Something doesn't fit together! The NYT says the reasons "are not entirely clear." That's putting it mildly!
I did put an ellipsis after that phrase, and I don't want to seem as though I'm withholding something insightful the reporters — Glenn Thrush, Luke Broadwater and Michael S. Schmidt — might have said.
Here's their sketching out of the possibly reasons that may be lurking inside the unclarity: 1. "classic Washington bureaucratic territorialism," 2. "the department’s unwillingness to share information," and 3. "the desire to stage-manage a successful public forum."
Something's amiss. Let's brainstorm some less mushy reasons. I invite you to speculate about the motives and to put it as clearly as you can or as brutally as you wish.
115 comments:
They do not have a case.
I still do not perceive that Trump has committed a crime.
Agree with J. Severs. To get an air tight conviction you have to have credible evidence. The committee’s witness was not credible and only brought forward for maximum political effect. The committee just sabotaged the justice department’s efforts.
After the Russian Collusion hoax investigations, The 1-6 Committee needs total control of this bullshit. That means no cooperation with the DoJ.
When the GOP takes back the House in November, this investigation will be over. Then the GOP will investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
Liz Cheney will be a CNN Contributor and a Board Member at Lockheed defending Hunter as a commenter.
Merrick Garland will drop the Trump investigation for fear the DeSantis administration will come after him.
It's the peepee tape all over again. They couldn't convict him then on hearsay and non-existent evidence, and they can no longer impeach him. I would hope that federal prosecutors are surprised that their time has been wasted on a farce.
The committee has heavily edited the videos and withheld countervailing testimony.
Also, what exactly is the DOJ "investigating"? What convictions will be "airtight"? The DOJ won't tell us, will they, but something is up. This is all exceptionally political. It is banana republic stuff...let's charge the last guy, who is out but might come back, with political crimes. I am embarrassed for our country. But Thomas Jefferson did it to Aaron Burr, so it goes back to the beginning.
On a lighter note, isn't it good that Trump didn't go the the Capitol? He might have been charged with parading.
She's lying. Is that clear and/or brutal enough?
It's an edited political reality show, edited by the producers of the show, to produce the maximum effect on the intended audience. It doesn't have anything to do with getting at the truth or justice. If the House committee calculated that turning everything over to to the federal prosecutors would likely have enhanced the effect, then they would have turned it over. It's a reality show put on for a reality show populace audience designed to influence the mid-term election.
The bull is constipated. They don't have shit.
"They do not have a case."
Yep. They know much of what they have wouldn't survive close scrutiny. It looks good (for various definitions of "good") but isn't something you could really use in a court of law.
I have no doubt Trump wanted to desperately hold on to his office. I also don't doubt he was hoping Pence would do what Pence knew he couldn't. None of that suggests he was trying to launch an insurrection or coup.
What we are now seeing is vindictive stupidity. By going after Trump, they are making losing an election a crime. The long term implications of that idea are scary as hell, but I don't expect this group of narcissists to think about such things. Orange the Clown must be destroyed, even if we have to destroy 200+ year old institutions to do it. Un-fucking believable.
They know it's bullshit and that anything the committee produces is of no value. It's all for political show.
As for Miss Hutchinson, I liked the suggestion from someone on Twitter that she was told a whopper by someone looking to get laid. DC is full of Cassidy's- young, eager, bright but naive- who are attracted to any scrap of power. She was fed a line by someone who knew she'd get wet at the thought of being privileged with "insider information" about Jan 6.
Cassidy’s testimony was all fucking hearsay. Inadmissible and unreliable.
House managers know there is no "there" there and there will be no charges or convictions. They have no interest in helping prosecutors make a sound determination; instead, they are trying to control the timing of the charges for maximum political effect.
The fact that they are still talking about Hutchinson, who isn't even a witness, tells you all you need to know about the case they are building.
Looks like its Trump all the way down. Addictive behavior.
One little problem that confronts you
Got a monkey on your back
Just one more fix, Lord might do the trick
One hell of a price for you to get your kicks
Ooooh that smell
Can't you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell
The smell of death surrounds you
The Committee has not turned over documents because their primary interests not in justice, but more political in nature.
The Democrat funding of “Ultra-MAGA” candidates in various Republican primaries clearly indicates that they do not see a “threat to our democracy.
Their support (and sometimes coordination) of things like the invasion of Congress during the Kavanaugh hearings, support for BLM riots, support for the harassment of opposing officials, etc. clearly shows that instead of being guided by principle they guided by impulses driven by the needs of the current moment instead of long term impact of their decisions. Does that remind you of anybody?
The Dems better hope that DeSantis isn't as vindictive as they are.
I suspect "the department" will await the PR effect of the sham committee hearings.
If, by polling, they determine it's failed to eclipse Trump's future electoral prospects, only then will the DOJ under Garland consider the desirability of bringing Trumped-up charges against Trump in a sham prosecution.
Of course, that decision has to be weighed against the political considerations, such as whether a new Republican majority in congress will be willing to hold the deep state accountable.
Which explains the DOJ's current strategy of intimidating and isolating Trump supporters under the guise of supporting the investigation, in the hope that Trump will be abandoned by a RINO party.
All in the name of eliminating "election interference."
Let's speculate about the motives? That's like pronouncing "Let the games begin."
We have had 7 years of watching the Democrats and their media partners do everything possible to eliminate Donald Trump. False reporting and fake crises. Fictional dossiers and compromised FBI agents. Mass hysteria and pussy hats. Nazi sightings and secret hearings. Evidence not shared, but leaked information shared globally. Non-stop investigations at the Federal, State, and City levels.
I think the Adam Schiff Rule needs to apply here. If Adam Schiff is seen or heard anywhere near an investigation, proceed under the assumption that the investigation is based on false or even fictional information, that you will not have all of the facts, you will never hear or read all of the facts, that the facts are of no importance at all. Only the appearance of guilt is important. The short version: If Adam Schiff is involved, walk the other way and pay no attention to the proceedings. I say this based on his track record.
Interestingly, most of America is not paying any attention to this. But...I have some friends and one neighbor who watch it for hours and are stunned by what they are being told to think. They truly believe this is all a horror and the worst possible thing that could have happened in America. That multiple people were killed by armed thugs rushing the Capitol. (any people who were killed that day were killed by the police. Others died away from the event. No police were killed at this event.) Which brings to mind the old adage which is attributed either to the Frenchman Jacques Abbadie, or Abraham Lincoln., or ...PT Barnum: You can fool all the people part of the time, or you can fool some people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time.
By going after Trump, they are making losing an election a crime. The long term implications of that idea are scary as hell, but I don't expect this group of narcissists to think about such things. Orange the Clown must be destroyed, even if we have to destroy 200+ year old institutions to do it.
The irony is that the more they push this crap, the more likely it is that they bolster Trump's chances of reelection. For many people, Trump was a "fuck you" vote in 2016. In 2024, he's going to be the "no, seriously, fuck you!" vote because the political class has set him up as the antithesis of everything that they hold dear, while at the same time demonstrating their complete and utter incompetence.
Am I missing something? Not sure I get the point of this post. A hearing? What hearing? Is there a YouTube video or something with a Reader’s Digest version? Even better, a really short Tik Tok video? I enjoyed the lava walking one. Is this anything like that?
Trump didn't desperately want to hold on to office - he wanted a fair election. The courts refuse to decide on various grounds of standing or de minimis, and the Constitution provides this final if obscure step to validate the results. Let's follow it, was Trump's idea. It turns out that the left outsmarted Trump. The obscure step is just too obscure, and surrounded with slander.
I have no idea what the 1/6 committee is up to, other than insulting the intelligence of women, but maybe they're right.
Seen on twitter:
BREAKING
Six more women have come forward with allegations that Trump tried to grab their steering wheels
This is a show trial. It is built on innuendo, lies, and carefully curated, decontesxtualized snippets from hours of struggle sessions. It is an exercise in unchecked power greater than even the DOJ has because there is zero accountability and zero limits to what they can say, imply, or do.
This is the refinement of the Democrats' strategy of spreading unfounded smears and lies to a gullible and friendly press corps.
The mistake they made with the Steele "dossier" was getting it published so anyone could see the multiple errors, such as the fact the Russian consulate in Miami doesn't exist.
Hillary Clinton authorized her minions to push the Alfa Bank secret server fiction to the press. The FBI had debunked it in a day.
Impeachment 1 was started by a whistleblower who had to be put in "protective custody" and his identity kept private.
Impeachment 2 contains a bald faced lie: Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed... injured and killed law enforcement personnel..."
The Kavanaugh rape accusations with exactly zero corroborating evidence.
And now the Stalinist, made for TV show trial, with Hutchinson's ludicrous steering wheel testimony being emblematic the whole trial. I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. Democrats are lying, power hungry weasels who should be tossed from office.
They know she pulled the story out of her ass. They realize that the story will be effective because it will be heralded by the media and Democrats continually until someone points out that there is shit all over it. Even after the shit has been discovered, the media and democrats will still present the story as true to serve their ends and because they have no morals and they can. The truth is much less interesting and serves no purpose as it does not fit the narrative.
The House committee and the DoJ only appear to be doing the same thing. They're not. The House committee is a public relations exercise. Lunging for the wheel and throwing lunch at the wall are forms of visual persuasion (a la Scott Adams).The House committee aims to have evocative testimony, which is different from obtaining the facts.
The DoJ is supposed to develop a strong case for prosecution or drop a case if lacing sufficient cause. At the very least they have to look like they're doing that. So the purposes of the two investigations are different.
If Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony is accurate, then an insurrection was indeed happening on January 6th. We already know that Nancy Pelosi called the JCS to demand they no longer follow orders from Donald Trump. Now we learn that Trump’s own security detail refused to follow his orders. If the Secret Service refused to take the President to the Capitol, as Hutchinson claims, then whose orders were the Secret Service Agents following? At what point was it deemed acceptable for members of the Executive Branch to no longer follow the orders of the President? What was the impetus that created that moment?
It is lawful to ignore unlawful orders, but if that’s a claim, how would the agents know that taking Trump to the Capitol was unlawful? Did they know in advance an insurrection was occurring their and take action to prevent it becoming successful? If so, they are heroes and we should hear their testimony.
"They do not have a case" This isn't a satisfying explanation since one can't reach such a conclusion in good faith prior to conducting a thorough investigation.
1. DOJ has unlimited resources to conduct a thorough investigation. Note the resources they are devoting to prosecuting the downstream rioters/tourists. They have subpoena power and the power to compel testimony. So why aren't they putting the Cassidy's of the world before the grand jury? Because Garland has no spine? Because they don't want to take risk their investigation will become public? idk
2. The committee won't share info with DOJ. If true, a ridiculous decision on its part. I tend to think that despite their public statements they are giving DOJ what DOJ wants/needs. Tied to no 1 above, DOJ doesn't need the committee's help in conducting an investigation. On the contrary, the separate investigation causes problems - eg inconsistent witness statements, etc. DOJ often goes to court to stay civil lawsuits where it has a concurrent criminal investigation. They typically want complete control. They do need to know what witnesses have told the committee to see if any conflicts.
3. I believe the committee also has the power to compel testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Isn't that what happened with Oliver North. I assume they would not do so over an objection from DOJ? So have there been any discussions along those lines?
I didn't trust the Barr DOJ to do the right thing. I don't trust Garland either. Bad choice for the American people. DOJ not Congress should be running things if the goal is to get to the truth.
ut for reasons that are not entirely clear
because it's EXACTLY like Shifty's circumstantial evidence.. you Know, FAKE
It seems to me that Trump intended to give his speech and then ride back to the White House. However, he changed his mind and asked the Secret Service driver to take him to the Capitol. The Secret Service driver refused to do so, just for security reasons.
Trump got mad at the driver, but he had to ride back to the White House. There he saw on television for the first time what was happening at the Capitol.
-------
Meanwhile the crowd that had been present at his speech walked to the Capitol, intending to protest there.
While Trump was giving his speech, the mob at the Capitol entered the building.
I still have not seen any evidence that Trump had anything to do with that mob.
-------
The mob at the Capitol must have been infiltrated by many government agents, who were communicating to their offices that the mob was entering the Capitol building.
The officials receiving those communications knew a lot about the mob leaders and participants, about Trump's activities and about the overall events.
Those officials worked in the FBI and in the Justice Department. They know plenty.
I have no idea what the 1/6 committee is up to, other than insulting the intelligence of women, but maybe they're right.
They're setting up to justify denying Trump ballot access in 2024. Whether he's indicted or not, even without any evidence for any misdeeds, they'll use the committee as "proof" and blue-state legislatures and blue county election officials will simply announce that he's not permitted to run and that any votes for Trump will be discarded.
Leland.
Cassidy Hutchinson is a fucking bimbo liar. Got it?
See eg re congressional immunity (has law changed since?)
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/05/world/north-to-be-granted-limited-immunity.html
The Leftist Fake News liar I hate the most is MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. Admittedly, I can’t stand to hear Rachael Maddow’s Voice, so I nver watch her. And Joy Reid is plainly crazy so I can’t watch for more than five minutes.
Last night, Hayes kinda, sorta conceded that Cassidy had credibility problems. He then asked why the Secret Service agents didn’t testify. He nearly demanded that they testify because, you see, otherwise the Secret Service is lying.
Hayes knows that the J6 event is a produced show trial and they don’t want anything that contradicts their “Trump is a criminal” narrative.
Hayes then had a former US Attorney on who said Trump should be indicted.
By going after Trump, they are making losing an election a crime.
They went after him after he won, too, so we can reasonably infer that both winning and losing elections are crimes -- if Trump (or any R, really) is the one doing it.
See https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217208117.pdf. It seems that the Jan 6 select committee prob. doesn't have the power to immunize witnesses and compel testimony. Hence, its investigation is highly unlikely to ever get to the bottom of thing.
Bob Boyd: "Seen on twitter:
BREAKING
Six more women have come forward with allegations that Trump tried to grab their steering wheels"
Were 5 of those women named "Inga"?
I already know the 6th "woman" is named "gadfly".
and, the Fun part, is that Lizard Cheney is The Chief Prosecutor for the democrats
She's not just on the committee.. She IS the committee. Could someone explain That?
The floor is lava.
If Trump did decide suddenly to ride over to the Capitol (I am not sure he did so), then it makes sense to me that the Secret Service driver refused to do so. On one hand, Trump was the US President, but on the other hand, the driver feared dire consequences.
I imagine that the driver's thinking was that Trump could travel over to the Capitol, but first he had to go back to the White House so that the Secret Service could prepare the jaunt properly. For sure, there were communications between the driver and his immediate supervisor.
As it turned out, Trump went back to the White House and then gave up his impulsive plan to ride over to the Capitol. He became engrossed in watching the Capitol events on television.
It's the Salem Witch trials all over again. The Progressives are the crazies thinking everybody else is a witch. This isn't going to end well, but they will continue the lies because they have an extreme case of Trump Derangement Syndrome and there isn't a cure.
"If so, they are heroes and we should hear their testimony."
Yes. Apparently, they will testify that it never happened. They would be heroes to someone, just not the Jan 6 Committee. Also, the DOJ will cast a beady eye on them. They better have their expense records in order (see Hillary Clinton and the White House Travel Office).
He was hangry and was steering the limo to McDonalds.
The amazing thing to me is that they have no shame w/this waste of $$&time crap.
They still act self-righteous as they/themselves lie under oath to the faces of the very ones they work for: us.
Out of touch, much?
“I still do not perceive that Trump has committed a crime.” You are not trying.
How about Destruction of government property for throwing a plate at the wall.
Catsup or ketchup on the White House wall. That’s vandalizing or defacing a National Monument.
Grabbing at the steering wheel is assault.
Maybe failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer for insisting on going to the Capitol. Well, he didn’t go, so maybe attempted failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer. Or conspiracy to attempt to fail to obey a federal law enforcement officer.
And that’s just for starters.
But to have maximum political effect on the audience, you must first have an audience.
If she actually said he tried to grab the wheel, that's total bullshit. The interior of the limo makes it clear that isn't really possible. The president is not in a position to do that.
Something's amiss. Let's brainstorm some less mushy reasons. I invite you to speculate about the motives and to put it as clearly as you can or as brutally as you wish.
This is a show trial being put on by a failing, flailing, incompetent, corrupt, and wholly illegitimate Regime.
Only really stupid people buy into this and they know it. Their supporters are bleeding out and they are down to a violent core of support. There is no support for Roe. The only thing Roe protects is the baby part industry.
And everyone is noticing that the leftists are openly threatening violence as well as committing it and they cannot hide this anymore. The leftists are acting insurrectiony.
The biggest problem for the Regime is that people like Kari Lake are going to be elected. I know Ann hasn't even looked at Kari Lake or ventured outside her bubble to notice things are different now.
When Kari Lake becomes Governor of Arizona you are going to see a real audit of the election in 2020 and the 2020 Arizona results are going to be decertified.
Then the real discussions we never had will begin.
And Biden will be resigning or removed soon after that. The question is will the democrats replace him in the lame duck session while they can still name the speaker of the house.
The storyline that Trump had a hissy fit because no one would drive him to the Capitol is funny. Being a reality show TV actor, it's obvious that he was faking the over the top outrage. He's a master manipulate whom finagling situations to have it both ways. On the one hand, he didn't lead the insurrection from the front giving himself a get out of treason free card. On the other hand, he gives his marks the impression that he wanted to be with them in the Coup de Grace but was prevented by the long arm of the deep state.
The problem with the J6 committee is they have created a reality television show but lack the experience, no how and talent to pull it off. Each day ends with a cliffhanger with the promise that the next special guest star will deliver the smoking gun bombshell. The problem is that the reveals are always underwhelming while accompanied by breathless msm narrative. The audience is disappointed and the ratings are in free fall.
My bet is that Adam Schiff's history is a good predictor. He claims that he has evidence of wrongdoing but he can't tell you what it is. At least not yet. Fast forward and it never materializes. He's a liar of the worst kind.
Secondly, they know their "evidence" will not stand up to hard analysis. This is essentially a television drama. If spoilers got out, they wouldn't be able to manipulate you as easily.
Thirdly, this method allows them to dole it out on their own schedule so they can try to achieve maximum impact for their political goals.
Fourthly, if you were allowed to know ALL the information, you might ask the wrong questions. Such as whether a large part of the blame rightly should be shouldered by Nancy Pelosi, who I understand ultimately is responsible for security and denied the request for 10,000 national guard troops.
"Cassidy Hutchinson is a fucking bimbo liar. Got it?"
About what I expected from the Trump sycophants here
"Now we learn that Trump’s own security detail refused to follow his orders."
You don't bring a President into an unprepared location. The Capitol is a big open area with lots of unvetted people hanging around. The Secret Service would have needed time to plan it out. The driver was right to refuse.
’She was fed a line by someone who knew she'd get wet at the thought of being privileged with "insider information" about Jan 6.’
She was dumb enough to believe it, and craven enough to testify. #GoFundMe
Once again the Huston family provides the explanation:
"Documents? We don need no stinkin documents!"
Adam Schiff led the House committee closed-door hearings into impeachment of Trump. The witnesses included James Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power. During the breaks, Schiff would come out to address the media, saying he'd gotten the proof of Russian collusion.
Later, the transcripts were released and it turned out that each witness had testified that they had no such evidence of Russian collusion.
"Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence," said the WSJ (see above link).
Likely the transcipts of the Jan. 6 committee won't back up their claims. But that won't bother the media.
Mark said...
"Cassidy Hutchinson is a fucking bimbo liar. Got it?"
About what I expected from the Trump sycophants here
6/30/22, 8:41 AM
What, the TRUTH??? Why do you Progressive HATE truth so much??
"Grabbing at the steering wheel is assault."
It's also kind of impossible. Google pictures of the presidential limo interior. The president is as far away from the driver as my couch is to my TV set. There's also a seat facing him (with an aid probably sitting in it) that makes it even tougher. Nope it didn't happen. Trump's an ass clown, not an acrobat.
I read Isabelle Allende's book "The House of the Spirits", a fictionalized account of the Pinochet takeover in Chile, a few years ago. In it, "the people who always win" lose an election. They also lose their minds. Those damn peasants can NOT be allowed to govern themselves, so, in a rage, "the people who always win" allow a monster (Pinochet) to take over because literally anything is better than THOSE PEOPLE being in charge. Hopefully it won't go that far here, but it's eerily similar.
"She was fed a line by someone who knew she'd get wet at the thought of being privileged with "insider information" about Jan 6."
Are we referring to Hutchinson or Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff and Company?
My brain got stuck on “parallel investigations” especially the plural object in that overloaded phrase. WTF? These crazy democrats already impeached Trump for the “riot” before launching their “parallel investigations” and failed to convict. Twice. Any actual legal probe would crumple under the weight of due process, which has loomed large in its absence from these hearings. Without eliding exculpatory evidence the support for the breathless headlines evaporates like the support for FJB and his outsized incompetence.
Cassidy Hutchison, very good pal of Liz Cheney and the democraticals (lots of hugs between the questioners and their "witness" (LOL)), knows very well her perjury will never become the subject of any DOJ action. Ever.
She doesnt even have to worry about the "wink and a nod" wrist-slap Clinesmith treatment.
They're astonished that the members of this slipshod show trial and the media expect them to indict Donald Trump based on this slipshod show trial.
If this were 1937 Moscow, and it pretty much is, every member of the committee won be turned over to the NKVD for incompetence that could only be explained by being counterrevolutionary imperialist saboteurs.
"Only really stupid people buy into this and they know it."
Paging Inga, gadfly, readering et al.
Why isn't the Committee sharing info? Because they know testimony can never be used in any adversarial proceeding. In a DOJ investigation, her testimony will eventually be subjected to cross, and opposing counsel will call witnesses to counter her testimony. This is not complicated.
Blogger Mr Wibble said...
As for Miss Hutchinson, I liked the suggestion from someone on Twitter that she was told a whopper by someone looking to get laid.
That was my immediate response as well. I subsequently heard that Meadows insisted she be included in all meetings - from someone claiming that should have been proof that Trump should have known who she was - but I question if that is even true as well. If it was true, I would wonder why Meadows was so intent on including a 24 year old aide.
As to the assignment ...
First choice - It's desire to stage manage a narrative in the public forum. Whether or not it is successful remains to be seen.
I have been astounded by the lack of basic civics knowledge by so many principals (politicians, reporters, etc) in this whole debacle. 'Trump is horrible for questioning the election'!!!!!!!!!!! So did the J6 Committee chair and Jaime Raskin one of its committee members when Republicans won the presidency. 'But Trump said ...' Doesn't matter what you said; it matters what you do and he did nothing different than what Johnson (? - the committe chair) and Raskin did. If fact, they and their supporters said some pretty questionable things on Twitter as well.
But Trump and his supporters interupted the work of Congress and threatened the lives/health of members of Congress. Or in other words they took similar action what Kavanaugh protestors and others did in the years running up to the November 2020??? Action that Democrats celebrated and which went virtually unpunished - including protestors who blindsided elected officials in elevators in the Capitol? Don't know if the officials felt "threatened" but certainly they were at greater risk than those locked in their offices in other buildings.
2. I suspect that the operations of the committee may actually have harmed any prosecutions that actually could be brought against participants. At best, it will delay them - makes you question how it could be a "crisis" if a delay is unimportant to their prosecutions.
3. I believe sometime in the next 5-10 years, the government is going to announce a settlement with the January 6 defendents - in an amount of $500 million to a billion for violation of due process. Because of the obsession of prosecuting everyone regardless of whether or not they were guilty of violence, all of them will get a bye because of HOW this whole thing has been handled. And all of the politicians responsible for HOW this was handled will pay no price at all.
Uninvestigated hearsay, no cross-examination, innuendo? What evidence?
This is political theater for imbeciles.
Mark Levin pointed out that she is fairly young and that she had been questioned on something like five different occasions for hours at a time. He thinks that they just wore her down, using past answers to confuse and intimidate her and maneuvering her into saying what they wanted her to say.
Would not be the first time that high-pressure interrogators were able to manufacture a false story.
Blogger Mark said...
"Cassidy Hutchinson is a fucking bimbo liar. Got it?"
About what I expected from the Trump sycophants here <
About what I expected from Lefty Mark. Why did the J6 "committee" not get the agents' confirmation of her tale ? Because it was imagination.
The problem with the J6 committee is they have created a reality television show but lack the experience, no how and talent to pull it off.
Even Howard can smell bullshit when it is this thick. This is an infomercial for the DNC. The only surprise is that Fox News seems to be carrying it live. Daytime ratings must be pretty weak to waste the time with something that only MSNBC watchers will pay attention to.
They want to time indictments for exactly the right moment when it will do the most electoral damage to Rs in the mid-terms.
Not that mysterious.
Evil, but not mysterious.
'They do not have a case.'
You have learned nothing, grasshopper.
They don't need to have a case.
It's DC.
An indictment is as good as a prison sentence.
You will never snatch the pebble from my hand...
It's really simple.
Lying to federal agents is a crime that actually gets prosecuted (as seen in the case of, for example, Martha Stewart).
Lying to the public at the direction of Congressmen for political purposes, even when it nominally is under oath, is not (as seen in the cases of, for example, Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford).
Cassidy Hutchinson (unlike the people who believed her testimony) is not a feeble-minded half-wit, so she carefully chose a forum for her lies that would not get her sent to prison.
Well, even in a corrupt DC circuit court, prosecutors would have over come this simple problem with the latest testimony
"something to the effect of" is not testimony that is likely to withstand adversarial cross examination
Megan Kelly has the clips
https://youtu.be/aYSNb_jayxk
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
It's all a political stunt, both Jan 6th Committee and DOJ. Always has been. Lies that conflict with their other lies. But no one will shout, 'perjury'! The liars will never face a penalty cause they wanted them to lie.
TDS has infected them so much...
And Nov. Mid-Terms can't come soon enough!
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
It's all a political stunt, both Jan 6th Committee and DOJ. Always has been. Lies that conflict with their other lies. But no one will shout, 'perjury'! The liars will never face a penalty cause they wanted them to lie.
TDS has infected them so much...
And Nov. Mid-Terms can't come soon enough!
For the committee, her testimony was, in the immortal words of the NYT, "a fact too good to check."
The dog returns to his vomit. Pee tapes, Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels, Ukrainian phone call, now this. Like Hillary, they persevere......Cassidy Hutchinson has now become famous. Republicans will attack her testimony. Let them. She will become The Wronged Woman. This has worked out very well for Anita Hill and Christina Blasey Ford. I think even Stormy Daniels received more money for her personal appearances. This will work out well for Cassidy Hutchinson. No woman ever got bad press or even got asked a probing question for saying something bad about Donald Trump.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "About what I expected from the Trump sycophants here"
I am terribly sorry the collapse of your Latest Lefty Hoax, and in record time, is happening to you.
Thoughts and prayers.
Mike Sylvester, I'm agreeing with everything you're saying. It's patently obviously that Trump got caught up in the moment after the speech and wanted to go to the Capitol but was talked down from the idea. There never was a 'secret plan' to lead an insurrection that the Democrats are trying to construct out of whole cloth.
gilbar said...
and, the Fun part, is that Lizard Cheney is The Chief Prosecutor for the democrats
She's not just on the committee.. She IS the committee. Could someone explain That?
I'll repeat something I said before in a different context. The Democrats don't want to get rid of Trump. He's all they've got. If he's not running, they have nothing to run against. Cheney, however, does want to get rid of Trump, being under the delusion that if she does then she can lead the neo-con wing of the Uniparty back to control of the GOP.
The Democrats didn't have the Secret Service testify because they can't be intimidated like this little chippy and some parts of their testimony would be inconvenient to the narrative. There was no plan to go to the Capitol and the agents never would agree to taking Trump there because it was not an approved exercise, and Trump knew that.
Another Trump presidency will just provide more sturm und drang. Donkey blather and leftmedia BS. Republican Congressional pussies led by McConnell and McCarthy will not stand up to it.
Try this: Ron DeSantis, President; Nikki Haley, Vice President; Donald Trump, Speaker of the House. (And the inimitable Christina Pushaw as Press Secretary.)
Oh, the havoc that could be wrought!
This select prosecution... persecution began with a collusion between domestic and foreign parties assaulting a presidential candidate, which progressed to a four year-long insurrection targeting diverse people, families, businesses, communities, States, federal government, and the President through braying and steering misinformation, disinformation, and affirmative action in progress as an assault on civil rights with the intent to cover-up incompetent, malicious, and abortive choices.
Pretty sure the are trying to stretch this out til the midterms, so there's that motive. The biggest motive imh is that he upset to many ingrained ways of doing business. He threatened the corrupt government institutions. The first guy through the wall always gets bloodied. He really is a threat to the government rice bowl.
"How about Destruction of government property for throwing a plate at the wall.
Catsup or ketchup on the White House wall. That’s vandalizing or defacing a National Monument.
Grabbing at the steering wheel is assault.
Maybe failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer for insisting on going to the Capitol. Well, he didn’t go, so maybe attempted failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer. Or conspiracy to attempt to fail to obey a federal law enforcement officer.
And that’s just for starters."
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.” - Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police.
Just for starters indeed.
"How about Destruction of government property for throwing a plate at the wall.
Catsup or ketchup on the White House wall. That’s vandalizing or defacing a National Monument.
Grabbing at the steering wheel is assault.
Maybe failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer for insisting on going to the Capitol. Well, he didn’t go, so maybe attempted failure to obey a federal law enforcement officer. Or conspiracy to attempt to fail to obey a federal law enforcement officer.
And that’s just for starters."
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.” - Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police.
Just for starters indeed.
Was that Amber Heard in disguise?
Watching Hutchinson's smoking gun dissipate into simply smoke reminds me of the scene in A Man for All Seasons, where Cromwell thinks he's found the perfect witness to bring down Thomas More. On further examination, it turns out that, not only did More give a judgement unfavorable to the woman trying to bribe him, but when he found that the silver cup she had given him was indeed a bribe, he "dropped it into the nearest gutter" (i.e., gave it to Richard Rich, who is now trying to help Cromwell bring More down). "This is a dog that won't hunt," says the Duke of Norfolk about this supposed smoking gun, to which Cromwell responds that "We'll find something."
Those afflicted with TDS are convinced that they'll find something to bring down their quarry. If it isn't the pee tape, it's Russian collusion. If it isn't Russian collusion, it's the phone call with President Zelensky. If it isn't the phone call with Zelensky, it's the "insurrection." They figure, like the Provos trying to assassinate Maggie Thatcher, that he has to be successful each time, but they only need to be successful once. And they're going to keep trying until they can make something--anything--stick.
It is really simple to assess- if the Secret Service agents aren't brought to the committee to corroborate Hutchinson's testimony, then it means her testimony is untrue in part, and if untrue in part, probably untrue in bulk.
Watching this suggests to me that Hutchinson, Cheney, and the rest of the committee got played by someone who supports Trump.
pacwest has the answer. He was a threat to the "system" by which Congress members become millionaires and Joe Biden becomes a multimillionaire. Trump was unbribable because he had already made his money. I still don't understand Romney. He can't be in it for the cocktail parties and he has enough money. It must just be ego.
She's a lying Progressive. I wonder how much they are paying her to lie??
Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
·
Follow
BREAKING: Multiple sources including one who was at the WH on Jan 6 tell me Cipollone was not there in the am when Hutchinson testified she spoke with him. J6 Cmtes is aware of this discrepancy & are ignoring media inquiries about it. Seems she made up the entire conversation
9:47 PM · Jun 29, 2022
Blogger hombre said...
Another Trump presidency will just provide more sturm und drang.
I would have to agree. A lot of votes in 2020 were "Trump fatigue" and I can understand why. Trump himself brings on far more drama than necessary. Add on all the drama created - often out of thin air by his opponents - and it all got tiring.
And his opponents are showing no sign of giving up on their intent to destroy him.
Were they half as committed to make the city streets safer, lower the inflation rate, bring back energy independence, make needed goods available on grocery shelves, improve public education and stop marginalizing eveyone who disagreed with them, they wouldn't need to fear Trump. Well, they actually don't need to anyway - which is the real tragedy of the situation.
Mark.
Isn't there a point in your consuming hatred for Donald Trump where you take a step back and ponder," Our side lied about everything he did for four years. Am I being played? Is this more of the same?" But no. Something new comes up and you nuzzle right into that tit of hatred and prejudice. Is this what you want this country to be? It's why other people consider you guys not too bright.
Blogger hombre said...
"Another Trump presidency will just provide more sturm und drang."
Despite the good he's done for the country you want more entrenched corruption and graft? We need that kind of Sturm und drang.
Showing my age here ...
I was always interested in history and government but the timing of the Watergate hearings really got me excited about the career of politics.
I was able to watch hearing for hours and was fascinated by the process. An 80+ year old neighbor lady and I would often discuss what happened in the hearings. Some family and friends said they couldn't watch it because it was too dry and boring. I remember being fascinated by extensive notes people were able to use in discussing various meetings. The cross examination was often as telling as the original testimony because of the detail of the questions.
When Hutchinson testified to the "ketchup dripping down the wall", I wondered how she knew it was ketchup. She testified she saw a broken plate but did she know first hand who actually threw it?
I think entirely possible Trump threw it and don't doubt other plates have been thrown in the White House but I couldn't testify of either.
The reasons are entirely clear.
She testified under oath about what she was told. What she said matches his character. But people here know she lied based on press reports on what others said not under oath. How about reserving judgment until you can judge their sworn testimony? You don't because you don't care about the truth, only about protecting Trump.
Of course the temper tantrums are not the story from the hearing. Focus on the crimes, not the scandals. He knew many in the crowd were armed. He knew he wasn't their target and wanted the magnetometers removed so that he would have a bigger crowd and his people could keep their weapons (to use on others). Have your cake and eat it too. If true this is devastating for Trump.
Funny that the regulars here always complain about cancel culture when it is as big if not a bigger problem on the right. Is there any punishment too severe for Cassidy? A young attractive intelligent loyal Trump supporter (until Jan 6) and you want to destroy her - not because she lied (she didn't) but because she dared to truthfully answer questions under oath. Is she a pedophile? Shame.
You want this hearing to be more fair? You want this hearing to get to the bottom of things - you know - what REALLY happened. Well then tell Bannon and Stone and Flynn and McCarthy and Pence and Coach Jordan and Cipollone, etc. to tell what they know. It was unfair not to allow Jordan on the committee when he is a witness to key events and won't tell the public (or other committee members) what he saw and heard. That is fair in your mind?
One more thing - Flynn took the Fifth when asked if he believes in the peaceful transfer of power. So a truthful answer to that question would tend to incriminate him. If that isn't grounds for court martial I don't know what is.
David Begley, you show she’s not the only one.
Try reading my comment from the standpoint of the implication of her being correct. It paints a situation that is contrary to what the committee and press want to claim. Her testimony if true suggests that our bureaucracy overthrew the sitting President, Trump. That’s the stupidity of calling this an insurrection because Trump was the leader at the time. A Secret Service not working for the President is a coup, or at least a usurpation of power. If Hutchinson is true, as we are told, who usurped Trumps authority over the Secret Service?
"It's DC.
An indictment is as good as a prison sentence."
This is the reality we are coming to understand. The Democrats own DC, and anyone who goes near the place is liable to be thrown in a dungeon. And they are opening Capitol Police branches in California and Florida. And the flying monkeys of the FBI can descend upon you anywhere.
Rather interesting that in their zeal to whip up public opinion against the Supreme Court in favor of baby killing nationwide that they walk all over that messaging with the Jan6 sensationalism.
Less than a week after Roe was overruled, the furor, such as it was, is already dying out.
Byron York says the J6 Committee interviewed Hutchinson four times and they also interviewed the driver and the SS personnel. Are we getting the whole story?
Nah! We are getting the 20/20 version. I am surprised there aren’t ambush interviews as part of the video, with Trump being asked questions while he walks his dog.
I have a definite reaction to all this: contempt for the J6 Committee nitwits.
Blogger jim5301 said...
She testified under oath about what she was told. What she said matches his character
More mind reading from the pea nut gallery. Have you ever met Trump? How do know so much about his character? From CNN ? We need a smarter class of lefties.
Try this: Ron DeSantis, President; Nikki Haley, Vice President; Donald Trump, Speaker of the House. (And the inimitable Christina Pushaw as Press Secretary.)
I don't trust Nikki Haley. I think I'd sooner have Tulsi Gabbard. She's a lefty but seems to be honest.
Also Pushaw might run for Governor FL. She would be a good one.
@Michael K
Certainly money is a part of it. It always is. But in many cases it was that Trump upset the way things were done. Everyone has met the person who has a certain idea of how things should be done, small or large. It has worked well enough for them throughout their lifetime and resistance to change is strong. It's a pretty common human trait to some degree or another. Governmental ways of doing things has been going on for decades and in some instances centuries. Built in resistance becomes very strong over those timespans, even when the efficiency of new methods become obvious. Fear of risk factors in. All change involves risk. Ego plays a part. Changing things denotes previous failure to many throughout history. Top it off with the money and power entrenched in a static system and you get what is happening to Trump or anyone challinging the system. From top (corruption) to bottom (it's the way things are done) you'll get pushback. In Trump's case you have a very entrenched system confronting extreme change.
I consider Romney an honerable man, but he grew up within the system. It worked for him. Resistance to change is his bugaboo.
"Not clear on the legal concepts" Jim666 wrote:
"She testified under oath about what she was told. What she said matches his character"
>>>>>>>>>>>>Imbecile. "What she was told" was naked "hearsay", inadmissible in courts of law. Why? Because there's no evidence that "what she was told" is truthful. As for "matching his character"....WTF?
"Of course the temper tantrums are not the story from the hearing. Focus on the crimes, not the scandals. He knew many in the crowd were armed."
>>>>>>>Oh really? How did he "know" that? How do YOU know that HE "knew"?
>>>>>>>(Unless, of course, you're talking about all the "false flag" FBI guys.
"He knew he wasn't their target and wanted the magnetometers removed so that he would have a bigger crowd and his people could keep their weapons (to use on others). Have your cake and eat it too. If true this is devastating for Trump."
>>>>>>>> You say he knew....and then say "If true.." Which is it, genius?
"One more thing - Flynn took the Fifth when asked if he believes in the peaceful transfer of power. So a truthful answer to that question would tend to incriminate him. If that isn't grounds for court martial I don't know what is."
>>>>>>> Riiiiight.... taking the Fifth is evidence of guilt and grounds for court-martial!!!
SNORT
"You don't because you don't care about the truth, only about protecting Trump."
I don't give a shit about protecting Orange the Clown. I judge what she said as bullshit based on physical reality. The backseat of the presidential limo makes access to the driver almost impossible for anyone who isn't a trained ninja. That makes the story demonstratively untrue.
Pacwest: "I consider Romney an honerable man,..."
Is that why Romney marched with BLM and aligned himself fully with the democratical coup-meisters? Because he is so "honorable"?
"if the goal is to get to the truth."
Oh child.
jim5301: "One more thing - Flynn took the Fifth when asked if he believes in the peaceful transfer of power. So a truthful answer to that question would tend to incriminate him."
Its always fun when jim5301 plays lawyer. Not quite as fun as when he plays mind-reader-ing-"evidence"-"authenticator" of course.
@Drago
No. BLM because the system as he passed through was go along and get along. Pretty much what is currently called a RINO. You can also see it in his stint as Governor.
Aligning himself with the Dems would be his resistance to the radical change that Trump represented. Look into a Never-Trumper's soul and this is what you'll see in one form or another, benign or corrupt.
Nonetheless I do consider him honorable in the sense that I think that he truly considers his views/resistance to change to be best for America (misguided as I think that may be), unlike the Clintons, Pelosi, etc. who place their own well being above nation, or Obama and many of the younger generation unable to recognize their early indoctrination for what it is.
We can impugn a man's views without impugning his character. Or just the opposite as with many Trumpists here. I fall into the latter category although I find Trump’s character merely off putting rather than abhorrent as many do.
I cannot add anything worthwhile. I will only say it’s rare (maybe unprecedented) for me to keep on reading comments on ANY blog post all the way to the last one. And, that’s what happened here today. It happened because the comments were, one after the other, insightful, logical, convincing. There was a time only a few years ago that I could not imagine EVER voting for DJ TRUMP. But this ill-begotten sham hatefest, coming on the heels of years of the same crappola-grade nonsense from mostly the dsame slimy people. has made a difference The left has driven me to a much different place. They are a disgrace and I’ll never again have anything more to do with them.
"I consider Romney an honerable man, but he grew up within the system. It worked for him. Resistance to change is his bugaboo."
Yup, he was governor of the people's republic of Massachusetts (having been born and raised there, I get to call it that), a place where even the Republicans tend to be Democrats. Go along to get along is the only way a Republican can do that.
Blogger hombre said...
"Another Trump presidency will just provide more sturm und drang."
Despite the good he's done for the country you want more entrenched corruption and graft? We need that kind of Sturm und drang.
If Trump did decide suddenly to ride over to the Capitol (I am not sure he did so), then it makes sense to me that the Secret Service driver refused to do so. On one hand, Trump was the US President, but on the other hand, the driver feared dire consequences.
I can buy that viewpoint, but only from a rational discussion. What was testified was an irrational discussion. If Trump is irrational and can't be reasoned, then the agents refusing his authority are usurping his authority. I don't believe it happened, but like the "smoking gun" text messages seemed to support Trump's viewpoint, Hutchinson's testimony (if true) can plausibly explain a smoking gun of a bureaucratic coup against Trump. To me that explanation is more supportable than "Trump grabbed for the wheel shows he planned the insurrection". Personally, Pelosi's call to the JCS should be held as unethical behavior.
pacwest: "Nonetheless I do consider him honorable in the sense that I think that he truly considers his views/resistance to change to be best for America (misguided as I think that may be),..."
But Romney is not resistant to change. He's quite accepting, even laudatory as well as complicit, in the complete weaponization of the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies against the only real foes they call domestic terrorists: republican and populist voters/school board moms/gun owners.
But of course, pointing this out us considered quite rude and no doubt deserves a tut tut or two.
@Drago
Tut tut. Tut tut.
Post a Comment