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

[Rawley]

What...... you lost your argument because of this

The "if they wanted a fair fight." Well....

No idea what you are jabbering about. Pelosi took the unprecedented step of blocking the members of the minority from sitting on a Select COmmittee. They call it "Select" because both parties get to select their members. Never in the 200+ years of our country.

Can't wait for the Dems' whines when McCarthy tells then thanks but no thanks when he sets up select committees next year. Hoo Doggies.

 

[Rawley]

Further you should watch the testimony. Who are you talking to? The other posters? You are just repeating untrue claims. You asked a question about Oranato which can't be answered because you don't understand what the hearing is even about . Name three charges against trump or i'm not bothering.

You're not bothering me. The nonsense you post is rather easy to bat away.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Thanks I knew that.

Then why did you ask when they'll be coming in to testify?

He responded months ago make the reasonable requests that they: "provide him the materials it plans on using to question him ahead of any deposition, all of the documents and testimony in the committee's possession that reference him and an explanation of the legal authority upon which the committee relied in issuing a subpoena."

Why haven't they worked with on these reasonable requests? Curious no?

Oh sure, I'm definitely curious as to why Jordan wants the committee's strategy ahead of time while simultaneously challenging its legitimacy and constitutionality. Innocent men don't behave in such a way.

 

[Exactice]

Nah, you are spewing her talking points. You're smart enough know that and honest enough to admit it. You know damn well that she didn't want them on the panel becasue they would have been "there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on." Apart from being unprecedented in the history of our country, it's been one of the most opaque and secretive ever.

This bullshit "bomshell" witness is a prime example. Why didn't they release the testimony of Englel and Ornato yesterday afternoon to clear up any confusion? Why didn't they release it months ago?

The EVENT Happened 1.5 years ago and we are ONLY hearing it now during a committee hearing.... After All the leaks this was the "bombshell" testimony that finally made it to the surface after 1.5 years.

Yeah I am also calling BS.

while I tried to listen to some of it (Hutchinson), and tried to give it a chance.... the moment.

"hearsay, and in the affect of, and I was in the vicinity and over heard"

I'll throw the dog a bone.... She did state that she was in certain situations where she first hand heard things. But bombshell?

1) With the FBI doing its review found no culpability to charge, "Trump knew they were armed" Yes but the magnometers were not removed and no weapons *edit* (Illegal weapons, I think i terms of actual guns) were in fact used or recovered IN the capital.
2) Trump going to the Capital would be his right, Its not illegal to go to the capital. But by white house counsel, he could be charged with crimes relating to being there. Ultimately he did not go even though he wanted.

Scream and pound sand all they want, this is a show. This is NOT a court of law, if ANY of this was legally bearing they could give it to the DOJ and FBI and have an official charge issued....... No different then Blasey Ford Publicly accusing Kavanauh of such crimes but refusing to go to the police department and file official charges where there is NO statutes of limitation...

Bombshell....... Trump this Trump that.

I am sick of Trump myself..... but Democracy is Crying by the hypocrisy of BOTH sides. Neither side is helping the situation and creating further divide. But these dumbass committees is useless and intentional malice and instigation of further divide period (in my opinion of course).....

 

[Mustachio]

No idea what you are jabbering about. Pelosi took the unprecedented step of blocking the members of the minority from sitting on a Select COmmittee. They call it "Select" because both parties get to select their members. Never in the 200+ years of our country.

Can't wait for the Dems' whines when McCarthy tells then thanks but no thanks when he sets up select committees next year. Hoo Doggies.

So you refuse to acknowledge the FACT that the GOP blocked a commission that would have had 0 democrats on it?

Interesting, the "sky isn't blue" argument

Clever

 

[MrNiceGuy]

And, are you an aide to one of the committee members so that you can state the facts about what the committee is doing or isn't doing? Yeah, I thought so. You don't have a clue anymore than any other joe schmoe who is spouting off "facts" here.

I can see that they haven't called people that they can easily call - these people literally have already talked to the committee and have pledged to cooperate with it - for some reason, the committee chose to put hearsay testimony on first, and they have not stated that they are bringing in the driver to corroborate. I do know that, as do you. Do I know for a fact that they're not playing 4-D chess and they're waiting for all the naysayers to be pot-committed to the idea that there isn't any corrobration and then, wham!, they'll whip out the eyewitnesses to confrim? Oh, sure, that might happen. Let's see, shall we?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Also, BTY, these subpeonas to fellow congressmen for testimony is also unprecedented.

So? Equally unprecedented is the strong likelihood that multiple Congressmen conspired with the President to defraud the United States WRT free and fair elections.

 

[Rawley]

Why didn't McCarthy just choose two other Republicans who didn't vote to reject the election? Why did he insist on Big Lie Republicans investigating themselves?

Because it hasn't worked that way in 200+ years. That's what unprecedented means. Not sure why you are having such a tough time with this.

The bombshell was not a dustup in an SUV. The right loves that distraction because it distracts from the really bad parts for Team Trump:
[/QUOTE]

Well, the leader of your party thought it was the most important part of her testimony - Are you thinking he's on "the right" trying to distract you? Is it working"?

 

[Binary_Digit]

The EVENT Happened 1.5 years ago and we are ONLY hearing it now during a committee hearing.... After All the leaks this was the "bombshell" testimony that finally made it to the surface after 1.5 years.

Yeah I am also calling BS.

while I tried to listen to some of it (Hutchinson), and tried to give it a chance.... the moment.

"hearsay, and in the affect of, and I was in the vicinity and over heard"

I'll throw the dog a bone.... She did state that she was in certain situations where she first hand heard things. But bombshell?

1) With the FBI doing its review found no culpability to charge, "Trump knew they were armed" Yes but the magnometers were not removed and no weapons *edit* (Illegal weapons, I think i terms of actual guns) were in fact used or recovered IN the capital.
2) Trump going to the Capital would be his right, Its not illegal to go to the capital. But by white house counsel, he could be charged with crimes relating to being there. Ultimately he did not go even though he wanted.

Scream and pound sand all they want, this is a show. This is NOT a court of law, if ANY of this was legally bearing they could give it to the DOJ and FBI and have an official charge issued....... No different then Blasey Ford Publicly accusing Kavanauh of such crimes but refusing to go to the police department and file official charges where there is NO statutes of limitation...

Bombshell....... Trump this Trump that.

I am sick of Trump myself..... but Democracy is Crying by the hypocrisy of BOTH sides. Neither side is helping the situation and creating further divide. But these dumbass committees is useless and intentional malice and instigation of further divide period (in my opinion of course).....

Forget the hearsay testimony. It's a right-wing distraction and even if it turns out to be 100% true it's largely irrelevant anyway.

She personally witnessed Trump being informed that the crowd was armed.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows and the Secret Service discussing the likelihood of violence.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows telling her on 1/5/21 that "things could get really bad tomorrow."
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows having a distinct "lack of reaction" when first informed that the Capitol was under attack.

None of that is hearsay, and all of it is much more important than a stupid dustup in an SUV.

 

[Mustachio]

The EVENT Happened 1.5 years ago and we are ONLY hearing it now during a committee hearing.... After All the leaks this was the "bombshell" testimony that finally made it to the surface after 1.5 years.

Yeah I am also calling BS.

while I tried to listen to some of it (Hutchinson), and tried to give it a chance.... the moment.

"hearsay, and in the affect of, and I was in the vicinity and over heard"

I'll throw the dog a bone.... She did state that she was in certain situations where she first hand heard things. But bombshell?

1) With the FBI doing its review found no culpability to charge, "Trump knew they were armed" Yes but the magnometers were not removed and no weapons *edit* (Illegal weapons, I think i terms of actual guns) were in fact used or recovered IN the capital.
2) Trump going to the Capital would be his right, Its not illegal to go to the capital. But by white house counsel, he could be charged with crimes relating to being there. Ultimately he did not go even though he wanted.

Scream and pound sand all they want, this is a show. This is NOT a court of law, if ANY of this was legally bearing they could give it to the DOJ and FBI and have an official charge issued....... No different then Blasey Ford Publicly accusing Kavanauh of such crimes but refusing to go to the police department and file official charges where there is NO statutes of limitation...

Bombshell....... Trump this Trump that.

I am sick of Trump myself..... but Democracy is Crying by the hypocrisy of BOTH sides. Neither side is helping the situation and creating further divide. But these dumbass committees is useless and intentional malice and instigation of further divide period (in my opinion of course).....

Cool and what about John Eastman's cell phone which was just seized? A judge ruled there was probable cause Eastman and Trump had illegally colluded to reverse a democratic election, the worst crime in the history of the country by a sitting president.

And the Stewart Rhodes trial? Your thoughts? Apparently they were communicating with a member of the Trump team. Most of this was already known, but the ignorance pervasive amongst the GOP base has made it impossible to get fact out, it's blocked by copy-pasted truimp qiups to trigger libs. But Trump going to the capital was his right, and instead he did... nothing for 3 hours? But why? But why?

 

[tres borrachos]

The EVENT Happened 1.5 years ago and we are ONLY hearing it now during a committee hearing.... After All the leaks this was the "bombshell" testimony that finally made it to the surface after 1.5 years.

Yeah I am also calling BS.

while I tried to listen to some of it (Hutchinson), and tried to give it a chance.... the moment.

"hearsay, and in the affect of, and I was in the vicinity and over heard"

I'll throw the dog a bone.... She did state that she was in certain situations where she first hand heard things. But bombshell?

1) With the FBI doing its review found no culpability to charge, "Trump knew they were armed" Yes but the magnometers were not removed and no weapons *edit* (Illegal weapons, I think i terms of actual guns) were in fact used or recovered IN the capital.
2) Trump going to the Capital would be his right, Its not illegal to go to the capital. But by white house counsel, he could be charged with crimes relating to being there. Ultimately he did not go even though he wanted.

Scream and pound sand all they want, this is a show. This is NOT a court of law, if ANY of this was legally bearing they could give it to the DOJ and FBI and have an official charge issued....... No different then Blasey Ford Publicly accusing Kavanauh of such crimes but refusing to go to the police department and file official charges where there is NO statutes of limitation...

Bombshell....... Trump this Trump that.

I am sick of Trump myself..... but Democracy is Crying by the hypocrisy of BOTH sides. Neither side is helping the situation and creating further divide. But these dumbass committees is useless and intentional malice and instigation of further divide period (in my opinion of course).....

So you didn't watch her testimony, as you admit, but you spent time typing this rant.

Too funny.

You did get @Rawley all excited though.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Because it hasn't worked that way in 200+ years. That's what unprecedented means.

For 200+ years Congress has been putting witnesses on its own investigative committees? You're making no sense at all here.

The bombshell was not a dustup in an SUV.

Correct. The bombshells were more along the lines of:

She personally witnessed Trump being informed that the crowd was armed.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows and the Secret Service discussing the likelihood of violence.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows telling her on 1/5/21 that "things could get really bad tomorrow."
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows having a distinct "lack of reaction" when first informed that the Capitol was under attack.

 

[Mustachio]

Because it hasn't worked that way in 200+ years. That's what unprecedented means. Not sure why you are having such a tough time with this.

The bombshell was not a dustup in an SUV. The right loves that distraction because it distracts from the really bad parts for Team Trump:

Give it up you haven't watched the testimony.

You didn't know that the GOP blocked a bipartisan committee.

You don't know what the charges are.

So who cares what your opinion on what an article you haven't read about testimony you haven't seen is? Oh wait, you want to declare victory don't you? Sorry, that's important. You should do that!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Point out the part in the link that includes a direct statement from Ornato that he never told her that story she testified to. I've seen that link every time one of the Trump devotees posts it, and guess what? It ain't there. It still ain't there.

Try again.

Senior Secret Service agents are reportedly prepared to testify that Donald Trump did not lunge for the wheel of his vehicle or physically attack the chief of his security detail after his speech near the White House on January 6 – as a former aide said he did in sworn testimony on Tuesday.

So, uh, well, the Guardian reporter could be full of it, and they really don't have this information from the Secret Service, and it stands to reason that they, the Leftist Guardian, which is very anti-Trump, would publish unverified pro-Trump information.

But you are correct, this is hearsay right now - it's a reporter CLAIMING that he talked to the Secret Service and they said that they will testify that Trump did not lunge at the wheel or the driver. The reporter could be wrong in his interpretation of what his source said. The source could be wrong. The reporter could be lying.

Right?

....just..... like.... Hutchinson.... right?

So. How do we solve this conundrum? Whatever could Lizzie Cheney do to finger this out? Hmm.... gosh... jeez... hmmm... well, one, she could pick up the phone and call the secret service and get them to tell her directly what the deal is and/or arrange for someone to appear to testify tomorrow. And, then she could tell us what she found out, and when the person is coming in to testify.

But.... here we are two days later, with a hearsay "bombshell" in the offing and Left wing news sources suggesting that what Hutchinson said she heard might not be completely accurate.... and the committee has not even said they PLAN to call the people involved.

So, yeah - we do need to keep an open mind. And, my mind is open. I've said before, I'm not calling Hutchinson a liar - I have no idea if anyone told her this event happened. Maybe they did. But, we don't know if THAT person was in the car, and so we don't know where THAT person got his info. We all know how the game Chinese Whispers works, right? When a story is passed from the car, to a third party, to someone else, and then to Hutchinson, how reliable is it? Don't you need to know more before you credit the story?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Nah, you are spewing her talking points. You're smart enough know that and honest enough to admit it. You know damn well that she didn't want them on the panel becasue they would have been "there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on." Apart from being unprecedented in the history of our country, it's been one of the most opaque and secretive ever.

This bullshit "bomshell" witness is a prime example. Why didn't they release the testimony of Englel and Ornato yesterday afternoon to clear up any confusion? Why didn't they release it months ago?

1. Much of their testimony probably has to do with matters covered under executive privilege
2. There is nothing indicating that their testimony stated anything relevant to the Hutchinson testimony, and in fact it's reasonable to see that the Hutchinson testimony (after she got a new lawyer that wasn't installed by the Trump camp) was the first they heard of it
3. They probably agreed to testify on the grounds that it would not be made public
4. The particularities of Trump's tantrum have nothing to do with the actual proceedings, which are his conspiracy to sick armed supporters on Pence and the electoral process

 

[Mustachio]

I can see that they haven't called people that they can easily call - these people literally have already talked to the committee and have pledged to cooperate with it - for some reason, the committee chose to put hearsay testimony on first, and they have not stated that they are bringing in the driver to corroborate. I do know that, as do you. Do I know for a fact that they're not playing 4-D chess and they're waiting for all the naysayers to be pot-committed to the idea that there isn't any corrobration and then, wham!, they'll whip out the eyewitnesses to confrim? Oh, sure, that might happen. Let's see, shall we?

I'll dip out now but everybody bookmark this thread because you know what the next hearing it about?

Corroborating evidence for the claim that Trump was going to lead domestic terrorist into the capital to force Pence to reverse the election or be killed. Remember, they had unauthorized tours where they mapped out the white house, Stewart Rhodes was in arlington with a stockpile of weapons, and it was "1776" ACCORDING to the crowd. So this lady gonna look reeeeeeeal good compared to ya'll in a few days.

Just wondering: maybe you can try to watch that one? Nah, too hard.

 

[tres borrachos]

So, uh, well, the Guardian reporter could be full of it, and they really don't have this information from the Secret Service, and it stands to reason that they, the Leftist Guardian, which is very anti-Trump, would publish unverified pro-Trump information.

But you are correct, this is hearsay right now - it's a reporter CLAIMING that he talked to the Secret Service and they said that they will testify that Trump did not lunge at the wheel or the driver. The reporter could be wrong in his interpretation of what his source said. The source could be wrong. The reporter could be lying.

Right?

....just..... like.... Hutchinson.... right?

So. How do we solve this conundrum? Whatever could Lizzie Cheney do to finger this out? Hmm.... gosh... jeez... hmmm... well, one, she could pick up the phone and call the secret service and get them to tell her directly what the deal is and/or arrange for someone to appear to testify tomorrow. And, then she could tell us what she found out, and when the person is coming in to testify.

But.... here we are two days later, with a hearsay "bombshell" in the offing and Left wing news sources suggesting that what Hutchinson said she heard might not be completely accurate.... and the committee has not even said they PLAN to call the people involved.

So, yeah - we do need to keep an open mind. And, my mind is open. I've said before, I'm not calling Hutchinson a liar - I have no idea if anyone told her this event happened. Maybe they did. But, we don't know if THAT person was in the car, and so we don't know where THAT person got his info. We all know how the game Chinese Whispers works, right? When a story is passed from the car, to a third party, to someone else, and then to Hutchinson, how reliable is it? Don't you need to know more before you credit the story?

I have no idea why you wasted your time with this wall of idiotic text.

Do you have a link to Tony Ornato making a public statement that he never told that story to Cassidy Hutchinson or not? If you do, post it. So far none of you have.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

For 200+ years Congress has been putting witnesses on its own investigative committees? You're making no sense at all here.


Correct. The bombshells were more along the lines of:

She personally witnessed Trump being informed that the crowd was armed.

That's not an accurate way to say it. What she testified to was that he was informed that some people were being turned away because they were showing up with weapons, and the Secret Service had been screening them, but Trump was trying to get them to stop screening them. No testimony was given as to whether they stopped screening people.

She personally witnessed Mark Meadows and the Secret Service discussing the likelihood of violence.

You do recall when that was, right? And, what was the exact wording - that's important. It wasn't "Hey, you know it's very likely there is going to be an invasion of the Capitol building."

She personally witnessed Mark Meadows telling her on 1/5/21 that "things could get really bad tomorrow."

Oh my god! Wow! So that means the President can't hold a rally. Because what you think that means -- "really bad" is I'm sure exactly the same as what Mark Meados means.

She personally witnessed Mark Meadows having a distinct "lack of reaction" when first informed that the Capitol was under attack.

How dare he remain calm.

 

[Rawley]

For 200+ years Congress has been putting witnesses on its own investigative committees? You're making no sense at all here.

We're done. Your partisanship clearly renders you clearly incapable of carrying on an honest discussion. You just keep coming back to me with the same old tired talking points. It's too bad, you seem intelligent.

Have a nice day.

 

[upsideguy]

They have already drunk the Koolaide. They will not be swayed by facts.

It’s all over twitter. Hutchinson’s testimony is hearsay. There is no corroborative statements in the earlier testimony given by Engles and Ornato. The secret service is being gagged.

Hutchinson's testimony was substantially a first hand account of the inner workings of the White House in the days surrounding 1/6. Her testimony was very damaging to Trump as it well supported Trump's fragile and irrational state of mind during this time.

Talk about "not swayed by facts".... I suggest you look in the mirror. The fact is that Hutchinson presented her story under oath, under penalty of perjury. Her testimony has a factual basis for it because it is sworn to be correct. It is evidence in a court of law, if we were in a court of law. Yet, you choose to discount that fact by actual hearsay: a news article saying Engles and Ornato disagree with the story she told recounting Ornato's representation of the incident. Now Hutchinson was clear that she was relaying a story from Ornato about a certain event in the SUV. She never represented she was there. It SEEMS that Ornato and Engles want to dispute the specific story about what happened in the limo.... but, that is hearsay (we have not heard them actually say that, nor have they disputed this in like kind --- under oath).

But really, who cares about the Trump expression of anger in violence. It really changes nothing if true or not. There seems to be no dispute about the central tenet of all of this: Trump was irate that the SS would not take him to the Capitol .... that he was obsessed with being at the Capitol in spite of all of his advisors saying he should not go. That is the point of this.

I get it that after 12-15 hours of very damaging testimony against Trump that has worked to build a prima facie case that Trump did indeed attempt a multi- faceted soft coup, that until one little statement (that fundamentally is irrelevant, if true or not) by Hutchinson later in her testimony finally has a whisper of refutation. Certainly Trump loyalists that have been cast in the dessert of their lies, now have one little glimmer of hope (one refutation) and they are all over it like a starving piranha. Its rather cute, actually. That said, its a mirage. Its a minor point, whether true or not, changes nothing. Its Trump's state of mind and obsession with being at the Capitol that is the devastating blow. That has been affirmed by Hutchinson and the Secret Service.

BTW .... what is the significance of "its all over Twitter"? That seems rather moot, doesn't it? I hope you get news from real news sources. Twitter is hearsay almost by definition. It is essentially an online gossip site.

 

[Mustachio]

So, uh, well, the Guardian reporter could be full of it, and they really don't have this information from the Secret Service, and it stands to reason that they, the Leftist Guardian, which is very anti-Trump, would publish unverified pro-Trump information.

But you are correct, this is hearsay right now - it's a reporter CLAIMING that he talked to the Secret Service and they said that they will testify that Trump did not lunge at the wheel or the driver. The reporter could be wrong in his interpretation of what his source said. The source could be wrong. The reporter could be lying.

HA that's literally not what she testified happened! Gold. Gold. But you look great to all these people who are talking about it here because Truth Social won't allow it. I promise, they think you're a genius.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I have no idea why you wasted your time with this wall of idiotic text.

Do you have a link to Tony Ornato making a public statement that he never told that story to Cassidy Hutchinson or not? If you do, post it. So far none of you have.

I've said since I first posted the information that it was multiple news outlets who claim to have talked to secret service personnel.

You hold this standard - do you have a link to Tony Ornato making this statement--- lol - yet you think it's established by Hutchinson saying some other guy told her Trump grabbed the wheel that he did it? Do YOU have any evidence that Trump actually did it? How about that?

Since you don't have anything except this lady's statement about what she said someone else who wasn't in the car told her..... lol, I don't know why I would have the burden to show that it didn't happen.

 

[Exactice]

Forget the hearsay testimony. It's a right-wing distraction and even if it turns out to be 100% true it's largely irrelevant anyway.

She personally witnessed Trump being informed that the crowd was armed.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows and the Secret Service discussing the likelihood of violence.
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows telling her on 1/5/21 that "things could get really bad tomorrow."
She personally witnessed Mark Meadows having a distinct "lack of reaction" when first informed that the Capitol was under attack.

None of that is hearsay, and all of it is much more important than a stupid dustup in an SUV.

Trump Being informed crowed was armed, - I accept. Any what crime did he commit? With that, Who was in charge of the capitol to reduce the threat to the capital. Was ANYONE one else IN the immediate vicinity of the capital that was aware a crowed was "armed" was appropriate measured taken with such intelligence? As again, was TRUMP in fact in charge of capitol security (Caveat A)

Mark Meadows & Secret Service knowing of violence - Did anyone else know about this? In regards to the security of the Capital. Who's responsibility of the capital? Is Trump directly responsible for its security

Mark Meadows knowing on 01/05, SO again. They actually knew PRIOR of potential concerns how was the capital protected and those responsible to protect the capitol, DID they appropriately act?

Mark Meadow have a distinct lack of reaction (thats opinion not fact), But again. WHAT crime was committed, What crime did Trump or meadows have for a lack of reaction. Hell what crime did they commit for not responding between the 2 hour time frame from the video breach at 2:15pm ( When the Congress was escorted out) to 4:17 when Trump went on TV and told people to go home and be peaceful.



(Caveat A)
People keep pounding sand that Trump should have immediately came on TV and said stop.
1) Do you have FACTS that if Trump came on TV 30 second later that those idiots/criminals would have "Factually Stopped"? Yes or no?
2) Do you have Facts that Trump was responsible for the safeguard of the Capitol
3) If Trump was NOT responsible for the safeguard of the Capitol Who was?


4) If Meadows and Trump & Secret Service, were aware of the potential violence on 01/05/2021, You are saying that those responsible for the Capitol had NO idea? That is some of the WORST intelligence we have ever seen.....


Anyways... Yes in my opinion Trump made stupid comments and made extremist act in criminals ways. Blame trump all you want, but The Extremist/criminals still hade free will to choose their actions. Those idiots should be charged to the full extent of the law, but does not make Trump directly culpable and legally liable for once free choice of action.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

HA that's literally not what she testified happened! Gold. Gold. But you look great to all these people who are talking about it here because Truth Social won't allow it. I promise, they think you're a genius.

Indeed. She said he reached up to grab the steering wheel, Engel grabbed his arm and told him to take his hand off the wheel, then he "used his free hand to lunge towards Engel." The "lunge" could've merely been that he was thrown off balance and was reaching to reorient himself when he took his hand off the wheel. Who really knows? Better yet, who cares? It was about 30 seconds of her testimony and at the bottom of the list in terms of importance / relevance.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.

We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[tres borrachos]

I've said since I first posted the information that it was multiple news outlets who claim to have talked to secret service personnel.

You hold this standard - do you have a link to Tony Ornato making this statement--- lol - yet you think it's established by Hutchinson saying some other guy told her Trump grabbed the wheel that he did it? Do YOU have any evidence that Trump actually did it? How about that?

Since you don't have anything except this lady's statement about what she said someone else who wasn't in the car told her..... lol, I don't know why I would have the burden to show that it didn't happen.

Great, so nothing from Ornato, two days later. Nothing from his attorneys. Just someone who heard it from someone else.

I have the only standard relevant. If she lied about what he told her, he can go down and get under oath and say that. He hasn't. Until he does we only have her sworn testimony. That's a fact.

I don't have to show any evidence of what Trump did in the car. I wasn't in the car, and I wasn't in the room when Hutchinson was with Ornato and Engel who she said told her the story and heard the story.

If you had actually watched the testimony you would know what is going on.