AIDE DETAILS TRUMP’S RAGE ON JAN. 6He Knew Crowd Was Armed, but Tried to Loosen Security, Testimony Recounts

[Rawley]

No that's not the case

I misread your post, the date

No need to be snarky

Where is this question leading?

You are obviously trying to make a point, unsure what that is

Forget it.

 

[Rawley]

We know Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. He said as much at his rally to his jacked-up cultists. That the SS didn't take him there was bound to piss him off. How he expressed his anger inside the car is irrelevant to me

Good for you. Odd that a leader of your party considered that story to be the most significant thing in her testimony.

 

[yankintx]

Forget it.

You probably should

 

[Liberal7360]

A source close to Ornato told NBC News that Ornato is willing to testify under oath disputing that account, while a source close to the Secret Service separately told NBC News that Engel is also willing to do the same.

'They're not here to hurt me': Former aide says Trump knew Jan. 6 crowd was armed

Cassidy Hutchinson described violent outbursts from the former president on Jan. 6.

www.nbcnews.com

But that isn't what is being asked.

When that testimony actually happens, then it can be used to say she's a liar.

Just saying they will testify again isn't anything close to saying she lied.

 

[BitterPill]

That would be hearsay heresy.

I have no response to that save for offering you a semi-coveted bronze MAGA. Sadly, I don't think you are ready to convert yet, but when you are, Trump and I will be here, so hope persists for you.

MAGA.

 

[MTAtech]

I am not aware of Kangaroo courts as a result of decisions by those who were offered a seat to withdraw.
Nobody refuted her testimony nor can somebody claim that a whole testimony can be refuted by simply finding some inconsistencies. We are aware from even criminal trials that recollections can create inconsistencies here and there. If we ever see Trump being executed then I will see your point. Right now, I just see you desperately calling others fascists simply because you want to excuse Trump's attempt to destroy the republic. Apparently, this was not a fascist attempt in your book.

The question you are asking has a flawed logic similar to the one of asking if the Nuremberg trials have changed the minds of any fascist. They did not but this does not mean that we should not have had them!

 

[MTAtech]

 

[MTAtech]

Testifying under oath about something that isn't true is perjury.

Schiff coached Hutchinson to lie as part of the Stalinist show trial - an ongoing pattern for the little Nazi scum.

Tony Ornato already made it clear that Hutchinson lied.

You have a problem with facts, which you should get straight before posting blather.

Ms. Hutchinson testified that others told her. That isn't perjury.
You don't know what Schiff did or didn't do. That's you imagination running away with you.

 

[mike2810]

No, Hutchenson lied.

MSN

democrats lie about everything - always.

"A source close to"................ but not Tony O saying she lied.
I suggest that the "source close to" give that statement under oath before the committee.

Tony O needs to step up.

 

[mike2810]

Actually ****jing awesome. Clearly you don't. "show me the video where they didn't talk." LOL You funny

Funny. Pretty easy request for all the footage for that day and that room. If they did not meet or talk to each other. There you go.

Guess you couldn't figure that out.

 

[mike2810]

Or an adult on the committee can step forward and say "Even if 100% of the hearsay she provided is true, are ketchup splatters and the president wrestling for control of his SUV something congress should be wasting time on?"

Not hearsay. She stated what Tony O told her.

Are you not interested in finding out what led up to the events of 1/6?

 

[MTAtech]

Or an adult on the committee can step forward and say "Even if 100% of the hearsay she provided is true, are ketchup splatters and the president wrestling for control of his SUV something congress should be wasting time on?"

Well, Trump did say there is nobody tougher on china than me. Now we know, he throws china against the wall.

 

[Jay Falcon]

Soviet style political show trials are likely coming, I wouldn’t be shocked if the Democrats declare a state of martial law and cancel the midterm elections. That’s about 30% chance now. 1/3 chance the Democrats launch a coup because they have been spreading false misinformation of their enemies as being fascists subverting America for a foreign power for years and they can’t let it happen that they lose an election now

You make a lot of stupid posts but this one is way out there.

 

[MTAtech]

You make a lot of stupid posts but this one is way out there.

It’s not a stupid post. It’s an unhinged post. It’s like Trump’s reaction after watching Barr on TV saying there was no election fraud. The rivets bursting at the seams.

 

[jmotivator]

Shocked.. SHOCKED I am...

Secret Service: Jan. 6 panel didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony

The agency says it got no outreach for 10 days before the committee aired testimony about Donald Trump’s behavior in the presidential vehicle Jan. 6.

www.politico.com

 

[Jay Falcon]

It’s not a stupid post. It’s an unhinged post. It’s like Trump’s reaction after watching Barr on TV saying there was no election fraud. The rivets bursting at the seams.

The Hearings are driving Trump cultists out of their minds. It's scary to witness.

 

[MTAtech]

Shocked.. SHOCKED I am...

Secret Service: Jan. 6 panel didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony

The agency says it got no outreach for 10 days before the committee aired testimony about Donald Trump’s behavior in the presidential vehicle Jan. 6.

www.politico.com

The central issue is that Trump knew that the crowd was armed and actively wanted those armed forces to enter the Capitol. He also wanted metal detectors removed. The evidence is that he created the event and incited the mob. Trump’s narrative that he was an innocent bystander, watching a protest that got out of hand, was destroyed.

The car thing was relatively unimportant, although if true, means he was certifiably nuts.

 

[MTAtech]

The Hearings are driving Trump cultists out of their minds. It's scary to witness.

I think it’s a case study in psychology. We are watching people, who have their psyche fully invested in believing Trump. These people are witnessing their cult leader’s narrative being completely decimated. Their response is to dismiss the testimony and evidence and grasp at any straws in order to deny the obvious — in true cognitive dissonance fashion.

 

[reinaert]

I think it’s a case study in psychology. We are watching people, who have their psyche fully invested in believing Trump. These people are witnessing their cult leader’s narrative being completely decimated. Their response is to dismiss the testimony and evidence and grasp at any straws in order to deny the obvious — in true cognitive dissonance fashion.

World's going to burn because they need victims to discharge the tension.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Nice try at gaslighting. Her testimony described how 1/6 wasn’t just a bunch of rioters attacking the Capitol with Trump an innocent bystander. It showed that Trump was behind the entire scheme.

Too bad you live in the upside down.

There is enough here to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy.

The person who she claimed told her this story denies telling her this story. The people who she claimed were attacked by Trump deny her story.

Who's living in the upside down? How delusional do you have to be to allow this woman even a shred of legitimacy at this point?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Her story was in no way shape or form destroyed.

If you call the people involved directly involved denying it ever happened NOT destroying her testimony, then I guess in some delusional alternative universe you might be correct.

 

[MTAtech]

The person who she claimed told her this story denies telling her this story. The people who she claimed were attacked by Trump deny her story.

Who's living in the upside down? How delusional do you have to be to allow this woman even a shred of legitimacy at this point?

Nobody firsthand denied her testimony. If you disagree, post their testimony.

Nobody is challenging the central issue of Hutchinson’s testimony, that Trump knew that the crowd was armed and actively wanted those armed forces to enter the Capitol and wanted metal detectors removed. Her testimony was evidence that he created the event and incited the mob. That’s a violation of several serious federal laws.

Again, nobody is challenging the central and most damning portion of her testimony. Jack, your post is far from fabulous.

 

[reinaert]

The person who she claimed told her this story denies telling her this story. The people who she claimed were attacked by Trump deny her story.

Who's living in the upside down? How delusional do you have to be to allow this woman even a shred of legitimacy at this point?

One has risked five years in prison and death threats. The other allegedly muttered 'not me' to a friend. You're advertising that you have put your faith in Mr Not Me.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Nobody firsthand denied her testimony. If you disagree, post their testimony.

Stop it with the nonsense. The secret service issued a statement yesterday that both agents are prepared to testify that it never happened. You know this is true so why even pretend that you don't?

 

[NolanVoyd]

If you call the people involved directly involved denying it ever happened NOT destroying her testimony, then I guess in some delusional alternative universe you might be correct.

I don't think you know what her testimony was. You are confused.

What do you think she said that was untrue.