realize he can't continue to deplete our reserves to try to keep gas prices at best stable, the cup half full will be empty. It was a ridiculous idea at best, another big non-sensical Biden idea, that made no sense at all.
Biden has been totally cornered by BIG OIL. I would think soon
other Nations will start pointing their blame fingers at Joe.Right? Lord help us, Biden is securing our demise!
Sharlee: I feel sorry for you as I feel sorry for ab. You are trying to not only deflect, but can't accept the fact that Biden won fair and square. You created this forum and our now using it to bash Biden. In my view, you and the people who don't believe that Biden won fair and square are becoming an exercise in futility to those of us who know and see the truth. That is what this is all about. There is only one truth The rest is excuses to get Trump off of the hook.
Once again putting words in my mouth --- I have not at any point said Biden did not win the election. I have claimed from day one he was and moved on. I have certainly pushed back when I felt Trump was being accused of something he MAY not have done. I have played devil's advocate.
If you can find a quote to prove your where I did not expect the election I would appreciate you offering it.
I have watched the Democrats come up with scheme after scheme to go after Trump from the moment he said he was going to run. I have certainly not bought into them.
I intend to "bashBiden" as you put it when I find his policies or something he said or does that I find objective.
I am sure you don't care for seeing all the many problems this man is causing in my view.
HP was not a forum that was offered to bash Trump only. Buck, up there are many that feel Biden is a failure, and we have the right to express our opinions.
I am going to wait for that quote. You see unlike many that never could call Trump their president. I never made the claim Biden did not win the presidency.
He won, and I have been critical of most of what he has done, I feel he is ruining the Country. I will share my political interests, as others do here.
I have always shared the sentiment if you find something you feel is inappropriate to report the post.
I certainly have found many posts objectable to my liking, I don't think I make false accusations against users.
It seems this is a true habit with some here. Not cool.
Not getting Trump off any hook, just pointing out a different view of a given comment.
I can't say I feel sorry for you, as that seems a bit precocious.
I more or less feel more shocked at some of the posts I see from some that lean left here. And will not go into why, due to it would be insulting, which is inappropriate in my view.
Yes, in my view, Biden is not a man that gleans trust, he is a political tool, Biden has never done anything to warrant any forms of accolades or respect for any form of intelligence, again my opinion.
Whoever is behind him and is making every afford to rip America down.
I am more and more convinced daily that Americans are done with the Democrats, and left ideologies. Perhaps one could say they are WOKE, yeah woke up to the fact they backed the wrong team.
I follow many social media sites, people seem to be done with all the crazy. This party has shown they can't handle serious problems, like COVID, crime, inflation, and the border, All they have is fluffy words and no action. We are floundering in my view.
Hey, you know I am a conservative, Republican so I am sure I sound biased. --- I will save others that might feel they need to point this out some time --- When it comes to America, I AM
How do you think the country will fair under another Trump administration? He plans to run again. If for some reason he does not there is a whole slate of Trumpian candidates who hold similar fascist views. The work of the committee is so important to our democracy as we know it. We are going to have to walk and chew gum on this and the myriad of other issues that face Americans today.
Election deniers are running for secretary of state or attorney general in many states. The central argument for their candidacy is that they would not have certified the 2020 election results. If elected, they would not hesitate to try to block certification in 2024. Some are seeking jobs as elections administrators, where they could use their authority to tilt turnout. They could, for example, selectively reject provisional ballots from communities of color.
Separately, lawmakers are scheming for the power to nullify elections. Some believe (bizarrely) that the Constitution itself gives them the power to reject election results. In seven states, legislators have proposed bills to formally give themselves that authority.
I am hopeful that, these hearings, some Americans will be able to step back and recognize how fragile our democracy has become.
During the Trump years, the GOP became far more radicalized. They now openly oppose democracy itself.
This is why the majority of Republicans now believe or say they believe that Mr. Trump won an election he actually lost.
I believe that their is an opportunity presented by these public hearings. Not just to document the last coup, but to head off the next one, by inspiring Democrats in the Senate to remove the filibuster and (at long last) vote the For the People Act into law.
In terms of oil, I don't know, will big oil feel more comfortable operating under an autocratic/authoritarian structure?"How do you think the country will fair under another Trump administration? He plans to run again. If for some reason he does not there is a whole slate of Trumpian candidates who hold similar fascist views. The work of the committee is so important to our democracy as we know it. We are going to have to walk and chew gum on this and the myriad of other issues that face Americans today."
I have shared I hope Trump does not run again, I have reasons. However, none include the fact I think he was a good president, and feel we would not be having some of the problems we are having. I feel he cared about the country and its people. I am conservative, and truely am on board with America's first agenda (at this time in our history ), I hope Republicans will stick with trips MAGA. I have never witnessed a president that could walk and chew gum. He could juggle many problems at once, I felt he avoided problems due to good intuition. He was a New Yorker and certainly wore that character, in regard to his bluntness.
I don't feel there was any coup, this has been a spin by the Democrats, one that now, is failing in my view. I think people are sick of hearing all this Trump bashing. I think the truely the Democrats have overplayed their hand, and people are just done with all of it.
They have run for many years on baiting hate, it's caught up with them.
Their administration has had an epic failure, and many people are not so easily deterred to look here not there, with all the investigations, that have led nowhere.
Americans want stability, to have good jobs, better education, safe communities, and more opportunities to grasp the American dream. Biden and his bunch have completely initiated all of that. he is not a lame duck he is a dead duck, as is his party in my view.
Trump's administration was in no respect authoritarian in my view. And the Oil companies worked with Trump, as did most foreign nations. Now we have chaos all over the place. My gosh, it may be time to look at the now, the current. Does none of what is happening truely concern you? It does me, I feel we are in an unprecedented time in our history. I have never seen such a perfect storm that could bring America down to its knees.
Faye, that was the shadiest of shady elections, perhaps EVER, in the U.S. and no matter how many times we are told, everything went smoothly, perfectly, as designed...
It did not!
Covid b.s., in the name of keeping it convenient and simple, made it equally convenient and simple to cheat!
There is plenty of evidence of cheating out there, if you care to look. No matter how many times, those that benefited from cheating, tell us it didn't happen...
no matter how many times Trump staffers & RINOs roll over {as they always do} wringing their hands telling us to let it go and move on,
It will always be remembered as what it was, SHADY!
Trump did what he had to do, he listened to those who weren't wringing their hands & telling him to let it go. As he should have done!!
He didn't incite anyone, I was listening to his speech that day and no matter how many times, parts and pieces of that day are put together, as necessary, to bust the man, to end any other political aspirations he may have, I and many others, know what we heard and what we didn't hear that day. We know what we saw and what we didn't see.
They didn't end Trump, as planned, when he ran against Hillary, so they had to end him in the next round...and they did!
Ya'll will not be happy until this man, who was set up from the start, {going back to before 2016} is put in the ground.
Keep at it and I will be right here, you can call me a thorn or a fact-checker, either works for me.ab: I feel sorry for you. You can't accept that Trump lost and election fair and square. It is really sad.
Just speaking truth pp, no need to feel sorry for me!
I am not beholden to a political party and I don't go through life with my copied and pasted talking points, always at the ready.
Just living and loving LIFE and calling it as I see it.
Well I will quote former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone speaking to he clownish cast of characters (Sidney Powell, the "Overstock guy" Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn) who assembled in the west wing for the unhinged meeting of December 18th:
"Show the evidence, ok"
Cipollone said that he, Eric Herschmann and another lawyer kept asking them "one simple question — where is the evidence?" Powell and the other advisers responded, he said, with "a general disregard for the importance of backing up what you say with the facts."
I don't think you can keep calling an election shady and denying its results when there is no evidence for those accusations. Back it up with facts.
I thought, correct me if I am wrong, the investigation is seeking all components of the Jan 6th, which includes staff members and such. Such being for instance what the capitol police did and underwent or what the members of congress did or what the actually members of the rioters or if desired insurrectionists did. However, it seems Trump is central to this.
For me, emphasized for 'me', Trump may not be cause, yet he in my mind most certainly was the catalyst. To understand the meaning of that catalyst has two parts to choose from. Those are:
A) a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
B) a person or thing that precipitates an event. (Keyword 'precipitates' especially considering the goals of the committee)
I look at (A) allegorically. The substance is Trump, the chemical reaction firstly is the sentiment of the believers of Trump's theory the election was stolen while possibly could actually be when the first seed was planted in 2015 and finally, Jan 6th as the chemical reaction.
However, interestingly, the substance, Trump, did not undergo any 'permanent chemical change'. In other words he still has the political clout he always had especially with his base. He came out of it unscathed thus far while the 'chemical reaction most certainly occurred and continues today.
Edit: The 'Big Question' is who or what is the chemist? Trump was the catalyst, so could not be the chemist. Was the Republican party transition to Trumpism the chemist? Was it the political mood of the conservative mindset as a whole? Was it the perceived disdain of the politically left mindset? Or, perhaps it just is American politics today going awry with the ever changing 'Big Society' that most certainly cannot be reined in as I see it. It is changing at a rate one may say is swift. So, is the chemist actually a new 'Manifest Destiny'?tsmog: Steve Bannon and his alt right movement is the catalyst. He is the Wizard behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Trump is just one of his players. He has been successful in creating an alt right movement who still believe the election was stolen from Trump.
He is in the process of recruiting those people and getting them to take seats in congress. Just look at Margorie Taylor Green and Loren Boebert. Green is member of Qanon. They are both disruptors of congress. It will be interesting to see when he appears before the committee. He sees everything in politics as a means of combat. He was a commander in the Navy and I think he is still stuck there.
Personally I think he is a danger to our democratic republic. He operates behind the scenes, but he is very powerful in running the alt right movement. Trump is just one of his pawns to further his agenda of taking over the government. Just google Steve Bannon and see what you come up with.There is no other side being produced at these hearings. For instance --- What went on days before the riot, Trump asked Miller to make sure to comply with any requesters from the Mayor of DC for troops. She had made a request, and it was filled. The Capitol Police due to being warned by the FBI that there could be problems claimed they asked 6 times for backup and did not get it. I have added the links to back up all of this here on HP forums.
I have not heard any witnesses bring up Congress? And I don't think you will.
So how dor one prove he was a catalyst. Do you feel if he wanted a violent riot he would have wanted to walk to the Capitol and be in that riot? My common sense tells me no... And we have witnesses saying he did want to walk with his supporters to the point of attacking two secret service men. In my opinion.
It is very possible, and likely some supporters did come for trouble, but the majority did not.
I think as I have said, Trump seems to believe there was a fraud, and he still believes it. he says this at every opportunity.
So, how does one prove he does not believe his words?
Here is the permalink with the info on what you won't hear in the hearings. Testimony was collected from Miller and the head of the Capitol. That is why we needed both sides, and all of the information, not a let them hear this hearing.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/355 … ost4254559" how does one prove he does not believe his words?
I believe that it is a fundamental legal principle in the U.S. that ignorance of the law is no defense. If ignorance were accepted as an excuse, any person charged with a criminal offense could claim ignorance to avoid the consequences.
Ms. Cheney added:
"Trump had access to more detailed and specific information showing that the election was not stolen than almost any other American, she said.
"And he was told this over and over again,"
In light of this, as I had previously wondered, if he wants to build a case on that foundation it would seem he would have to claim some sort of mental incompetency.
Here is the information Miller gave under oath.
National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNuYYHOvmd4
I suggest you listen to his testimony, he is very clear in his testimony.
None of this is being brought up in the hearings. Due to it being sided.
Another clear bias on the part of this committee. Trump asked Miller if or the mayor had asked for troops or the national guard, and was told YES. Trump told Miller to fill any requests.
I don't know or care about Pelosi, the media has hedged away from the truth --- Trump was more than willing to have troops at the Jan 6th rally.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congre … 021-05-12/I believe though that these were requests from the DC mayor Ms. Bowser, correct? Those troops would only cover her jurisdiction which does not include the Capitol. That was my understanding. Mr Trump told Mr Miller to fill the mayor's request. I'm not disputing that at all
Miller was asked specifically 'was there any requests for troops, Miller told him there were, the mayor had requested troops.
Pentagon approves DC mayor's request to deploy National Guard for upcoming demonstrations
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics … index.html
Underestimating the Threat, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser Ordered Up Unarmed Guards
https://www.newsweek.com/dc-mayor-murie … ed-1661320
It would appear she asked for troops in and around the rally that would be considered under her jurisdiction. It appears it's up to the Capito Police to request help from Congress if they feel the need. Capitol police were warned by the FBI of possible problems that could occur due to circulating threats. (Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots)
"The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the additional help ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.
Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.
Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.
Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.
Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts."
Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also wanted a light police presence at the Capitol. She reportedly wanted to avoid a similar scenario as last summer, when federal forces responded to demonstrators opposed to police abuses who assembled near the White House.
During Wednesday's violence, Bowser requested, and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police.
When the mob reached the Capitol complex at about 12:40 p.m. ET on Wednesday, it took about 15 minutes for the west side perimeter of the building to be breached, he says. The Capitol Police contingent, which numbered around 1,400 that day, was quickly overrun by the estimated 8,000 rioters.
"If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive," he says.
Sund says during a conference call with several law enforcement officials at about 2:26 p.m., he asked the Pentagon to provide backup.
Senior Army official Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, said on the call he couldn't recommend that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy authorize deployment, Sund and others on the call told the Post. Piatt reportedly said, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," the Post reported.
It would be more than three hours before any National Guard troops arrived, well after the damage at the Capitol had been done.
In the interview, Sund also issued a warning to federal officials, saying "if they don't get their act together with physical security, it's going to happen again." https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/95554891 … -during-ri
Here is the transcript of Lund's testimony before congress.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … -committeeSo essentially you are saying that the Capitol Police wanted but were denied National guard troops at the capitol due to optics but as the riot unfolded Mr Trump sat on his hands and didn't activate the guard himself, leaving it to the VP? Just trying to get a clear understanding of your point.
I am not saying anything, just showing you what those involved were saying.
As Miller said Pence did not activate the troops he did. This is another misconception. That is if Miller is telling the truth, and he was under oath.
The mayor requests the Guard, and the Capitol police to ask 6 times before and during the riot. Trump told Miller to honor requests for added security.
Not sure who dropped the ball. leading up to the problem. The FBI warned that threats were being passed around.
I by no means blame Trump that more help was not there on the day of his rally. They had been asked for, by the Mayor, and the Capitol police.
I have heard any evidence from anyone that was with him in the WH while the riot was going on that rump was asked to activate troops.
He had left that task up to Miller. Let me remind you Congress can order troops at any time.
This is a good article that gives information on who did what on the day of the riot. It Appears Miller did what he was told to do by the President.
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Arti … ol-attack/
The media has certainly tried to make the fact troops were not there his fault. It was not.
Fact checked six ways to Sunday by whom?
In order to protect whom?
In order to frame whom?I will never forget the time frame, during Covid and with the left and the RINOs working tirelessly to rid us of Trump, all while pretending that Trump was responsible {not China}, I was getting fact-checked every single day! (I am not exaggerating) No matter what I would share, even a real-life personal experience of mine...the fact-checkers would cover it up with "this is false information" or "partially false".
I knew back then that the fix was in to remove Trump from office...one way or the other and to INSURE that he never came back!
If this doesn't bother those of you, left of center, it should! None of these games the establishment play, do we the people any favors!AB --- The Democrats have worked non-stop even before he was elected to literally ruin this man.
They have done some very evil things, in my opinion, and not been punished for the many lies they have concocted.
They have a president now in office that is very clearly compromised, with his son, brother, and himself dirty dealings and nothing as of yet is being done. Where are the Congressional investigations on this bunch?
I would assume they will come.Sharlee: Talk about working non-stop. Trump worked non-stop from the time he found out that Biden was running for office, he started his drumbeat, " If I lose the election, then it is rigged." Then after Biden won, the drumbeat was, "There were fraudulent votes and Biden stole the election from me."
There were 61 times that he tried to prove the fraud and 61 times it was turned down. On Jan. 6, he had the mob chanting, "stop the steal." Votes were counted and re-counted by many states and they could find no fraud.
Jan. 6 was an attempt by Trump to obstruct the official certification of the electoral college votes and replace them with fake electoral votes. You can call it what you want. But there is no denying that happened.
There is evidence from the committee, that Trump summoned elements of the mob to come and participate in the obstruction, some of whom were armed. Whether they fired a shot is irrelevant. They were ready to participate at some level of overthrowing the government as is evidence by the many videos that were taken.
You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they were there and whether Trump asked them to leave, but there is no denying they were there to participate in the obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president and in so doing government property was damaged, seven people died, and many were injured, all because one man could not accept the fact that he lost an election
There is recorded evidence that Trump asked the Georgia secretary of state to find 11,000 votes to make it look like Trump won the election. A Fulton County DA has started a grand jury investigation into criminal charges against Trump and his cohorts."There is evidence from the committee, that Trump summoned elements of the mob to come and participate in the obstruction, some of whom were armed. Whether they fired a shot is irrelevant. They were ready to participate at some level of overthrowing the government as is evidenced by the many videos that were taken."
I don't see this as a provable fact. What do you feel Trump did to "summoned a mob to come to his rally?
In regards to the Georga call have you listened to the entire call/ The context is very relevant, they took very few words from a long call.
Trump was calm when he spoke, he listed many samples of what he called seemingly felt were voter fraud. That 11,000 vote statement was a culmination of more or less Trump telling him --- out of all the hundreds of fraudulent votes, he told him to come up with 11,000. What I was
hearing in his voice, he believed what he was saying.
Link to call -- https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics … index.html
In my view, the committee has not presented the context of the entire call.
One only needs to take the time to listen to the entire call. It very much appears Trump truely believes fraud was committed in Georgia.
Hopefully, this Georga grand jury will hear the entire context of the call, and be presented all facts in full. We have not heard this in the Jan 6 hearing.
In my comment to Faye, I was pointing out another possibility, and pointing out it's hard to ascertain what someone believes, even if what they believe may not be true. Like I said Trump is still making the accusation that the election was stolen from him, with voting fraud.Sharlee: What is relevant and indisputable here is that Trump tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president by obstructing the certification of the electoral college votes and that he had a set of fake replacement votes standing by that were drafted by republican party leaders. See the link below.
If Mike Pence would have done what Trump wanted him to do. Trump would be president right now. Also if Mike Pence would have left the Capitol as the secret service wanted him to do, Trump would be president right now.
Steve Bannon is the brains behind the whole Jan. 6 plot. That's why he had refused to appear before the committee. Now that he agrees, he will plead the 5th. His plan is to destroy the democratic party and democracy as we know it today.
He has been in the process of getting Trump supporter winning elections, so that in 2024, they will be in place to get Trump elected. There are videos of Bannon describing what he has done behind the scenes and what his plans are for the future...But that is another story.
https://www.azmirror.com/2022/06/29/upd … full-list/
If they can help it and they can...they'll never allow for "this bunch" to be investigated!
It is imperative that they never let up on Trump and they hold all the cards and have all the power to make it happen, indefinitely.
These so-called "Hearings" will go on and on, with new hearsay turning up like ballots for Biden!!I think you may be wrong. Like I said I do follow social media, people are done with Biden and the Demacrats. The tables will turn in Nov, and the investigations will be all about Bide, In my view, they will look at Hunter, and Joe's enterprise and they will go after Biden's cognitive state and inability to due his job. They will also look into the 2020 election. I can't imagine that the new Republican Congress won't have many investigations.
There will be a difference that difference is factual evidence. I mean just look at all the documents that show Hunter Biden was on the take from multiple Nations. I would think if Biden was forced to take a cognitive test he would fail badly.
I don't truely think this recent investigation ever really took off, not many even watched the hearings, and it is just not talked about online. People are not interested. One thing that will come out of it Cheney will lose her seat.
We will quickly see the tables turn when it comes to investigation come next Jan.I sincerely hope that you are right Sharlee, I want to be wrong on this one! I want to be wrong about fraud in elections. I want to be wrong about a corrupt establishment, doing us in, to the point of no return.
I always try to keep a finger on what the general population is saying. Please keep in mind the crowd here is small. I run across very few that will defend Biden or his administration, just not popular one could say.
Right or wrong, popularity is where some lean, IMO, especially the left.
These media sites have poor ratings, and most have abandoned Biden to right the sinking ship.
Yes, the establishment is corrupt, but so many have faced that, and are dissatisfied with the status quo.
People are watching their own worlds torn apart, and are ready
to admit that all the fluff sounded good, but just is not realistic when it comes to their own comfortable survival.
Related Discussions
- 24
Why are democrats historically unpopular? They did it to themselves.
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
In Gallup’s most recent poll, only 38 percent of Americans voiced a favorable view of the Democrats, the party’s worst showing in at least three decades. Quinnipiac University, meanwhile, pegs approval of congressional Democrats at just 21 percent, an all-time low. And some of this disdain is...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 108
President Donald Trump Again?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 11 months ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
- 126
Impeachment Dem's Going For A Doubleheader...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
- 98
Are You Afraid of Flying....To Senate Hearings
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Christine Blasey Ford is currently being questioned in a Senate Hearing and her narrative is showing some holes, especially the "fear of flying" portion. For those of you just tuning in, she had asked for the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying. What's been...
- 89
Veterans: losers and suckers?
by IslandBites 4 years ago
Trump and the WH said is not true. Nevertheless, many, including veterans and even GOP members have condemned him.Some said that they believe it to be true because there is precedent, like the multiples times he attacked John McCain.Today, Jennifer Griffin, a Fox News reporter, doubled down on her...