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

[Bluespunk]

49 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

"Trump running in 2024" seems to be the big impetus for these hearings. The Democrats are scared of him.

 

Yet ironically, they may be doing the GOP a favour in the long run. If the hearings damage Trump enough that he can't run, the field will be wide open for others to enter. The GOP has a strong and young group of possible candidates, from DeSantis to Kristi Noem to Nikki Haley. Any of them would run rings around Biden should he insist on running again. 

I think you’ll find the impetus for this panel is getting to the truth behind the attempted coup on January 6th. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Bluespunk

[bendejo]

On 6/30/2022 at 9:41 AM, ozimoron said:

"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,"

Classic example of, what was called decades ago, The Peter Principle: a person rises to the level of their incompetence.

And then there is the credo "the boss is never wrong."

 

It'll be interesting to see where Miss Cassidy goes with her career -- will she be somewhere in politics?  Will she still be a conservative?  I think it's pretty obvious no one will give her a job as an aide to a politician.

 

 

[candide]

3 hours 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. 

1. It's really a pity her testimony has not been cross-checked by testimonies from people close to Trump who have been at the core of these conversations, and who could have contradicted her! What a shame! That's a maskerade of investigation! Oh wait! They refused to testify or took the fifth! ????

2. Some of her testimony has been direct eyewitness and/or corroborated by other witnesses or other evidence (I.e. messages). You would know it if you had followed the hearings instead of just listening to MAGA propaganda. Anyway don't be too impatient, Cippolone is expected to testify on 7 July and will surely clear any misunderstanding. ????

3.That's a lame distortion of her testimony. She never claimed Trump was driving while fending off a federal agent.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by candide

[pomchop]

11 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?

She said that she was told the story of the suv scene....she did not claim that she was there. Did it even occur to trumpers that maybe the guy who told her the story was perhaps LYING to her?  Of course not.

 

This 25 y.o gal told her story under oath.  Have any men ever told a young attractive gal a false story or exaggerated a story  to somehow try and impress her?  DUH.   The people attacking her are welcome to raise their right hand and tell their version under oath but have not done so.  Regardless of what happened in the SUV the point of course is that Trump was demanding to go to the capitol and was irate when he was denied.  So far not one person with knowledge of what happened has denied that was a fact.

 

Typical trump playbook to try and appeal to the cult by attacking the messenger and refusing to see the forest for the trees.

 

The committee has invited all of the players to raise their right hand and reveal what they may have knowledge of to testify but so far few if any of the central players have done so as they cower under their desks.  How ironic that a 25 y.o. gal has the courage and confidence in telling what she saw and heard under oath while the trumpers try and cherry pick her testimony but refuse to do it under oath?  Now why would that be do you suppose?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

She said that she was told the story of the suv scene....she did not claim that she was there. Did it even occur to trumpers that maybe the guy who told her the story was perhaps LYING to her?  Of course not.

 

This 25 y.o gal told her story under oath.  Have any men ever told a young attractive gal a false story or exaggerated a story  to somehow try and impress her?  DUH.   The people attacking her are welcome to raise their right hand and tell their version under oath but have not done so.  Regardless of what happened in the SUV the point of course is that Trump was demanding to go to the capitol and was irate when he was denied.  So far not one person with knowledge of what happened has denied that was a fact.

 

Typical trump playbook to try and appeal to the cult by attacking the messenger and refusing to see the forest for the trees.

 

The committee has invited all of the players to raise their right hand and reveal what they may have knowledge of to testify but so far few if any of the central players have done so as they cower under their desks.  How ironic that a 25 y.o. gal has the courage and confidence in telling what she saw and heard under oath while the trumpers try and cherry pick her testimony but refuse to do it under oath?  Now why would that be do you suppose?

They are too shy! ????

[pomchop]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

They are too shy! ????

and of course one might ask the question of WHY would she make up a lie about what she was told re T trying to grab wheel?  just for fun?  knowing full well that every word she said would be examined under a microscope?  I don't think so.  Did anyone notice that notebook in front of her while she was testifying and notice that she was described as a note taker?

 

Wouldn't it be interesting if like watgergate, we found out that she had audio recordings on her phone of the actual conversations?  Then of course trumpers would claim they were fake (but maybe not as fake as their slates of "electors")

[ozimoron]

Meadows intermediary may have tried to influence Hutchinson's testimony to January 6 committee, sources say

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/mark-meadows-cassidy-hutchinson/index.html

 

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Meadows intermediary may have tried to influence Hutchinson's testimony to January 6 committee, sources say

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/mark-meadows-cassidy-hutchinson/index.html

 

 

More possible felonies. 

But she decided to be truthful and now she is subject to death threats.

[ozimoron]

The most frightening thing we’ve learned over the past six years is just how indifferent the vast majority of the Republican Party is to the rule of law, the Constitution, basic decency and truth. But there have also been ordinary men and women who met the moment with grace and integrity.

 

And Cassidy Hutchinson will deserve a place of honor for showing a party of cowards what courage looks like.

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/30/23190208/cassidy-hutchinson-shows-a-party-of-cowards-what-courage-looks-like

[ozimoron]

That note didn't write itself.

 

Mark Meadows asked an associate to 'influence' January 6 testimony of his former aide: report

 

On Friday, CNN reported that one of the people who tried to "influence" the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, did so on the request of Hutchinson's former boss, Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

 

According to the report, Meadows' team vehemently denies anything of the sort happened, with Meadows spokesperson Ben Williamson saying, "No one from Meadows camp, himself or otherwise, ever sought to intimidate or shape her conversations with the committee."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-asked-an-associate-to-influence-january-6-testimony-of-his-former-aide-report/

Edited July 1, 2022 by ozimoron

[EVENKEEL]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I think you’ll find the impetus for this panel is getting to the truth behind the attempted coup on January 6th. 

Or perhaps the panel can stretch this performance a bit closer to the mid terms. In the futile attempt to make people forget about the important issues at hand. 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

More possible felonies. 

But she decided to be truthful and now she is subject to death threats.

Please show evidence of these death threats.

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Or perhaps the panel can stretch this performance a bit closer to the mid terms. In the futile attempt to make people forget about the important issues at hand. 

The report into the attempted coup will take as long as it needs to be.

 

Such an investigation into an attempt at overthrowing the fair and free election should be as thorough and in depth as possible.  

[Hanaguma]

10 hours ago, Slip said:

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.

 

...which is fine in normal conversation, but not acceptable in a hearing like this.  This testimony was obviously prepared in advance, Cassidy had time to get her thoughts together and still couldnt remember what was said. That says something. Especially when no form of cross examination or questioning was allowed.

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please show evidence of these death threats.

Have you ever seen where they do unless they are already caught and charged?

[Phoenix Rising]

11 hours ago, bendejo said:

Classic example of, what was called decades ago, The Peter Principle: a person rises to the level of their incompetence.

And then there is the credo "the boss is never wrong."

 

It'll be interesting to see where Miss Cassidy goes with her career -- will she be somewhere in politics?  Will she still be a conservative?  I think it's pretty obvious no one will give her a job as an aide to a politician.

 

 

Interesting? If you say so. Personally I hope all those who worked for trump and did quit in disgust or got fired at best get jobs flipping burgers.

Wouldn't mind if the lot of them ended up homeless. And as for the main culprit? Well, if you have the ultimate responsibility and commit the ultimate act of treason then it's only fair you get the ultimate punishment.

[Phoenix Rising]

Watergate Prosecutor Names 'Best' Criminal Charge For Trump, America

 

""President Donald Trump could now be charged with a number of crimes — but one key offense would keep him out of federal office forever", Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks said on MSNBC Friday.
Wine-Banks said the “best” crime for Trump is 18 U.S.C. § 2383 — the crime of “rebellion or insurrection” against the U.S. — because the penalty is tougher than just prison time.
“The reason is that the penalty for 2383 is not just jail; it is being barred from ever holding federal office again,” Wine-Banks explained, “and for me, that would be a more important goal than jailing the former president.”"

Edited July 2, 2022 by Phoenix Rising

[pomchop]

7 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please show evidence of these death threats.

see no evil hear no evil.....drink that kool aide and defend the indefensible all for dear leader

[pomchop]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

...which is fine in normal conversation, but not acceptable in a hearing like this.  This testimony was obviously prepared in advance, Cassidy had time to get her thoughts together and still couldnt remember what was said. That says something. Especially when no form of cross examination or questioning was allowed.

 

 

of course if she had said these were the exact words she would be attacked because NONE of us could ever be absolutely sure of exact words...and in trump world she would have been attacked for claiming she has a perfect memory.......

 

so let all the trumpers who want to dispute her testimony and her memory of what was said take an oath and tell us what they remember being said....also you might want to notice there are also a lot of text messages flying around which if it were all so innocent and contradicted her testimony would be on fox news right now.

[EVENKEEL]

12 hours ago, pomchop said:

She said that she was told the story of the suv scene....she did not claim that she was there. Did it even occur to trumpers that maybe the guy who told her the story was perhaps LYING to her?  Of course not.

 

This 25 y.o gal told her story under oath.  Have any men ever told a young attractive gal a false story or exaggerated a story  to somehow try and impress her?  DUH.   The people attacking her are welcome to raise their right hand and tell their version under oath but have not done so.  Regardless of what happened in the SUV the point of course is that Trump was demanding to go to the capitol and was irate when he was denied.  So far not one person with knowledge of what happened has denied that was a fact.

 

Typical trump playbook to try and appeal to the cult by attacking the messenger and refusing to see the forest for the trees.

 

The committee has invited all of the players to raise their right hand and reveal what they may have knowledge of to testify but so far few if any of the central players have done so as they cower under their desks.  How ironic that a 25 y.o. gal has the courage and confidence in telling what she saw and heard under oath while the trumpers try and cherry pick her testimony but refuse to do it under oath?  Now why would that be do you suppose?

Have the SS guys in the "Beast" been questioned and when will they testify. Will they be allowed to testify is the question.

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Have the SS guys in the "Beast" been questioned and when will they testify. Will they be allowed to testify is the question.

The SS can't prevent them from testifying. I don't think this is a national security issue.

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The SS can't prevent them from testifying. I don't think this is a national security issue.

Question is "does the committee want them to testify?"

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Question is "does the committee want them to testify?"

Yes!

Because then they can ask them about anything. The lunge detail is trivial compared to the bigger picture of Trump's criminality.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Jingthing

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Question is "does the committee want them to testify?"

Ever thought about doing a little research before asking questions like this which evidently have a readily available answer?

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/liz-cheney-secret-service/index.html

[EVENKEEL]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes!

Because then they can ask them about anything. The lunge detail is trivial compared to the bigger picture of Trump's criminality.

Again, if it was so trivial why was it so widely reported?

[ozimoron]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

Again, if it was so trivial why was it so widely reported?

Because if Trump did actually go to the Capitol he would likely have been charged as advised by his comrades. The possibility that he attempted to go there against that advice demonstrates intent.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Again, if it was so trivial why was it so widely reported?

Because its juicy.

 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Because if Trump did actually go to the Capitol he would likely have been charged as advised by his comrades. The possibility that he attempted to go there against that advice demonstrates intent.

He did want to go there. No lunge is needed to prove that. But intent can be proven even if he didn't want to go there.

[pomchop]

so now we are getting reports of various other secret service agents saying that stories had been going around for a while among agents with similar accounts of an out of control trump that closely mirror the story that cassidy said she was told....

 

it is relatively unimportant as there is nobody that i have seen yet who denies that trump was irate and demanding to go to the capitol ....yet trumpers try and say that oh my god this cassidy is a liar....not once thinking that maybe she got lied to by a trump supporter who wanted to brag to a pretty young gal to impress her in some  weird way...again she never ever said or implied that she was in or near the car only that she was told the story by a man who was there....big difference.