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

[Rawley]

Thank you for making a fool out of yourself, in your weak attempt at a "gotcha," Rawley.

No problem, just trying to help. We all know how you have a primal need to appear to be the smartest person in the room. Wouldn't want you to tarnish that by repeating such ignorance in your posts.

 

[Rawley]

That's my personal opinion, which I am entitled to, based on testimony under oath from multiple republican witnesses.

Do you think it's appropriate for a Congressional committee to declare him guilty?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Well, it's worked in our country for 200+ years until Nancy threw that in garbage. Karma's a bitch though.

It worked for 200+ years until the party-over-country Banana Republicans tried to sabotage a bipartisan commission by putting suspects on a committee to investigate themselves, which forced the Dems to be the adults in the room and do it themselves, all so people like you can come along later and cry the very crocodile tears that your party set up for you to shed.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Hutchinson claimed someone told her X happened in a car. She wasn't there.
The driver was there.
We know who the driver was.
The Congressional committee knows who the driver was.
He's still alive.
He's willing to testify, apparently.
Congressional Committee hasn't asked him if what Hutchinson heard from someone else is true.

How does that make sense?

How do you know they haven't been coordinating that? Also how is that exculpatory at all to the point of the hearings? This is the most meaningless side note ever.

 

[upsideguy]

So what you are trying to say as a Trump hater is: Damn, our major bombshell tanked and our witness lied under oath, but let's see if we can salvage something? Trump was irate? Okay. Is that sedition?

The witness did not lie under oath. The people that told you that are lying to you and you don't have the knowledge base nor intellectual curosity to see that. Hutchinson remains one of the most damaging witnesses thus far because she was a cog in the wheel on the days surrounding 1/6

No, there is a seven point plan of Trump's sedition.... Here it is:

Liz Cheney, from cite:
"President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack," Cheney said, echoing the statement she made in 2021 when she voted to impeach Trump.

A committee source later provided CNN the following description of the "sophisticated seven-part plan":
"President Trump oversaw a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the 2020 election and prevent the transition of presidential power.

1. President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.
2. President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Acting Attorney General, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.
3. President Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the US Constitution and the law.
4. President Trump corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.
5. President Trump's legal team and other Trump associates instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.
6. President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol.
7. As the violence was underway, President Trump ignored multiple pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.

These are initial findings and the Select Committee's investigation is still ongoing. In addition, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only certain of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources."

....and, as you are following the hearings closely, as I am sure are as I know you like to be well informed, you will see that the House Select committee is thoroughly addressing each one. Each of them, stand on their own as a seditious conspiracy, but collectively show us what a sick individual Trump (and by extension) his supporters are. We are now at point where its Trump v America. Don't be caught on the wrong side of the equation giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the state. Your friends and family will remember you as a traitor and fool.

PS - I don't care much for Osama Bin Laden either, and he did far less damage to my country.

 

[Binary_Digit]

OK. You asked how their testimony could show she's a liar. I showed you how.

Fair enough. She could be shown to have lied with testimony from Ornato that he never told her that story.

But she would not be shown to be a liar if all Ornato does is testify that the physical altercation never occurred. Which is what the SS has so far claimed that they're ready to say.

"I never told her that!" - Would be evidence that Hutchinson lied.
"The altercation never occurred!" - Would not be evidence that Hutchinson lied.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

How do you know they haven't been coordinating that? Also how is that exculpatory at all to the point of the hearings? This is the most meaningless side note ever.

Well, the "multiple news sources" reported that the Secret Service people were prepared to deny the allegation.

We can't know until they are under oath, but if this kind of hearsay allegation comes forward, common sense tells anyone that if the people with personal knowledge are available, they should be called and asked. There is nothing stopping the Congressional committee from doing that. People here have pointed out that they already talked to them behind closed doors, and apparently they were never asked about this.

How do I know they haven't been "coordinating" that? Well, since the Secret Service has announced that they have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate and stand ready to testify, there would really be nothing to coordinate except a day/time to appear, which could have already happened.

 

[element94]

Do you think it's appropriate for a Congressional committee to declare him guilty?

They are not legal proceedings, but it's right that they are informing the public of the evidence of malfeasance under oath for possible prosecution by the DoJ.

 

[Rawley]

It worked for 200+ years until the party-over-country Banana Republicans tried to sabotage a bipartisan commission by putting suspects on a committee to investigate themselves, which forced the Dems to be the adults in the room and do it themselves, all so people like you can come along later and cry the very crocodile tears that your party set up for you to shed.

Well, don't act surprised when we laugh in the faces of "people like you" when the Republican don't allow any Democrats on their committees investigating Biden next year.

 

[tres borrachos]

lol. That's a lot of hoops to jump through, and highlights why hearsay evidence is generally prohibited.

Again, the secret service has fully cooperated with the partisan committee. Ornato testified, including on this incident. They can either look to his prior testimony, or bring him back.

Link to Ornato testifying on this incident.

 

[Rawley]

They are not legal proceedings, but it's right that they are informing the public of the evidence of malfeasance under oath for possible prosecution by the DoJ.

Wasn't my question. They are not informing the public of the evidence of malfeasance, they are declaring guilt. Expressly. Do you think that is appropriate?

 

[tres borrachos]

Complaining about this being one-sided is disingenuous. Big Lie Republicans had no business being on a committee investigating themselves. And the vast majority of the witness testimony has been pro-Trump inner circle Republicans, not Democrat hacks. At the end of the day, it's the facts that are one-sided. You'll hear the other side once the other side agrees to testify under oath, like these witnesses have.

Let's also remember that McCarthy tapped 7 Republicans, one being the traitor Jim Jordan. Pelosi reject Jordan and the other (who was also complicit in 1/6 misbehaviors) so that idiot MCCarthy pouted and pulled them all.

The citizens of Trump Fan Nation prefer to forget about that because it doesn't fit into their talking points that Hannity feeds them.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Wasn't my question. They are not informing the public of the evidence of malfeasance, they are declaring guilt. Expressly. Do you think that is appropriate?

Why wouldn't it be appropriate?

Congress can "declare" whatever they want.

 

[tres borrachos]

Your partisan take. This is the first time congressional hearings against any president or individual have been completely one sided. There are seven democrats on the panel and two republicans who have it in for Trump. Every member of the committee is against Trump. Nobody is there to defend him. Context of Trump's statements has been edited out. It was a kangaroo court from the beginning. The republican leadership should have been allowed to pick the republicans on the panel and not have them turned down by Nasty Nancy. Not sure what witnesses you claim have been devastating. Had Hutchison been speaking the truth that might have been, at least to Trump's chances in 2024 if he runs. However that blue up in their faces.

Which side are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on?

 

[Rawley]

Fair enough. She could be shown to have lied with testimony from Ornato that he never told her that story.

But she would not be shown to be a liar if all Ornato does is testify that the physical altercation never occurred. Which is what the SS has so far claimed that they're ready to say.

"I never told her that!" - Would be evidence that Hutchinson lied.
"The altercation never occurred!" - Would not be evidence that Hutchinson lied.

Why would he have told her that story if he's testifying it never occurred. Can't you see the two go hand in hand?

 

[element94]

Wasn't my question. They are not informing the public of the evidence of malfeasance, they are declaring guilt. Expressly. Do you think that is appropriate?

No, as I said, they are presenting evidence via witness testimony under oath. No one has declared Trump is guilty of this or that in those hearings, despite the overwhelming evidence, because they are not stupid.

 

[Rawley]

Why wouldn't it be appropriate?

Congress can "declare" whatever they want.

Sure they could. They could also declare that Nikki Haley is a skanky whore. Doesn't make it appropriate.

 

[Rawley]

No, as I said, they are presenting evidence via witness testimony under oath. No one has declared Trump is guilty of this or that in those hearings, despite the overwhelming evidence, because they are not stupid.

"The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States," the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well, the "multiple news sources" reported that the Secret Service people were prepared to deny the allegation.

We can't know until they are under oath, but if this kind of hearsay allegation comes forward, common sense tells anyone that if the people with personal knowledge are available, they should be called and asked. There is nothing stopping the Congressional committee from doing that. People here have pointed out that they already talked to them behind closed doors, and apparently they were never asked about this.

How do I know they haven't been "coordinating" that? Well, since the Secret Service has announced that they have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate and stand ready to testify, there would really be nothing to coordinate except a day/time to appear, which could have already happened.

Show me a link to the Secret Service people denying the conversation between Ornato and Hutchinson. The only SS agent present for that conversation was Engel, so the denial you refer to would come from him.

 

[tres borrachos]

I think it's hilarious that @Rawley is pretending not to read my posts because he knows he keeps lying and I keep catching him.

 

[dcsports]

Link to Ornato testifying on this incident.

Seriously? You can look that up. It's discussed in some of the links I provided earlier.

 

[tres borrachos]

Seriously? You can look that up. It's discussed in some of the links I provided earlier.

Yes, I'm serious, I'm not looking through hundreds of posts. Please link to Ornato's testimony. And did he testify to what Hutchinson testified that he said to her? Your link will show that too, yes?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Well, don't act surprised when we laugh in the faces of "people like you" when the Republican don't allow any Democrats on their committees investigating Biden next year.

This isn't a partisan game to me and I'm not a big supporter of Biden, so I say bring it on. If there's any evidence that Biden may have committed crimes and the Dems are trying to cover it up and sabotage an impartial hearing then I'll welcome a similar committee with open arms. Neither side could force people to lie under oath to make an innocent person look guilty.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Let's also remember that McCarthy tapped 7 Republicans, one being the traitor Jim Jordan. Pelosi reject Jordan and the other (who was also complicit in 1/6 misbehaviors) so that idiot MCCarthy pouted and pulled them all.

The citizens of Trump Fan Nation prefer to forget about that because it doesn't fit into their talking points that Hannity feeds them.

Technically McCarthy appointed 5 Republicans and Pelosi rejected two - Jordan and Banks - because they were both Big Lie Republicans who voted against certifying.

 

[tres borrachos]

Technically McCarthy appointed 5 Republicans and Pelosi rejected two - Jordan and Banks - because they were both Big Lie Republicans who voted against certifying.

My math failed. Thanks for the correction.

I forgot the other one was Banks. Jordan is a piece of shit Big Lie proponent. How stupid to have him on there.