January 6th Trial

[RiverDog]

I'm not so sure Biden runs again. Close aides say that he's extremely distraught over the fact that he's less popular than the man he believes to be the worst POTUS in the history of the country, not to mention that he turns the big Ate Oh this fall.

[I-5]

I'm not so sure Biden runs again. Close aides say that he's extremely distraught over the fact that he's less popular than the man he believes to be the worst POTUS in the history of the country, not to mention that he turns the big Ate Oh this fall.

Source for 'close aides'? Did they use the word 'distraught' or is that yours? My assumption is Biden couldn't care less about his popularity....since he isn't a NARCISSIST.

In other news, Trump lawyer and author of the ill-advised 'coup letter' John Eastman revealed that his iphone was seized by the FBI as he was leaving a restaurant in California. The significance of this is that for the FBI to have a search warrant, a federal judge has to find that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

According to Eastman himself in prior interviews, he often communicated directly with the president after the election and prior to Jan 6. I haven't been watching the proceedings much, but now I have to.

[c_hawkbob]

I (along with most) believe the contents of that phone are what what prompted today's surprise session of the Select Committee.

[curmudgeon]

Could be surprise “performances” by Stormy and Avenatti……

[I-5]

Could be surprise “performances” by Stormy and Avenatti……

If Eastman was smart, he would have deleted all his communications with Trump on his encrypted apps...but then again, not sure how that helps Eastman since it was Trump who refused to give him a pardon. We know the next shoe to drop will be Trump saying he barely knew the guy and had maybe met him once...but that's where the phone comes in.

What I want to know is why people continue to stick out their necks for Trump, knowing his track record of throwing anyone under the bus (even Ivanka) when they no longer benefit him?

[RiverDog]

I'm not so sure Biden runs again. Close aides say that he's extremely distraught over the fact that he's less popular than the man he believes to be the worst POTUS in the history of the country, not to mention that he turns the big Ate Oh this fall.

Source for 'close aides'? Did they use the word 'distraught' or is that yours? My assumption is Biden couldn't care less about his popularity....since he isn't a NARCISSIST.

"Distraught" might have been my word, but it's analogous with what I've heard described as Biden's sentiments about his polling numbers:

Joe Biden ‘frustrated’ that his approval numbers are lower than Donald Trump’s

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ss-AAYnwym

All politicians care about their poll numbers. Bill Clinton was obsessed with them. Richard Nixon used to use troop withdrawals to manipulate his poll numbers. As far as Biden goes, he is keenly aware of the historical aspect of incumbent Presidents' chances of re-election when their poll numbers dip below 50%. Believe me, he is paying very close attention to them. To what degree it's affecting his policy decisions, I couldn't tell you.

[I-5]

Melodrama aside, whether he’s ‘frustrated’ or ‘distraught’, I see this president as more interested in making decisions for the good of the country more than poll numbers. Why do I think that? He was asked if he would accept the results of the election if he lost (a ridiculous question only made relevant by the narcissist 45th POTUS), and without any hesitation answered ‘yes’. I see him as way way more interested in legacy over poll numbers, and doing the best he could given what he inherited. He’s a very imperfect president but not corrupt or narcisístic, and most importantly, he listens to his cabinet. I’m not convinced he’ll run again at his age, either.

[RiverDog]

Melodrama aside, whether he’s ‘frustrated’ or ‘distraught’, I see this president as more interested in making decisions for the good of the country more than poll numbers. Why do I think that? He was asked if he would accept the results of the election if he lost (a ridiculous question only made relevant by the narcissist 45th POTUS), and without any hesitation answered ‘yes’. I see him as way way more interested in legacy over poll numbers, and doing the best he could given what he inherited. He’s a very imperfect president but not corrupt or narcisístic, and most importantly, he listens to his cabinet. I’m not convinced he’ll run again at his age, either.

Except that he hasn't really made any decisions other than to impose sanctions on Russia and his only piece of legislation that he's been able to get through, his "Build Back Better" bill, has contributed to the inflation we're having to deal with today. His solution for high gas prices was laughable, ie a strongly worded letter to the Big Oil execs. And if he signs onto this move for a gas tax holiday idea that's being floated, he'll make things worse by driving up the demand for gas without increasing supply. I do think he made a solid choice for SCOTUS, but I don't like the way he went about it, ie eliminating 95% of the candidates based on their race and sex.

I agree that Biden is leaps and bounds better than #45, that he's a decent, honest man that is more concerned about the country than he is of his legacy, and I'll be forever grateful for him giving the nation a giant enema and purge the White House of that POS. But at some point, we need some sort of justification for him other than his name isn't Donald Trump.

[I-5]

Except that he hasn't really made any decisions other than to impose sanctions on Russia and his only piece of legislation that he's been able to get through, his "Build Back Better" bill, has contributed to the inflation we're having to deal with today. His solution for high gas prices was laughable, ie a strongly worded letter to the Big Oil execs. And if he signs onto this move for a gas tax holiday idea that's being floated, he'll make things worse by driving up the demand for gas without increasing supply. I do think he made a solid choice for SCOTUS, but I don't like the way he went about it, ie eliminating 95% of the candidates based on their race and sex.

I agree that Biden is leaps and bounds better than #45, that he's a decent, honest man that is more concerned about the country than he is of his legacy, and I'll be forever grateful for him giving the nation a giant enema and purge the White House of that POS. But at some point, we need some sort of justification for him other than his name isn't Donald Trump.

You're moving around in your arguments, but ok. I wasn't arguing policy decisions with you....just that I believe he's not motivated by popularity vs doing the right thing in his mind. I don't actually agree with all of his decisions, either. In fact, I think he should have supported the idea of NATO setting up a no fly zone and feel they should do it right now. We can argue what we like or don't like, but I don't go along with the idea that he's making decisions based on popularity.

[Aseahawkfan]

Except that he hasn't really made any decisions other than to impose sanctions on Russia and his only piece of legislation that he's been able to get through, his "Build Back Better" bill, has contributed to the inflation we're having to deal with today. His solution for high gas prices was laughable, ie a strongly worded letter to the Big Oil execs. And if he signs onto this move for a gas tax holiday idea that's being floated, he'll make things worse by driving up the demand for gas without increasing supply. I do think he made a solid choice for SCOTUS, but I don't like the way he went about it, ie eliminating 95% of the candidates based on their race and sex.

I agree that Biden is leaps and bounds better than #45, that he's a decent, honest man that is more concerned about the country than he is of his legacy, and I'll be forever grateful for him giving the nation a giant enema and purge the White House of that POS. But at some point, we need some sort of justification for him other than his name isn't Donald Trump.

I do not think Joe Biden is decent and honest myself. I read on Hunter Biden and not only Hunter, but Joe's brothers and other associates. They been taking heavy advantage of his political connections. Joe Biden is a career politician who talks out both sides of his mouth. Only reason I consider him better is because at this point after Crazy Narcissist, we needed some career politician to put D.C. back on the path we know and understand. I am not nearly of the mind you are. Joe Biden is a puppet to the left as near as I can tell. He isn't doing what is best for the country and has people and ideologies he is pushing whether or not it is good for the nation. His whole "Good Guy Joe" image is nothing but a manufactured image. The man has holes in his background that any decent Republican can beat and he only won because the guy before him had acted so crazy during an extremely bad time that enough of the nation of was tired of him to vote him out.

Biden is no Jimmy Carter like they're trying to paint him. Not at all. Career politician with lots of dirt.

I don't much appreciate him at all. Just a placeholder because of the absolute garbage candidates we've been putting out there. You are way kinder to Biden than I would ever be. The only person I want in office less than Biden is Trump. But at this point I'd rather have Bill Clinton back than Joe Biden, maybe even Obama but he was lacking experience and connections in D.C. to get things done.

[RiverDog]

The only person I want in office less than Biden is Trump. But at this point I'd rather have Bill Clinton back than Joe Biden, maybe even Obama but he was lacking experience and connections in D.C. to get things done.

I can think of a lot of possible candidates, both Democratic as well as Republican, that I'd want in office less than Biden. For starters, there's Hillary, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Ron DeSantis, and Greg Abbott.

But I'd definitely take both Bill Clinton and Obama vs. Biden.

[Aseahawkfan]

I can think of a lot of possible candidates, both Democratic as well as Republican, that I'd want in office less than Biden. For starters, there's Hillary, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Ron DeSantis, and Greg Abbott.

But I'd definitely take both Bill Clinton and Obama vs. Biden.

I'd vote for DeSantis over Biden in a heartbeat. I don't know enough about Abbott to take him. I know he won office in a wheelchair. I'd actually be somewhat interested to see Sanders in office. He's kind of a wild card. Probably couldn't get much done, but he'd at least be interesting. I think his ideas are more interesting than Biden. Hilary I might take over Biden mainly because of her husband's influence. I'll give you Harris.

I've read on DeSantis. He's not near the crazy people try to paint him as. He kept his calm in the storms he's dealt with. And governed Florida in a way that kept the state functioning through COVID. Contrary to the left's belief, he did listen to the science on COVID. A whole lot more than a lot of liberal states did. Which is why he didn't pursue exactly the same methods even with a huge elderly population. I'll definitely be open to DeSantis in 2024 with a good VP candidate if he manages to win the nomination. He's not a Trump follower, but at the same time knows how to walk the line with Trump. DeSantis is also former military, which I personally prefer. The left has gone real hard to take DeSantis down and so far they have failed. If you read up on the man closer, you see why. He walks to the beat of his own drum and tends to run Florida in a way that makes them unique. He's not anti-Science or anti-tech save in their political stances. I would welcome a younger, progressive Republican who isn't a Trump Puppet or someone the left can easily destroy.

[RiverDog]

I'd vote for DeSantis over Biden in a heartbeat. I don't know enough about Abbott to take him. I know he won office in a wheelchair. I'd actually be somewhat interested to see Sanders in office. He's kind of a wild card. Probably couldn't get much done, but he'd at least be interesting. I think his ideas are more interesting than Biden. Hilary I might take over Biden mainly because of her husband's influence. I'll give you Harris.

I've read on DeSantis. He's not near the crazy people try to paint him as. He kept his calm in the storms he's dealt with. And governed Florida in a way that kept the state functioning through COVID. Contrary to the left's belief, he did listen to the science on COVID. A whole lot more than a lot of liberal states did. Which is why he didn't pursue exactly the same methods even with a huge elderly population. I'll definitely be open to DeSantis in 2024 with a good VP candidate if he manages to win the nomination. He's not a Trump follower, but at the same time knows how to walk the line with Trump. DeSantis is also former military, which I personally prefer. The left has gone real hard to take DeSantis down and so far they have failed. If you read up on the man closer, you see why. He walks to the beat of his own drum and tends to run Florida in a way that makes them unique. He's not anti-Science or anti-tech save in their political stances. I would welcome a younger, progressive Republican who isn't a Trump Puppet or someone the left can easily destroy.

All I need to know about DeSantis is that he's pro Trump. That's my litmus test for any R candidate. I won't even read their statement in the voter's pamphlet if they're pro Trump.

[Hawktawk]

I'd vote for DeSantis over Biden in a heartbeat. I don't know enough about Abbott to take him. I know he won office in a wheelchair. I'd actually be somewhat interested to see Sanders in office. He's kind of a wild card. Probably couldn't get much done, but he'd at least be interesting. I think his ideas are more interesting than Biden. Hilary I might take over Biden mainly because of her husband's influence. I'll give you Harris.

I've read on DeSantis. He's not near the crazy people try to paint him as. He kept his calm in the storms he's dealt with. And governed Florida in a way that kept the state functioning through COVID. Contrary to the left's belief, he did listen to the science on COVID. A whole lot more than a lot of liberal states did. Which is why he didn't pursue exactly the same methods even with a huge elderly population. I'll definitely be open to DeSantis in 2024 with a good VP candidate if he manages to win the nomination. He's not a Trump follower, but at the same time knows how to walk the line with Trump. DeSantis is also former military, which I personally prefer. The left has gone real hard to take DeSantis down and so far they have failed. If you read up on the man closer, you see why. He walks to the beat of his own drum and tends to run Florida in a way that makes them unique. He's not anti-Science or anti-tech save in their political stances. I would welcome a younger, progressive Republican who isn't a Trump Puppet or someone the left can easily destroy.

All I need to know about DeSantis is that he's pro Trump. That's my litmus test for any R candidate. I won't even read their statement in the voter's pamphlet if they're pro Trump.

Agreed on deathsantis. Biden is shot. His brain is gone . The stress of the job has completely addled him . He should be removed under the 25th amendment right now . We traded psycho for senile . These parties need to start watching out for America instead of old unstable men .

[c_hawkbob]

DeSantis is every bit as bad a Trump, just not as buffoonish.

[I-5]

DeSantis is Trump's younger brother in spirit - no thanks. The thing is, I don't know if he could take down the Trump cult in a primary...unless these Jan 6 hearings are doing damage to the cult members (I doubt it).

[NorthHawk]

Anyone not voting Democrat in this election is voting to give away democracy.
It's that simple.
The Republicans will abuse any power, gerrymander any district, and make any law that will give them power to the point of overruling the voters in some states.
We've seen this playbook over the last 10 years and it's at a critical point. If they aren't stopped now, you are going to look back in 10 years and wonder what the hell did we do.

[I-5]

Amen, NH. To put it into perspective, what would have happened had Obama lost an election and tried the exact the same tactics as Trump - words and actions? Can you imagine Obama leading a Stop the Steal rally on the day of certification and goad supporters to storm the Capitol to intervene in our elective process? How did it even get this far?

[RiverDog]

So long as my Representative, Republican Dan Newhouse, makes it through the primaries, I'll be voting for him. The one way to make things better is to promote the non Trump sane Republicans and help the party rid themselves of the scourge created by Trump. Newhouse knew he would be placing his political future in jeopardy by voting to impeach Trump, but he voted his conscience.

[Aseahawkfan]

I disagree on DeSantis. But it's a moot point until he decides to run. I think if he does. you'll see what I'm talking about.

DeSantis is an ambitious young politician interested in going after the presidency. He's navigated the Trump waters far more intelligently than most of the other Republicans I've seen. He doesn't get into insult matches with Trump when Trump insults him, which he has done. He courts and manages Trump without throwing insults himself. I have an idea of what he is positioning for, but we'll see soon enough. I've read how he carries himself, how he manages Florida, and how he maintains Trump support while not acting like Trump himself. DeSantis is a Yale graduate and Harvard educated lawyer, former U.S. Naval officer who did his time with the J.A.G. A career politician who wants the presidency I believe.

What do I want from DeSantis? I want him to pull the Republican Party back to the center. I believe he is one of the few men who can do it. He has garnered enough Trump support to get Trump votes, while at the same time acting as a centrist which would attract the swing voters, especially on the national stage. He's younger at 43 years of age who will be 45 come 2024. He manages a large state and has done so effectively.

What you need to get the Republican Party out of this hellish mindset is someone like DeSantis. Someone that can manage Trump without going into the gutter with him while still pulling the necessary votes to win the nomination. That's going to be the key because Trump is still polling stronger than DeSantis for the nomination. No Republican is currently close to Trump for the nomination.

https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/08/trump-2024-gop-primary-field/

I feel DeSantis on a national stage with his credentials could surprise Trump.

I would support DeSantis because I think of him as one of the few that can pull the Republicans back to center, especially if he can take the nomination and gain the national stage. And he is not Trump at all. If you listen to him and read on him, you will see he isn't close to a Trump-like figure. He's very much a career politician with a very good educational and military background who is using Trump to advance his career as any Republican must do right now. But if he can push ahead of Trump, he can take the party back from the loon.

That's how I see it. But first he has to show well when the primaries come because right now Trump has the Republican presidential nomination locked barring a great showing from DeSantis or someone else unforeseen. I seriously doubt Mike Pence can pull the nomination as he is too invested in religion for centrist Republicans.

[Aseahawkfan]

Anyone not voting Democrat in this election is voting to give away democracy.
It's that simple.
The Republicans will abuse any power, gerrymander any district, and make any law that will give them power to the point of overruling the voters in some states.
We've seen this playbook over the last 10 years and it's at a critical point. If they aren't stopped now, you are going to look back in 10 years and wonder what the hell did we do.

I don't buy your ideas. I won't vote Democrat because as far as I'm concerned the Democrats aren't interested in liberty, haven't been for some time.

Democrats are liars and hypocrites who only claim to be promoting "Democracy" when it seems sensible to do so. But their record on taxation, regulation, laws, and the like are anything but interested in freedom. Then again you said Democracy as in a majority shoving down our throats their ideas of what America should be like and using mob rule to do so. Democrats don't believe in a Constitutional Republic, I often wonder if they even know what that type of government means.

Democrats don't respect individual rights unless it's abortion which is part of their population control agenda, the underlying philosophy in the Constitution, or freedom. Democrats are pretty far from the party to vote for if you believe in American liberty and the idea of a Republic.

Democrats want us all attached the tax matrix to milk off us as much as they can while claiming to "help" people who never ask why everything is so expensive and then analyze the added tax costs to everything they pay for. Democrats are the epitome of Democracy gone wrong as they overpromise, underdeliver, and overtax Americans. Why would I vote for them?

Because some guy like yourself makes some ridiculous emotional argument he can't back up with facts? Don't try your games with me. They don't work. They don't work with the majority of Americans. The only people that believe that trash idea the Democrats are protecting Democracy are people who don't bother to analyze Democrat policies and stances.

[Aseahawkfan]

All I need to know about DeSantis is that he's pro Trump. That's my litmus test for any R candidate. I won't even read their statement in the voter's pamphlet if they're pro Trump.

We'll discuss this more when we see how the midterms go. I expect big Republican losses due to the Roe vs. Wade decision. I don't think Trump will want to run in 2024 if the Democrats take Congress. He won't be able to get away with his trash if the Democrats take Congress and he'll be even more open to prosecution or political censure.

But if the the Democrats take Congress, he might throw his weight behind someone like DeSantis to take the Executive to ensure he can be pardoned.

I know why you won't vote for DeSantis, but you'll be quite surprised at how well he'll sell to America if he gets a push. He has literally everything you want in a presidential candidate from the education to the military background to the height and looks. He has enough Trump support to get their votes. His actual positions are more Centrist. Wild cards are he's Italian and we've never had an Italian president and he's Catholic, but not as big a deal as we've now had two Irish-Catholic presidents.

I don't expect you to vote for any current Republicans because no non-Trump supported Republican has a chance of winning the presidency right now. That's just the reality of our situation. If you won't vote for someone that at least garners Trump's support, you won't be voting for a mainstream Republican until Trump is dead. But it won't change that a mainstream Republican like DeSantis is a strong candidate and one who can pull the Republicans back from crazy land.

[RiverDog]

We'll discuss this more when we see how the midterms go. I expect big Republican losses due to the Roe vs. Wade decision. I don't think Trump will want to run in 2024 if the Democrats take Congress. He won't be able to get away with his trash if the Democrats take Congress and he'll be even more open to prosecution or political censure.

I don't expect you to vote for any current Republicans because no non-Trump supported Republican has a chance of winning the presidency right now. That's just the reality of our situation. If you won't vote for someone that at least garners Trump's support, you won't be voting for a mainstream Republican until Trump is dead. But it won't change that a mainstream Republican like DeSantis is a strong candidate and one who can pull the Republicans back from crazy land.

Then so be it. Until the Republicans denounce Trump and return their party to some sense of normalcy, I'm not voting for them. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll be voting for the Democrat. I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, in 2016, and the primary reason I voted for Biden in 2020 was to get Trump the hell out of office.

[RiverDog]

Back to the thread topic.

I've pretty much done a 180 on the worthiness of the hearings. Although I still don't think they'll ever get Trump on any criminal charges, the impact of some of the testimony, in particular Ms. Hutchinson, was absolutely bone chilling. I had flashbacks of John Dean in the Watergate hearings, of which most of you are too damn young to remember. I wouldn't have heard it had it not been for the hearings.

So mark down the time and date and bookmark this page. The mighty RiverDog admits that he was wrong.

[I-5]

Except Riv, what Hutchinson described under oath about Trump’s actions before and on Jan 6 do rise to crimes, and if it can be corroborated, could easily lead to an indictment of Trump by the DOJ.

[Aseahawkfan]

Except Riv, what Hutchinson described under oath about Trump’s actions before and on Jan 6 do rise to crimes, and if it can be corroborated, could easily lead to an indictment of Trump by the DOJ.

Trump has already committed crimes for any regular citizen. So has Biden's son Hunter. If you have the juice to push back, then it doesn't matter.

You, hawktawk, and so many others on this forum have posted that Trump has committed crimes for years. He's been caught committing crimes like paying off porn stars or misappropriation of election funds or his call with Ukraine. Any regular person probably be in jail by this time, same as Clinton would have been in jail for stuff he did. Or Nixon. Or Cheney. Or Hilary. The list is long. But if you have the political juice, you get to walk.

That's what Riverdog is talking about. You guys have literally been claiming Trump did some crime for going on 6 years now. You've spent six plus years of your life waiting for this guy to go down and claiming they finally had him.

Every time some article or some new piece of news came out, hawktawk or c-bob or you been claiming he's going to jail or he's going to get prosecuted or what not.

Riverdog wanted to see the whole Russian Collusion trial and thought that trial caught Trump in some crimes or lies.

Nothing happened.

You want to know what is more likely at this point than Trump going to jail? Trump running for president in 2024.

You want to know how that changes? Democrats winning a solid majority in Congress in the midterms gaining enough votes to hammer Trump and make sure he fears to run again.

That's what has a far more likely chance of stopping Trump than this committee. But hey, let the Dems keep trying. But as far as Trump going to jail or being prosecuted, I'll believe it when I see it. People been claiming he's going to jail for six years now, six fricking years. Several big states, Democrats in Congress, Department of Justice before and after he was elected, F.B.I., and several committees and prosecutors going after Trump around the country. Trump has been investigated in Scotland. What happened to him so far? He's sitting in Florida playing golf and whining on some other social media site I don't read.

Hey, if this endless investigating and hoping for Trump's downfall keeps the Democrats motivated and warm at night, I guess keep at it. I'm more with RD on this one. It doesn't seem like they'll be able to stick anything on him without causing severe, sever problems and rallying the Republican Party to vote for a jailbird and then find out if a president can pardon himself. Something I don't even want to find out.

This is why I hope someone else wins the Republican Primary in 2024 or Trump doesn't bother running if the Democrats take the Senate. That seems the best path to get rid of Trump over waiting for some crime to stick on him. The man's done all kinds of scumbag stuff and just keeps on turning himself into a martyr each time. I'm not sure Trump in jail would even be a defeated Trump. He'd probably find some way to run from jail.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-statement/index.html

One of Hutchinson's claims is already being undermined. If they undermine even one, they will discredit much of her testimony and open holes for lawyers in defense.

It's times like this where I seriously wonder if the Republicans are sending in disinformation witnesses to the January 6th Committee to undermine the investigation. They send someone in like Cassidy, have her provide testimony, then seed some testimony that can be undermined, which will lead to the undermining of her entire testimony on purpose just to set the committee up to fail. I guess we'll see if the Secret Service comes on to refute this.

There is no end to what either party will do to set the other side up in my opinion.

[I-5]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-statement/index.html

One of Hutchinson's claims is already being undermined. If they undermine even one, they will discredit much of her testimony and open holes for lawyers in defense.

It's times like this where I seriously wonder if the Republicans are sending in disinformation witnesses to the January 6th Committee to undermine the investigation. They send someone in like Cassidy, have her provide testimony, then seed some testimony that can be undermined, which will lead to the undermining of her entire testimony on purpose just to set the committee up to fail. I guess we'll see if the Secret Service comes on to refute this.

There is no end to what either party will do to set the other side up in my opinion.

Being undermined doesn't not equal debunked. Her story being attacked is as predictable as the sun rising. Let them refute it under oath, then we'll see.

Mark Meadows is pretty quiet...he could easily set the record straight if he wanted to.

I can't think of a scenario where the DOJ can come up with a reason NOT to indict Trump, but let's wait until more info comes out.

[RiverDog]

There is a means to either corroborate or discredit Hutchinson's testimony, and my gut tells me that she wouldn't have come forward if she didn't know that someone would also testify to back up her claims. They've subpoenaed a key insider that could corroborate much of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony:

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack has issued a subpoena to compel testimony from Pat Cipollone, former President Donald Trump's White House counsel.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics ... -subpoena/

And supposedly the Secret Service is going to respond to the latest testimony provided by Ms. Hutchinson. As a rule, the SS is very reluctant to have their agents personally testify as to the personal activity/statements of those they are assigned to guard. A federal judge had to order them to testify against Slick Willy in a grand jury inquiry back in '98, and one would likely have to do so if they wanted the driver of the SUV to personally attest to what went on in that vehicle at this hearing.

The U.S. Secret Service will have more to say to the Jan. 6 House select committee after former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony Tuesday regarding former President Trump's actions related to Jan. 6, 2021. In a hearing announced at the last minute, she told the committee of Trump's desire to go to the Capitol with his supporters while Congress was in a joint session counting the electoral ballots.

"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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-ser ... testimony/

[c_hawkbob]

The SS doesn't dish on their charges period. Of course they are going to deny anything happened.

[curmudgeon]

Another rejected script by the failed screenwriter…..

[RiverDog]

Yeah, now I'm not so sure. It appears that the committee was in a huge rush to get Ms. Hutchinson's bombshell testimony out in the open and did so without first reaching out to the Secret Service for some type of corroboration to her claims. The SS had already assured the committee that they would cooperate in the investigation, that they could access any witness or documents they deem relevant, so why they didn't check with them BEFORE allowing Ms. Hutchinson to go on national TV with her incredible story is a mystery.

Now there's word that the SS agents in the SUV are willing to testify that Trump did NOT lunge at the steering wheel:

However, 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.

Since Ms. Hutchinson wasn't in the vehicle and her claim was based on 2nd hand information, I'm not sure how much this will damage her credibility if, indeed, the SS testifies as this article suggests. But it's going to be a huge black eye for the committee if the SS denies what Hutchinson said.

[I-5]

I don't think one refutation from the SS that they're willing to testify undermines ANYTHING about her testimony. Can we all agree that nothing said in the media counts for shite, and the only thing that counts is what is said under oath? Since the only witness to the lunging incident is the Deputy Chief of Staff and the driver himself, they can deny it happened, but it doesn’t mean she’s lying. Her testimony is that she was in the West Wing listening the Deputy CoS tell the story and that Engel was present. I’d like to see them deny telling her that - then one of their testimonies will for sure be false.

Why is it most republicans are loathe to testify under oath - or am I wrong about that? Hillary for all her flaws, sat through hours and hours of testimony under oath. Republicans trying to tear down a former Trump staffer are all taking shots in the media, but so far none under oath.

[RiverDog]

I don't think one refutation from the SS that they're willing to testify undermines ANYTHING about her testimony. Can we all agree that nothing said in the media counts for shite, and the only thing that counts is what is said under oath? Since the only witness to the lunging incident is the Deputy Chief of Staff and the driver himself, they can deny it happened, but it doesn’t mean she’s lying. Her testimony is that she was in the West Wing listening the Deputy CoS tell the story and that Engel was present. I’d like to see them deny telling her that - then one of their testimonies will for sure be false.

Why is it most republicans are loathe to testify under oath - or am I wrong about that? Hillary for all her flaws, sat through hours and hours of testimony under oath. Republicans trying to tear down a former Trump staffer are all taking shots in the media, but so far none under oath.

I'm not sure how much this will damage her credibility if, indeed, the SS testifies as this article suggests. But it's going to be a huge black eye for the committee if the SS denies what Hutchinson said.

I guess I should have capitalized or somehow emphasized the underlined portion of my statement.

I never said that Ms. Hutchinson was lying. I said that her credibility could be compromised if the SS refutes her testimony. You don't have to lie in order to have your credibility compromised. If the 2nd hand information she heard is proven to be false, then it doesn't necessarily mean that she was lying. It means that the information she gives can't be relied on to be accurate and casts doubt on everything she testifies to.

The point is that the committee seems to have put the wagon in front of the horses. If they had an agreement with the SS that they'd cooperate in the investigation, then why didn't they reach out to them BEFORE putting Ms. Hutchinson in the witness chair and on live, nationwide television?

[I-5]

And I’m saying it depends what exactly the SS is refuting. Her testimony is that she was TOLD about the incident by Ornato (Deputy COS). If Ornato and Engel do testify under oath, they can say it never happened, which doesn’t change her story but if they’re saying that Ornato never told the story, and Engel denies being in the room, then they in essence are saying she’s lying. I’d like to hear that.

What is the most damaging is not the lunging incident, but the firsthand testimony she gave about directly hearing Trump tell security to do away with the magnetizers and allow armed protestors into the event, and her eyewitness testimony quoting him saying he knows they won’t hurt him.

[RiverDog]

And I’m saying it depends what exactly the SS is refuting. Her testimony is that she was TOLD about the incident by Ornato (Deputy COS). If Ornato and Engel do testify under oath, they can say it never happened, which doesn’t change her story but if they’re saying that Ornato never told the story, and Engel denies being in the room, then they in essence are saying she’s lying. I’d like to hear that.

What is the most damaging is not the lunging incident, but the firsthand testimony she gave about directly hearing Trump tell security to do away with the magnetizers and allow armed protestors into the event, and her eyewitness testimony quoting him saying he knows they won’t hurt him.

IMO Ms. Hutchinson shouldn't have even testified to the lunging incident, especially given that she didn't actually witness it. As you said, that incident, if it happened, doesn't do anything to support any of the potential criminal charges that the Justice Department may take up, so why even mention it? It's like the temper tantrum of Trump throwing dishes around when he heard Bill Barr say that there was no evidence of election fraud. Will the Justice Department prosecute Trump for damaging government property?

The committee allowed that testimony to take place because it was sensational and would have an impact on viewers/voters, which is one of the reasons why I was originally against the formation of this committee. Now they've opened themselves up to criticism that it's political theatre and not a true, fact finding investigation.

[I-5]

Looks like Tony Ornato has said a lot of things didn’t happen:

https://twitter.com/alyssafarah/status/1542247899383402498?s=21&t=wJOKb6SGj9VA3_O0GEQvcw

Another troubling detail is that Trump recruited Ornato from the SS to be his Deputy CoS, which is highly unorthodox and paints Ornato as an acolyte by moving into Trump’s inner circle who will protect him at any cost, while still calling the shots at the SS. It was Ornato who planned to whisk Pence away from the Capitol during the riot, but Pence didn’t trust him and refused to get into the motorcade.

[I-5]

IMO Ms. Hutchinson shouldn't have even testified to the lunging incident, especially given that she didn't actually witness it. As you said, that incident, if it happened, doesn't do anything to support any of the potential criminal charges that the Justice Department may take up, so why even mention it? It's like the temper tantrum of Trump throwing dishes around when he heard Bill Barr say that there was no evidence of election fraud. Will the Justice Department prosecute Trump for damaging government property?

The committee allowed that testimony to take place because it was sensational and would have an impact on viewers/voters, which is one of the reasons why I was originally against the formation of this committee. Now they've opened themselves up to criticism that it's political theatre and not a true, fact finding investigation.

You and I both know full well that they were calling political theatre before it began. Her credibility is intact unless and until we hear otherwise under oath.

[RiverDog]

IMO Ms. Hutchinson shouldn't have even testified to the lunging incident, especially given that she didn't actually witness it. As you said, that incident, if it happened, doesn't do anything to support any of the potential criminal charges that the Justice Department may take up, so why even mention it? It's like the temper tantrum of Trump throwing dishes around when he heard Bill Barr say that there was no evidence of election fraud. Will the Justice Department prosecute Trump for damaging government property?

The committee allowed that testimony to take place because it was sensational and would have an impact on viewers/voters, which is one of the reasons why I was originally against the formation of this committee. Now they've opened themselves up to criticism that it's political theatre and not a true, fact finding investigation.

You and I both know full well that they were calling political theatre before it began. Her credibility is intact unless and until we hear otherwise under oath.

Of course, they were calling it political theatre before it began. Hell, even I was saying that, and I can't stand DJT and would love nothing other than to see him behind bars eating off a tin plate. The point is that they gave the opposition a knife and a gun. The committee should have been doing everything they could to make her testimony as bullet proof as possible, checking and double checking her story so as to close off any potential criticism, and instead, they did the exact opposite.

And whether you or I feel her credibility is or isn't intact is beside the point. The point is that there are others out there, moderates that can be 'bought' for the lack of a better word, that are going to look at that incident and wonder what else in her testimony is just scuttle butt based on hearsay.

And my questions might have appeared rhetorical, so I'll ask you directly: Why have Ms. Hutchinson testify to the lunging incident at all? What difference does it make if he did or didn't? And why the testimony of Trump's temper tantrum? Like you said, the truly important testimony is Trump telling security to shut down the metal detectors. That is something that they can prosecute him for or use as evidence of supporting the insurrection and putting lives in danger, not breaking some dinnerware.

[I-5]

I don’t know the format of the questions, so it’s hard for me to understand whether Cheney’s questioning brought out the temper incidents or if Hutchinson volunteered them. I agree the temper examples are more sensational than material to criminal charges, of which there are many in her testimony. The level of detail in her testimony, the clear eyed delivery, and saying she doesn’t know when she doesn’t know the answer paints her as a reasonable witness even in the most moderate eyes I would think. She worked for Ted Cruz, ffs.