Donald Trump stalwarts finally turn on him after Hutchinson's testimony

[onthedarkside]

 

 

There are signs that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony to the January 6 panel on Tuesday has prompted a number of supporters of Donald Trump and conservative media outlets to stop defending the former president's actions.

 

Hutchinson, a former top aide to ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, made damaging allegations against Trump during a House committee hearing.

 

These include claims that Trump was aware that some of his supporters were armed on January 6 but he didn't care as "they're not here to hurt me." After being told about people at the Ellipse rally carrying weapons, Trump still urged his supporters to march to the Capitol where the Electoral College certification ceremony was taking place.

...

While there remain hardline Trump supporters who still stand by the former president and dismissed Hutchinson's testimony as "hearsay," some others who previously defended him have started to change their tune.

 

(more)

 

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jan6-cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-capitol-1720510

 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

Oh I am so loving the reports of this panel.

Even more enjoyable is imagining the rage and ranting tantrums of trump.

 

If only you had accepted your landslide loss and allowed a peaceful transition of power eh…

[ozimoron]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack may make a criminal referral to the Justice Department recommending that anybody who tried to influence testimony be prosecuted, Representative Liz Cheney told ABC News in a report broadcast on Thursday.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/jan-6-committee-may-make-criminal-referral-on-witness-tampering-cheney/

[onthedarkside]

 

Editorials

Trump proven unfit for power again

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.

 

Hutchinson’s resume alone should establish her credibility. The 25-year-old had already worked at the highest levels of conservative Republican politics, including in the offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), before becoming a top aide for former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

 

In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that. She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.

 

(more)

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

A reporter who has written a book on the Secret Service shredded the credibility of a former agent who has pushed back against Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell testimony.

The former White House aide testified that Tony Ornato, who moved from the Secret Service to deputy chief of staff, told her that Donald Trump became irate when his security detail would not take him to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and lunged for the steering wheel of his armored SUV and physically attacked his lead agent, and Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig poured cold water on his denials.

"This is a person who worked as President Trump's security detail leader, and the boss liked him so much he installed him in a political White House job,"

 

https://www.rawstory.com/tony-ornato/

[EVENKEEL]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/trump-lunge-secret-service-january-6-capitol/index.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966931/Secret-Service-Jan-6-panel-did-NOT-reach-claims-Trump-lunged-agent.html

 

It would seem someone has been telling fibs. What else is false?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/trump-lunge-secret-service-january-6-capitol/index.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966931/Secret-Service-Jan-6-panel-did-NOT-reach-claims-Trump-lunged-agent.html

 

It would seem someone has been telling fibs. What else is false?

Have them testify on live tv under oath and then we can talk.

In either case the lunge controversy is a trivial detail compared to the report that trump did'nt care about weapons going into his rally and then knowing that sent an angry mob to the capitol.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/trump-lunge-secret-service-january-6-capitol/index.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966931/Secret-Service-Jan-6-panel-did-NOT-reach-claims-Trump-lunged-agent.html

 

It would seem someone has been telling fibs. What else is false?

Ornato has a record of lying.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tony-ornato-jan-6-b2113434.html

[EVENKEEL]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Have them testify on live tv under oath and then we can talk.

In either case the lunge controversy is a trivial detail compared to the report that trump did'nt care about weapons going into his rally and then knowing that sent an angry mob to the capitol.

If the "lunge" was so trivial then why was it talked about soo much? You not able to pick and choose what's creditable.

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/trump-lunge-secret-service-january-6-capitol/index.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966931/Secret-Service-Jan-6-panel-did-NOT-reach-claims-Trump-lunged-agent.html

 

It would seem someone has been telling fibs. What else is false?

The Daily Mail..................????

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

[EVENKEEL]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Ornato has a record of lying.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tony-ornato-jan-6-b2113434.html

Oh please, more hearsay?  

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

If the "lunge" was so trivial then why was it talked about soo much? You not able to pick and choose what's creditable.

Its objectively trivial compared to the report about Trump's actions about arms. That could be the basis of a felony charge. Again nix the noise and see them testify under oath if they dare.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Oh please, more hearsay?  

This isn't hearsay. You obviously live in a bubble and reading nothing which contradicts your world view.

 

Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on issues of homeland security, tweeted that her former colleague Mr Ornato “sure seems to deny conversations he’s apparently had” with other Trump White House officials.

“Those of us who worked [with] Tony know where his loyalties lie,” she added. “He should testify under oath.”

Ex-White House communications director Alyssa Farah added bluntly: “Tony Ornato lied about me too.”

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

This isn't hearsay. You obviously live in a bubble and reading nothing which contradicts your world view.

 

Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on issues of homeland security, tweeted that her former colleague Mr Ornato “sure seems to deny conversations he’s apparently had” with other Trump White House officials.

“Those of us who worked [with] Tony know where his loyalties lie,” she added. “He should testify under oath.”

Ex-White House communications director Alyssa Farah added bluntly: “Tony Ornato lied about me too.”

Please, again no evidence. The thought of Trump lunging and attacking secret service is comical.

[candide]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/trump-lunge-secret-service-january-6-capitol/index.html

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966931/Secret-Service-Jan-6-panel-did-NOT-reach-claims-Trump-lunged-agent.html

 

It would seem someone has been telling fibs. What else is false?

The same source (see previous posts) which told Trump did not attack the agent also stated they  don't deny that he wanted to go to the Capitol. That's the important information.about this event.

 

Mind you. Do you doubt that the MAGA folks has screened every sentence of her testimony? The only things they found is that the wheel drive funny part may not be fully accurate, and that there is a disagreement over who actually write a note. Peanuts. That's actually quite a positive assessment of her testimony.

Edited July 1, 2022 by candide

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please, again no evidence. The thought of Trump lunging and attacking secret service is comical.

Evidence under oath. She liable for a term not exceeding 7 years or to a fine or to both if she perjure. Bold testimony for her. If hearsay, it will be up to Ornato to be forthright under oath. Anyway, evidence or hearsay will not matter much to loyal Trump's supporters. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Eric Loh
wrong word

[ozimoron]

nobody has refuted Hutchinson's damning statements under oath.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-jan-6-2657594078/

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please, again no evidence. The thought of Trump lunging and attacking secret service is comical.

Are we talking about a guy who played golf at his own resorts with a full contingent of Secret Service personnel, then charged the American taxpayer for their accommodation?

With his chutzpah, I would not put anything past him.

 

What's comical is your defense of a narcissistic sociopath. Look it up, and see how many boxes he ticks, once you take off your rose-colored glasses.

 

IMO Trump is getting desperate, the inquiry testimony from various witnesses is quite damning.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please, again no evidence. The thought of Trump lunging and attacking secret service is comical.

He's a comical kind of guy.

Maybe he can do stand up sets in prison.

[ozimoron]

This is the reason Pelosi blocked Gym Jordan from the Jan 6 committee.

 

In a column noting the continuing interference Republican Party members are running for Donald Trump as the Jan 6th Committee exposes more evidence of the former president's links to the Capitol insurrection, political scientist Jeffrey C. Isaac from Indiana University, Bloomington, singled out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) as the man who could be the key to more information about that day's events.

 

'"Jim' was one of the most violent and adamant promoters of Trump’s Big Lie," he accused. "After the violence of Jan. 6th subsided, Jim led the effort on the floor of the Senate to delay and obstruct the counting of the Electoral Votes, and was perhaps the most vocal and visible of the 147 Congressional Republicans who voted to overturn Biden’s victory.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-2657596719/

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please, again no evidence. The thought of Trump lunging and attacking secret service is comical.

Funny enough I agree it is comical. 
 

Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen though. 

[Jingthing]

32 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Funny enough I agree it is comical. 
 

Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen though. 

Comical is s big part of his brand..

[Hanaguma]

It is a pity that young Ms. Hutchinson can't actually remember what was actually said. Her testimony was riddled with "he said something to the effect of...." or that she overheard "something to the effect of...".  IF there were any genuine cross examination of her testimony she would be torn apart in short order. Her memory of fairly recent and major events is rather vague and spotty.  She was "in the vicinity of conversations" that she never took part in. 

 

She offers indirect, overhear paraphrases, not direct eyewitness testimony. 

 

Not to mention that the whole incident, Trump muscling his protective detail and trying to choke one of them, is comical. This is the same guy the Democrats said needed two hands to hold a glass of water. Now he can drive with one hand while fending off a trained federal agent with the other? It defies credibility. 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a pity that young Ms. Hutchinson can't actually remember what was actually said. Her testimony was riddled with "he said something to the effect of...." or that she overheard "something to the effect of...".  IF there were any genuine cross examination of her testimony she would be torn apart in short order. Her memory of fairly recent and major events is rather vague and spotty.  She was "in the vicinity of conversations" that she never took part in. 

 

She offers indirect, overhear paraphrases, not direct eyewitness testimony. 

 

Not to mention that the whole incident, Trump muscling his protective detail and trying to choke one of them, is comical. This is the same guy the Democrats said needed two hands to hold a glass of water. Now he can drive with one hand while fending off a trained federal agent with the other? It defies credibility. 

That in no way establishes that he wouldn't have been angry and stupid enough to try.

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That in no way establishes that he wouldn't have been angry and stupid enough to try.

You may be right. THis may be "the bombshell". Perhaps "the walls are closing in". Is it "the beginning of the end" for the Bad Orange Man? 

 

Forgive me for being skeptical but we have been hearing that kind of hyperbole for years now. Can't blame the Democrats for trying, especially considering how deeply unpopular the current occupant of the White House is. They have nothing to run on in the fall, no accomplishments to speak of, so the best they can hope for is to drag the corpse of the 2020 campaign back out and keep beating on it. 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You may be right. THis may be "the bombshell". Perhaps "the walls are closing in". Is it "the beginning of the end" for the Bad Orange Man? 

 

Forgive me for being skeptical but we have been hearing that kind of hyperbole for years now. Can't blame the Democrats for trying, especially considering how deeply unpopular the current occupant of the White House is. They have nothing to run on in the fall, no accomplishments to speak of, so the best they can hope for is to drag the corpse of the 2020 campaign back out and keep beating on it. 

The crime has neither been solved, tried or punished yet. It's far from a dead horse. It's still a work in progress and its extremely relevant given ongoing efforts to allow the rules to be broken in future, even in the event of the efforts being unconstitutional. And finally, Trump may yet run again so the 2020 election will be very relevant despite your wish to sweep it under the carpet.

Edited July 1, 2022 by ozimoron

[Slip]

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a pity that young Ms. Hutchinson can't actually remember what was actually said. Her testimony was riddled with "he said something to the effect of...." or that she overheard "something to the effect of...".  IF there were any genuine cross examination of her testimony she would be torn apart in short order. Her memory of fairly recent and major events is rather vague and spotty.  She was "in the vicinity of conversations" that she never took part in. 

 

She offers indirect, overhear paraphrases, not direct eyewitness testimony. 

 

Not to mention that the whole incident, Trump muscling his protective detail and trying to choke one of them, is comical. This is the same guy the Democrats said needed two hands to hold a glass of water. Now he can drive with one hand while fending off a trained federal agent with the other? It defies credibility. 

I'm sure you can post plenty of evidence of her testimony being riddled with what you claim.  Well, no, not really.  You are far from a skilled propagandist.

[Hanaguma]

19 minutes ago, Slip said:

I'm sure you can post plenty of evidence of her testimony being riddled with what you claim.  Well, no, not really.  You are far from a skilled propagandist.

Just read the transcript. No propaganda needed. "Something to the effect of.." comes up 19 times. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Just read the transcript. No propaganda needed. "Something to the effect of.." comes up 19 times. 

I'm still waiting for anybody to have have the cohones to front the House and refute this courageous young lady's testament under oath.

[Slip]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Just read the transcript. No propaganda needed. "Something to the effect of.." comes up 19 times. 

You really are grasping at straws.  The phrase 'something to the effect that...' is a natural way of communicating something that was said that can't be remembered verbatim.