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

[Rawley]

Give it up you haven't watched the testimony.

Nope. I read transcripts.

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

Are you whining about the proposed Congressional Commission? OK. Yup the GOP didn't vote for that. Are you somehow saying that vote justifies Nancy flushing 200+ years of Congressional precedent down the toilet?

You don't know what the charges are.

What "charges" are you talking about?

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!

?? You're the one trying to engage me for my opinion. But frankly, you are hopping all over the place and it makes it very difficult to understand what question you are asking or what point you are trying make.

 

[Exactice]

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?

Sure ok, so send it over to the DOJ and have charges done.... 1.5 years later all of these things are memorialized, If its "so clear" charges would have been generated 1 year ago? No? How long has the committee been sitting on this info? If its so clear cut?

Let me be clear. If a crime is evident and charges are appropriate, Then so beat it. I am NOT defending wrong actions. What I am disappointed is the dog and pony to imply crimes... that have not been solidified.

You are saying that as of this committee finding this info it was note referred definitively to the DOJ to establish charges and put DJT on the stand? I mean seems pretty clear cut in your mind right?

 

[tres borrachos]

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?

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

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.

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

Yup. Her sworn testimony. Now it's up to Engel and Ornato to swear under oath that she made that all up.

But we have not heard a single word from either one of them or their attorneys. Seems odd, huh?

 

[tres borrachos]

Sure ok, so send it over to the DOJ and have charges done.... 1.5 years later all of these things are memorialized, If its "so clear" charges would have been generated 1 year ago? No? How long has the committee been sitting on this info? If its so clear cut?

Let me be clear. If a crime is evident and charges are appropriate, Then so beat it. I am NOT defending wrong actions. What I am disappointed is the dog and pony to imply crimes... that have not been solidified.

You are saying that as of this committee finding this info it was note referred definitively to the DOJ to establish charges and put DJT on the stand? I mean seems pretty clear cut in your mind right?

You must have spent years losing your shit when the Republicans went on for years about Benghazi and her emails and were chanting "lock her up", and never once did they charge her with anything.

Aren't you tired of every Republican investigating Hunter Biden for years and no charges have been filed against him yet?

I'm going to bet neither one of my above statements is true.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Yup. Her sworn testimony. Now it's up to Engel and Ornato to swear under oath that she made that all up.

But we have not heard a single word from either one of them or their attorneys. Seems odd, huh?

Who knows? I don't really think it's worth speculating about why nothing has publicly come out about their willingness to testify just yet. It's only been two days. We'll find out eventually, but in the mean time she recounted a story she heard from them under oath so unless and until it's disproven I think it's safe to say she heard the story in the manner that she testified. Whether the story is true or accurate isn't really relevant anyways.

 

[Binary_Digit]

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 largely agree with your reasoning here, but where I diverge with you is between witness testimony under oath vs. anonymous claims on the internet. Until they actually testify under oath, I'm not giving their claims much weight at all. It's too easy to tell random lies on the internet without repercussions.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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.

Sure, if true it makes him out to be an angry, tyrannical douchebag. I'll give you that. But, we already knew that.

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.

Her testimony isn't that the lunge happened. Her testimony is that someone who wasn't in the car told her it happened. That's evidence of nothing.

It is evidence in a court of law, if we were in a court of law.

No, it isn't, because it's a statement made by a declarant outside the hearing and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So, it is inadmissible hearsay.

I mean - the part about her cleaning ketchup and stuff, that part is not hearsay. So, that would be admissible on the charge of Trump throwing his dinner and acting like an ass.

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.

Well, sure - but by "discount" what I'm doing is saying there appears to be a witness who was in the car who would testify that it didn't happen. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but there sure is reason to bring that person into the committee, and so far the committee has not said they're going to do it. That's suspicious, because if the Secret Service was going to corroborate it, it would be a double slam dunk - in fact it would be devastating.

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.

I never said she did, and I never said she was lying. I said that the people who should testify to what happened are the people who were there, not some lady who heard from someone else what happened.

It SEEMS that Ornato and Engles want to dispute the specific story about what happened in the limo....

Yes, that's the point. It SEEMS - so call them into the committee.

but, that is hearsay (we have not heard them actually say that),

Yes, it is. That's why I don't take what reporter's say at face value, unlike the anti-Trump crowd which believes them completely, unless they say something vaguely in his favor, in which case, it should be ignored, like you're doing right now.

I don't know if it happened. I'm saying hearsay testimony is not enough to support the allegation, and if the committee doesn't call the driver, then something is seriously wrong. That is a massive dereliction. Any committee that was truly looking for the truth would get that driver in and under oath toot-sweet.

they are not under oath and, actually most importantly, 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.

Yeah, because he wanted to be in front of this supporters, rallying and demonstrating for their cause - you're free to loathe their cause, but that is why he wanted to go there. He said so. You assume he wanted to lead them on an attack on the capital and murder Congressmen. Just like the ironclad belief that Democrats have that Trump literally colluded and conspired with Vladimir Putin to interfere with and thereby steal the 2016 election, and then serve as a Russian asset doing Putin's bidding as Putin's bitch and all that -- Democrats want to believe that Trump literally is a murderer and a traiter.

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,

Which of course is not what was established at all. It's what Democrats INFER.

 

[Mustachio]

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

I like the "I win because I said I won" mentality. When you play cards do you argue a king is an ace because you thought kings and aces are the same thing? Because that's basically what you're doing. I asked you to name any three charges made against trump and you can't. "They don't want a fair fight." That's what you said, then you claimed that SUUUUURE, you "knew" the GOP refused to have a bipartisan commission (you had no idea) but still that doesn't.... no that completely destroys your argument. Pelosi and the democrats asked for a non-partisan commission and Jim Jordan had inquired about being pardoned before any of this happened. Sheesh. You didn't know that though, obviously. You don't know what we're talking about but it doesn't stop you. Maybe have a little more shame?

You haven't read, or seen a thing. You want "points."

In the end, maybe you'll get a little toy! I have actual things to do but keep fighting for daddy trump he loves you and he lied for your sins

 

[Demon]

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.

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I missed it. Do you have a link to the testimony given by Engels and Ornato?

 

[tres borrachos]

Who knows? I don't really think it's worth speculating about why nothing has publicly come out about their willingness to testify just yet. It's only been two days. We'll find out eventually, but in the mean time she recounted a story she heard from them under oath so unless and until it's disproven I think it's safe to say she heard the story in the manner that she testified. Whether the story is true or accurate isn't really relevant anyways.

Ornato has a few choices here.

If she truly made that whole thing up and he never said that to her, he can go under oath and say it.

If he did say all that to her, he can explain why he made up a story like that.

If Engel was not there, or says he didn't hear it, he can testify to that too.

If it didn't happen, and he heard Ornato say it to Hutchinson, he can explain why he didn't correct it.

All we have right now is her testimony, under oath. That's it.

 

[tres borrachos]

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I missed it. Do you have a link to the testimony given by Engels and Ornato?

No he doesn't. When asked that question he babbles about some friend who told him that Hutchinson is being paid to testify. When pressed for proof on that, he makes stupid troll posts.

 

[Rawley]

I like the "I win because I said I won" mentality. When you play cards do you argue a king is an ace because you thought kings and aces are the same thing? Because that's basically what you're doing. I asked you to name any three charges made against trump and you can't. "They don't want a fair fight." That's what you said, then you claimed that SUUUUURE, you "knew" the GOP refused to have a bipartisan commission (you had no idea) but still that doesn't.... no that completely destroys your argument. Pelosi and the democrats asked for a non-partisan commission and Jim Jordan had inquired about being pardoned before any of this happened. Sheesh. You didn't know that though, obviously. You don't know what we're talking about but it doesn't stop you. Maybe have a little more shame?

You haven't read, or seen a thing. You want "points."

In the end, maybe you'll get a little toy! I have actual things to do but keep fighting for daddy trump he loves you and he lied for your sins

Excuse me while I back away slowly. No offense.

Have a nice life.

 

[Rawley]

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I missed it. Do you have a link to the testimony given by Engels and Ornato?

Bennie and Lizzie refuse to release it

 

[Binary_Digit]

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.

It seems to me the 200+ years of precedent you're referring to was uprooted by McCarthy, not Pelosi, when he corruptly insisted on putting witnesses on their own investigative committee in total defiance of common sense.

 

[Demon]

No he doesn't. When asked that question he babbles about some friend who told him that Hutchinson is being paid to testify. When pressed for proof on that, he makes stupid troll posts.

Thanks. I'm glad that I didn't have to wade through over 1500 posts to find that out.

 

[Demon]

Bennie and Lizzie refuse to release it

So then the answer is no, there is no link to the testimony. You'd think they'd have come out and tweeted, at least.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Which side are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on?

Irrevelant.

 

[tres borrachos]

Thanks. I'm glad that I didn't have to wade through over 1500 posts to find that out.

That poster, MrNiceGuy, LetsGoBrandon, Rawley and a few others have been lying like rugs in this thread. Save your eyes.

 

[MAGAnificent]

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.

You are in fantasy land and showing alot of TDS.

 

[Demon]

That poster, MrNiceGuy, LetsGoBrandon, Rawley and a few others have been lying like rugs in this thread. Save your eyes.

Its like I said about @Uncensored2008 - they toss out lies as liberally and casually as if they are mardi gras beads. I guess if you're strewing them about so easily you don't expect to get questioned on them.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You have no specifics, just hypotheticals. Not unlike the Big Lie itself.

If it were not a kangaroo court, the republican leader would have been able to pick which republicans were on the court, and all exculpatory evidence would be included.

A truly innocent man would be on Truth Social and the alt-right media making his case. But what's he doing instead? Crying crocodile tears about general "unfairness" while repeating his same tired stolen election lies. No refutation of the fraudulent electoral slates. No refutation of the fraudulent DOJ document. No refutation of the fraudulent Electoral Defense Fund. No refutation of his knowing that the crowd was armed and violent. Nothing of substance whatsoever. Just crying about unfairness, much like what you're doing here.

Too much TDS to take you seriously on any of that.

 

[yankintx]

But if it turns out she's lying about having been told that. can you a believe a single other thing she's testified about?

That is how it usually works


Thus far her testimonial stands up

 

[Rawley]

So then the answer is no, there is no link to the testimony. You'd think they'd have come out and tweeted, at least.

"They" being the Secret Service Agents? They don't do that. I've been making the argument that it's rather telling that the Committee refuses to release their prior testimony. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if they call the agents back in, more surprised if they release that testimony , and floored if they televise it live.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

If it were not a kangaroo court, the republican leader would have been able to pick which republicans were on the court, and all exculpatory evidence would be included.

Too much TDS to take you seriously on any of that.

What exculpatory evidence hasn't been included?

There are republicans on the committee (it's not a court lmao). Liz Cheney, a staunch republican, is one of the leaders of the committee.

 

[Demon]

"They" being the Secret Service Agents? They don't do that. I've been making the argument that it's rather telling that the Committee refuses to release their prior testimony. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if they call the agents back in, more surprised if they release that testimony , and floored if they televise it live.

I would imagine their testimony will be shown in subsequent hearings.

And is Ornato a SS agent now? I thought he was deputy chief of staff to Meadows?