July 3, 2022

"Numerous people close to the committee’s work say the abrupt decision to go public with Hutchinson’s testimony, which surprised even some of its top aides..."

"... and which involved presenting the world with details the committee itself had learned only days earlier, was necessary to prevent her account from leaking. With evidence that Trump allies were trying to influence her decision to talk, some members also worried she might back out if they waited any longer.... [B]y rushing Hutchinson onto the witness stand, the committee has also exposed itself to criticism that it failed to thoroughly vet her claims. Hutchinson has come under intense scrutiny from Trump and his allies, who have accused her of lying or derided her for relaying hearsay that would not hold up in a criminal proceeding. So far, no one has publicly corroborated her account of a struggle between Trump and the Secret Service in his presidential SUV.... Officials have said anonymously that the Secret Service agents involved are prepared to contradict Hutchinson in sworn testimony.... One person familiar with the investigation who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to address sensitive matters, called the story of Trump lunging at a Secret Service agent an 'unforced error' that amounted to a colorful aside, when the main point, not in dispute, was that Trump was furious at being barred from proceeding to the Capitol...."

From "The Jan. 6 committee bet big with Cassidy Hutchinson. Did it pay off? The decision to accelerate her testimony has led to second-guessing but also produced some of the most memorable hearing moments to date" (WaPo).

I don't care whether "Trump was furious at being barred from proceeding to the Capitol." There's got to be more about what he believed would happen there. I'm stuck on the idea that what he wanted was a huge, attention-getting protest against resolving the election without more inquiry into whether the vote counts were accurate. If he had joined the crowd it would have been a stunning sight. But he didn't get his way. It was too dangerous. That he thought he could do it seems to be evidence that he was NOT picturing a violent scene. So what if he was "furious" that he didn't get to do his gigantic, historic photo-op?

63 comments:

gilbar said...

"The Jan. 6 committee bet big with Cassidy Hutchinson. Did it pay off?

Well, Igna believes it! Right Igna? Of Course, Igna will believe ANYTHING.

rehajm said...

With evidence that Trump allies were trying to influence her decision to talk

The way this is worded is deception red flag. The implication is to suggest Trump allies did not want her to testify but it’s more likely they were encouraging the idea…

Bob B said...

I think this makes it 0-37 for "we got Trump this time."

wendybar said...


And who would be leaking when the committee is full of Progressives who hate Trump and his supporters?? Funny, how they know they have a leaker and have had a leaker on the intel committee this whole time (cough Adam Schiff cough) and do nothing about it and continue to let him have classified information.

Temujin said...

Ann...precisely what you stated.

Rusty said...

So much drama. So little shits to give.

John henry said...

The thing that most amazes is that anyone would believe the steering wheel story.

This plumbs depths of stupidity that I can't possibly fathom.

And why not let (they haves ased to testify) the driver and other agents testify as to what happened.

They were there. The disgruntled woman was not.

John LGBTQBNY Henry

(pride month is over)

Creola Soul said...

The “lunging for the wheel” is total BS. The President doesn’t get to call “shotgun” and ride up front…that’s reserved for an agent with automatic weapons. There is also a barricade between the front and back to insure that, were someone to penetrate the front compartment, they wouldn’t be able to enter the back. BS rating of 5/5.

Sebastian said...

[B]y rushing Hutchinson onto the witness stand, the committee has also exposed itself to criticism that it failed to thoroughly vet her claims."

As opposed to the stellar work it is doing in vetting anything else, e.g., by ordinary cross-examination?

"'unforced error' that amounted to a colorful aside"

Hardly an aside: indicative of the vindictive partisanship at work here.

"I don't care whether "Trump was furious at being barred from proceeding to the Capitol.""

And you are correct.

"There's got to be more about what he believed would happen there."

There's "got to be"? Like, a crime-crime?

"I'm stuck on the idea that what he wanted was a huge, attention-getting protest"

Oh, that.

"That he thought he could do it seems to be evidence that he was NOT picturing a violent scene"

This is an excellent point. Really, the committee has provided a key extenuating piece of evidence. Not that there was any serious accusation of anything serious in the first place.

Gusty Winds said...

Targeted voter fraud in WI, PA, GA, MI, and AZ installed our current senile President. It wasn’t hard to see what was happening at the time of the extended, windows blocked counts. It was also easy to see the fraud happening in real time as chain of custody requirements and ballot integrity were thrown aside in voter fraud concentrated areas like Madison, WI, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philly, Detroit.

Trump was right, and the J6 protesters were right. Pence had an obligation to ensure the electors from those states were legitimate, and the cowered along with many others. Today we live with the consequences of an installed, corrupt, puppet regime.

The J6 committee is simply there to take the country further down the rabbit hole in covering the fraud. This asshole in the WH did not receive 81 million legitimate, legal, real votes. He did not win those states. It’s over people. Gov’t of the people, by the people, and for the people is dead. Once you accept that, it becomes a bit easier.

pious agnostic said...

Althouse's analysis in the last paragraph is right on 100%.

Buckwheathikes said...

Cassidy "Blasey" Hutchinson.

How many of these nobody broads do Democrats have on ice, ready to make up wildly false and trivially debunked "evidence?" And for what reason?

... wait ... checking notes ... Blasey Ford got over $1 million in GoFundMe bribes, laundered and freshly printed just for her.

Gee, I wonder what could be driving these broads to make such spurious and easily fact-checked false claims?

Lurker21 said...

With evidence that Trump allies were trying to influence her decision to talk, some members also worried she might back out if they waited any longer

What I heard is that she didn't want to testify until a new lawyer encouraged her. I don't know if this is true, but more reporting on this matter would be good. Sometimes, the influence and pressure to testify and tell a heavily embellished story is greater than the urging to keep quiet.

Sally327 said...

I wasn't aware that the Secret Service can prevent the President from going wherever he wants to go. Is that in the law somewhere that these agents can override the President and decide where and when he can't go somewhere? That seems like really dangerous power, if the Secret Service can control the President's movements like that. It makes me a little more curious about that story several weeks ago about the Iranian nationals who pretended to be DHS agents and gave gifts, etc., to some Secret Service agents.

Gusty Winds said...

This 4th of July is not a celebration of the beginning of our country and its independence. It is now a day of mourning marking the end of the great self governance experiment. The J6 committee is the antithesis of everything America USED to stand for. It’s the torch lighting the funeral pyre.

The committee is celebrated, admired, revered, beloved, and defended in places like Madison, WI. You’d have to be an idiot to believe this lying woman Hutchinson. Or, you are rooting for the success of the corruption. I’d imagine Madison, WI is split 50/50 along these lines.

Lem said...

That he thought he could do it seems to be evidence that he was NOT picturing a violent scene. So what if he was "furious" that he didn't get to do his gigantic, historic photo-op?

I get the impression that Trump wanting to go is enough for the democrats to assert that as evidence of undo interference in the election/proceeding or something.

Wince said...

Numerous people close to the committee’s work say the abrupt decision to go public with Hutchinson’s testimony, which surprised even some of its top aides ... and which involved presenting the world with details the committee itself had learned only days earlier, was necessary to prevent her account from leaking.

"Popes, swamis, snake handlers, all feeding at the same trough... What did you do? You put that lying bitch on the stand."

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

The neobarbarians have been after Trump since his elevator descent. Obama's government conducted a secret spy operation against him to help Neobarbarian candidate Hillary Clinton. She fed them B.S., which the FBI knew was B.S., but it used it to get an illegal spy warrant. Clinton's lawyer fed them a B.S. story about Alfa Bank, which again the FBI knew was false with in a couple days. Did any organ of Obama's government publicly denounce Neobarabarian Clinton's tales? That's a big No.

Why should we believe a single statement out of the J6 Neobarbarian Committee to Impeach Donald Trump a Third Time?

This is what happened at the Capitol:
- Nancy Pelosi knew there would be trouble. She deliberately undermined the Capitol Police so they could not protect the Capitol and did not back them up with the National Guard.

- The FBI sent agents/informers into the crowd to create a surge that breached the Capitol Police line. Ray Epps led the agitation and is not residing in some dank D.C. jail cell, but living large on his Arizona ranch.

- After the initial breach, the Capitol Police waved the rest of the crowd onto the grounds.

- Neobarbarian agents of Nancy Pelosi left 2x4 outside the Capitol building for use as clubs.

- A riot ensued. Windows were broken. The Capitol Police fired tear gas and flash bangs into the flag-waving crowd. The the Capitol Police opened the doors. Those doors are armored and fortified. The can only be opened from inside of the Capitol. Lt. Michael Byrd shot and killed Ashli Babbitt for no good reason. Rosanne Boyland was beaten to death by Capitol Police; the D.C. Medical examiner covers this up with a ruling of accidental acute amphetamine intoxication.

- The mostly peaceful crowd entered the Capitol, took selfies and then left. Some stole items like the podium or Nancy's laptop.

Total damage to the Capitol: $1.5Million. Total 2020 riot damage is about $2Billion with hundreds if not thousand burned-out buildings, and hundreds of deaths.

The party of Neobarbarism staged the Capitol Riot. The J6 committee is the cover up of this seditious conspiracy.

boatbuilder said...

Nicely stated, Professor. The whole point of Trump's demonstration was to show that he has a lot of supporters who wanted his concerns heard and answered.

The idea that promoting such a protest is criminal is in itself a horrific affront to the Constitution and freedoms we are celebrating this weekend.

If there is any evidence that he plotted or promoted violence, then let's hear it. If what actually happened on January 6th was something that he planned, well then he probably should never have been allowed to run a picnic, let alone the US of A. But I don't believe that for a minute. Lets ask Ray Epps, the guy with the bullhorn, the guys removing the barricades, the guys breaking the windows and the guys waving people in who they were working for.
Lets get to the bottom of this--all of it.

Leland said...

Maybe Trump was furious that he couldn't step out and tell the people directly to go home? Don't know, because none of it happened. If your smoking gun is an event that never occurred, then it is time to fold the tent and go home.

Bob Boyd said...

The incursion of the Capital had already started. Trump no doubt had been informed. He probably thought he could make it better or at least be seen trying. He knew the incursion was going to be a disaster for him and he must have been very concerned about how far things would go.
If Trump really was angry and frustrated, something that has only been claimed, not proven, then I have to give him credit for having the courage to be willing to try to go down there and try to do something. He was the only person who could have.

Mike Sylwester said...

Trump was furious at being barred from proceeding to the Capitol.

Trump was not "barred".

He was merely delayed. He had to wait until the Secret Service prepared that drive.

After he returned to the White House, he could have waited a short time and then traveled to the Capitol. Apparently, however, he changed his mind after he returned to the White House.

His other option was that he could have told the Secret Service before his speech that he wanted to ride to the Capitol after his speech. However, he apparently did not do that.

The reason why the Secret Service driver did not drive him to the Capitol was security concerns -- not political concerns.

Mike Sylwester said...

The biggest problem in Hutchinson's testimony is not her statement that Trump grabbed the car's steering wheel. In that statement, she says only what she heard someone else say.

Instead, the biggest problem is her statement that she herself handwrote a memo that attorney Eric Herschmann says he himself wrote. That is more than merely a hearsay problem.

The note looks to me like it was written by a man, not by a woman. I would like to see handwriting samples from Hutchinson and Herschmann.

ConradBibby said...

"I wasn't aware that the Secret Service can prevent the President from going wherever he wants to go. Is that in the law somewhere that these agents can override the President and decide where and when he can't go somewhere? That seems like really dangerous power, if the Secret Service can control the President's movements like that."

Interesting take, but the SS aren't military and so the president is not an agent's (constitutional) commander-in-chief. I assume the SS are civil servants and would be protected from losing their jobs and pensions if all they did "wrong" was refusing to insert a president into a raucous, unscreened crowd. And if an agent did do that, and someone in the crowd shot or stabbed the president, what do you suppose the fallout would be for the agent?

Mike Sylwester said...

After Trump returned to the White House, he saw on television what was happening at the Capitol. That is why he changed his mind and decided not to go there.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump probably did believe he could create a peaceful scene and march to the Capitol to protest the obvious fraud. But he underestimated the coordinated infiltration of the crowd by FBI agents, Capitol Police, ANTIFA, and other Democrat provocateurs. He underestimated the amount of GOP leaders who were in on it too. He also underestimated the fraudulent nature of COVID and the “vaccine”. But Trump could see the upcoming fraud being set in place through untraceable absentee ballots. We all could. Even turncoat Bill Barr said so publicly on CNN. Then he tucked his dick between his legs for self preservation. Just like Mike Pence.

The J6 Kangaroo Court is well coordinated. Big Tech censorship and the MSM push the propaganda. Even down to the local level they have paid cheerleaders like Molly Beck at the Milwaukee Journal. She just pushes BS lines about Gableman’s investigation, rather analyse the veracity of the investigation. Ignores the Racine nursing home fraud and election violations. Or she hops on the Ron Johnson and the fake elector crap. It all just meant to damage anyone who challenges the fraud.

But it’s working quite well. Even Althouse hopes that the committee can take out Trump, rather than a legitimate, legal, audit-able election. Although Althouse is openly questioning their means, she is still openly stated support for the corrupt ends. Make sure that MAGA Trump horse is dead, no matter how you do it.

That’s how you know self-governance is REALLY over. God help Generation Z.

lgv said...

Cheney should be charged with suborning perjury. She chose to have hearsay evidence that was a lie, because she knew Ornato and the Secret Service agents would refute the testimony.

Again, no one in the press is asking why the actual people involved are not being asked to testify. It's because they know the answer.

Mike Sylwester said...

was necessary to prevent her account from leaking

I remember the explanation that the rush for Hutchinson's testimony was "necessary" because of some death threats against her. What happened to that explanation?

Drago said...

Leland: "Don't know, because none of it happened. If your smoking gun is an event that never occurred, then it is time to fold the tent and go home."

That is such a quaint 2015 concept! Adorable!

We are now in Year 7 of Trump "smoking guns" that are events that never occurred and the dems/lefties/media/NeverTrump (but I repeat myself) simply move onto the next "smoking gun" that never occurred without awknowledging the collapse of the previous.

The stupid democraticals, well represented here at Althouse by the Usual Suspects, STILL believe Trump improperly fed the Koi fish!!

Drago said...

The only non-evidence "evidence" that Trump and his team didnt want Blasey-Ford Hutchinson to "testify" (LOL! "testimony"!) were the two items introduced in a vague way without naming names...Spoiler Alert: it was Hutchinson who conjured those up!!!

LOL

No wonder Hutchinson's Hug-Mate Hag Cheney didnt want to let that particular cat out of the bag!

And as with the Hillary Hoax Dossier Compiled With The Help Of Russians(!) And Other Foreigners, the hype shifts from Smoking Gun OMG!!! to eh, that thing was never THE THING, but it points us to THE NEXT THING!

You would think that after 7 years of this Lucy-Charley Brown-Football act by the democraticals/NeverTrump/Lefties/deep stators (but I repeat myself) the gadflys, jim5301s, Howards, Ingas, Freders, Mutamans and yes, even Douglas Levenes et al would know better.

rcocean said...

Excution first. Trial Afterwards. off with his head. The Democrats and R Establishment want to destroy Trump by charging and convicting him of a crime. Any crime. and if they can't find one, they'll make one up.

We have ZERO credible evidence supporting the stuff testified to by this nobody. There's a common thead to all this fake charges against Trump. People like Adam Shithead or Pelosi or the NYT/Wapo, say trump said/did XYZ and then refuse to provide evidence because its all 'Hush hush" classifed data, or its data that can't be disclosed becuase the matter is 'under investigation' or its from a "Whistleblower that can't be identified or questioned. or its from an anonymous source "deep inside the adminstration". In this case, Amber OverHeard Hutichson says two men were talking about Trump in the limo blah, blah.

And guess what...drumroll... these two men can't testify because of executive privilage. How...convient. And part of the pattern.

Like Trump-Russia in 2016 this has all been planned and just one more attempt to destroy Trump and hobble him. Going thorugh all his emails and questioning everyone is another fishing expedition, just like the FBI wiretaps, and the 2 impeachments. They aren't really doing this to support their bogus charges, they're hoping find OTHER data that could lead to an idictment. They're just projecting. Imagine all the crooked deals you'd find if you could rummage through Hillary's "Lost" emails.

wendybar said...

What Mike of Snoqualmie said...@ 8:03am

Yancey Ward said...

"The thing that most amazes is that anyone would believe the steering wheel story. This plumbs depths of stupidity that I can't possibly fathom."

Exactly- what kind of idiot does one have to be to believe this story? And if they don't believe it, then they are liars, too, for saying they do.

RoseAnne said...

Blogger boatbuilder said...

Lets get to the bottom of this--all of it.


This is the opinion I hear more than any other. If you are going to do this, do it right or don't do it at all.

Mr Wibble said...

They tried to pull a Kavanaugh and once again it backfired.

JLT said...

I was thinking the same thing as Ann. I don’t see how you can jump to the conclusion that Trump would have been violent at the Capitol. I think that’s why Hutchinson embellished the story of the altercation in the SUV, which she misidentified as The Beast.
She wanted everyone to think that Trump would have smashed the Capitol windows and grabbed Mike Pence.
by his clavicle.




Michael K said...

With evidence that Trump allies were trying to influence her decision to talk, some members also worried she might back out if they waited any longer

The "evidence" about Trump "allies" calling her was more statements from her. There was no "other party" that confirmed her story. It was all her tale. Nobody else.

n.n said...

Handmade tales have increasingly progressive lifetimes. That said, democracy is aborted in darkness (e.g. without due process, through trial by press).

JK Brown said...

My question is who, besides a moron or in the last 20 years law school graduate would think that having a "witness" repeatedly, dozens of times, say "something to the effect" wouldn't trigger skepticism in anyone not fully immersed in Trump Derangement Syndrome?

And no one seems to have considered this young woman. No access or real knowledge, but to admit that in DC is death, confronted by the "witch hunters", having seen the use of eager FBI and DOJ to bring "Trumped-up" charges against far more powerful people, so having no choice but to "cooperate" but without any thing she could factually testify to without the "to the effect of" characterization. So, she gave her testimony in self defense. But testimony not challenged at least in prep by a hardy opposition will always sound suspicious because it wasn't pitted against a discerning mind. Not unlike when companies come up with slogans, acronyms, etc. without running them past middle schoolers first to find the innuendo, double entendre, etc.

gspencer said...

Hearsay = "and they told two friends"

No one did a finer job than Faberge Organics who created the well quoted and often spoofed “and they told two friends” ad campaign which Hutchinson exploited,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oykO6kXG9xg

Tom T. said...

The steering wheel anecdote was the whole point of her testimony, and now they're trying to downplay it.

It shows the poor preparation and devotion to cheap theatrics. At a very basic level, no one involved in the process knew anything about the White House limo, and no one thought to try to learn more before putting her up.

It's a terrible job by her lawyer, letting her become a laughingstock with this obviously false story. He had to go onto Twitter shortly after to do damage control, trying to emphasize that Hutchinson was just repeating someone else's story.

Skeptical Voter said...

Cassidy Hutchinson's account (lunging at the driver, trying to grab the steering wheel) doesn't pass the physics smell test. He's riding in the backseat of Presidential limousine. Now he's a big guy--but how can a far back seat rider grab the steering wheel?

Okay, she's willing to testify. But I think that the committee decision to allow that is what the Brits would call an example of "over egging the pudding". They didn't need that "lurid detail" and now they have egg on their face. They were never credible anyway, but this is just another example of shooting themselves in the foot. Adam Schiff in particular is rather good at that sort of thing.

JaimeRoberto said...

Trump could have grabbed the steering wheel and choked the Secret Service agent if he was Elastigirl from The Incredibles. Perhaps he should identify as such, then any criticism of him would be transphobic.

Skeptical Voter said...

Cassidy Hutchinson's account (lunging at the driver, trying to grab the steering wheel) doesn't pass the physics smell test. He's riding in the backseat of Presidential limousine. Now he's a big guy--but how can a far back seat rider grab the steering wheel?

Okay, she's willing to testify. But I think that the committee decision to allow that is what the Brits would call an example of "over egging the pudding". They didn't need that "lurid detail" and now they have egg on their face. They were never credible anyway, but this is just another example of shooting themselves in the foot. Adam Schiff in particular is rather good at that sort of thing.

jim5301 said...

I agree with Ann that whether or not he wanted to go to the capital is of little importance. What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons . . . because he wasn't their target. To me that is strong evidence of sedition and I believe that is what he will be charged with.

I never thought he really wanted to go to the Capitol. Always seemed like a wuss to me. I would think his bone spurs would be acting up.

Bender said...

I don't believe that Trump demanded to go to the Capitol, much less did the other things.

But in any event, no president has a right to go to the Capitol. Just like no member of Congress has a right to barge into the White House. A president is allowed in the Capitol only by permission of Congress. It is Congress' exclusive domain.

The history of this is clear. Even the king was barred from barging into Parliament without permission.

boatbuilder said...

I am thinking that rcocean is right. This is bait to try to force Trump to waive executive privilege (allowing people covered by his privilege to testify) so they can just go 24/7/363 investigation about everything and anything--Crab Rangoon and the Gorilla Channel, 2 scoops, ketchup on the walls, big salt shakers, whatever. That's why Liz said the committee would be glad to hear from the driver about any new information.

Next week it will be that Trump won't permit the agents to testify (because Trump will quite rightly seek to limit the scope).

cfs said...

She said so many things that seem to be untrue.

The Secret Service said the Trump "tried to grab the steering wheel" story was not true.

Cippoline was not at the White House that morning so she could not have entered into a conversation with him.

Someone else wrote the memo she claimed she had written.

And she said that former senior Justice Department official Jeff Clark strategized at White House with Giuliani and Trump campaign to object to the election. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity because Giuliani had met with a Justin Clark at the White House. Justin Clark had apparently signed in to the visitor log as "J. Clark" so she just created a narrative from that and went with it not realizing her error. (Hey, the story sounded good when she practiced it with Cheney!)

How could anyone believe anything Hutchinson said?

Of course, the committee doesn't care that her testimony was a lie. They got the headlines they wanted and most people will not look any further than that.

Michael K said...

Blogger Gusty Winds said...

Trump probably did believe he could create a peaceful scene and march to the Capitol to protest the obvious fraud. But he underestimated the coordinated infiltration of the crowd by FBI agents, Capitol Police, ANTIFA, and other Democrat provocateurs. He underestimated the amount of GOP leaders who were in on it too.


Yes, he was naive but that should be a surprise for a New York City developer. Not even NYC is as corrupt as DC.

MikeR said...

@jim5301 "What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons . . . because he wasn't their target. To me that is strong evidence of sedition and I believe that is what he will be charged with."
Doesn't sound like evidence of sedition at all. Sounds like evidence of wanting a good photo op.
But Trump haters have this whole picture in their heads, and anything that happens has to be scrunched into it.

effinayright said...

jim5301 said...
I agree with Ann that whether or not he wanted to go to the capital is of little importance. What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons . . . because he wasn't their target. To me that is strong evidence of sedition and I believe that is what he will be charged with.
****************
Again, you are relying on third-hand hearsay, as it was Hutchinson who made those claims, referring to what she heard from third parties. That isn't "evidence", as you've been told a hundred times. If Trump were charged with sedition, her statements would not be admissible.

Trump "knew many in the crowd were armed"? Only two firearms were confiscated, outside on the Capitol grounds. Where did the others, the "many", go?

How do YOU know that TRUMP "knew"? Did the info come from inside a mayonnaise jar someone left on your front porch?

And HOW would Trump have "known", without Pelosi and the Capitol Police knowing as well?

Finally, you simply assume that the reason Trump wanted the metal detectors taken down was to facilitate the entry of people with firearms so they could bring down the government.

YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT AS A FACT.

Making shit up is your stock-in-trade.





Michael K said...

I never thought he really wanted to go to the Capitol. Always seemed like a wuss to me. I would think his bone spurs would be acting up.

jim 1234 is another Trump expert. Nobody going into the Capitol was armed. The only gun shot victim was shot by a capitol police lieutenant. Another Trump supporter was beaten to death by a capitol police member. Why has the ANTIFA member who shot the video of the Trump supporter being killed never been arrested ?

As for being a "wuss," he did not blink when the son of some politician (Democrat) tried to attack him with a knife during the 2016 campaign. Bolsonaro was almost killed by such an attack in Brazil.

Drago said...

Jim5301: "What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons..."

LOL

"apparent knowledge", "many in the crowd were "armed"', (insert additional mindreader bulletpoint here).

Gee, why doesn't the Jan 6 Soviet Show Trial Team just call jim5301 to testify?

effinayright said...

cfs said...
She said so many things that seem to be untrue.
**********

Yet jim501(c)3 believes every word.

He also has a large NYC bridge and ocean-front Iowa property he bought on-line he'd like to sell you.

RoseAnne said...

@jim5301 "What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons . . . because he wasn't their target. To me that is strong evidence of sedition and I believe that is what he will be charged with."

"his apparent knowlege that many in the crowd were armed..."

Before assuming it is "strong evidence of sedition", you would first have to prove how you know he "knew" this. "... because he wasn't their target" would also require proof that he actually had that knowledge and how you knew that he knew this.

One alternative theory could be that he wasn't afraid of going to the Capitol crowd because he knew various governmental agencies had undercover, armed agents in the crowd and he believed they would not kill the President of the United States.

(Offered as an example of an alternative reason and not reflecting my personal beliefs. I have no idea if or why he would believe any of what is being claimed.)

Slightly off topic: Pre-Clinton administration a niece worked for a Secret Service agent who was serving on the then President's detail. He and his family attended several family events with her. I found him to be professional, personable, and scary as heck. His level of situational awareness was incredible. I couldn't see him being fazed by the President being angry about something.

MadisonMan said...

Many of my Facebook friends bought Hutchinson's words Hook, Line and Sinker.

cfs said...

I understand that Hutchinson had already previously testified and none of the things she mentioned this time came up at all. Apparently, they were such "bombshells" that she forgot all about them until she changed attorneys.

Chris Lopes said...

"I wasn't aware that the Secret Service can prevent the President from going wherever he wants to go."

He decides where he wants to go, they decide how to get there. He wanted to go to an unprepared venue with hundreds of unvetted people walking around. They would have been putting him in danger by doing that.

Proper procedure is to get back to the WH and let the President tell the Secret Service where he wants to go. They then prepare the location and bring him there. They weren't controlling him, they were keeping him safe.

Chris Lopes said...

"The “lunging for the wheel” is total BS. The President doesn’t get to call “shotgun” and ride up front…that’s reserved for an agent with automatic weapons. There is also a barricade between the front and back to insure that, were someone to penetrate the front compartment, they wouldn’t be able to enter the back. BS rating of 5/5."

I have been talking about this since the"story" broke. The reality of the situation dictates the claim is bullshit and it was supposed to be the bombshell. I don't know how many "Trump assaulted a Secret Service agent" stories are out there, but it's clear that was the intended headline. They screwed up.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Numerous people close to the committee’s work say the abrupt decision to go public with Hutchinson’s testimony, which surprised even some of its top aides and which involved presenting the world with details the committee itself had learned only days earlier, was necessary to prevent her account from leaking."

-> "We had to put her on before any of our people leaked it!"

How many days does it take to contact some of the people in the car, and ask "did this actually happen"?
5 minutes?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

@jim5301 "What is important is his apparent knowledge that many in the crowd were armed and he asked SS to remove the metal detectors so people could attend his rally w/o having to give up their weapons . . . because he wasn't their target. To me that is strong evidence of sedition and I believe that is what he will be charged with."


1: The claim came from a known liar
2: The metal detectors cause a significant decrees in number of people coming int because they obstruct and slow down traffic.

That is true even if none of those people are "armed" with anything more dangerous than their car keys.

So wanting to eliminate metal doctors, even if true, shows no belief that there were armed people in the crowd

Jamie said...

Ok, let's say you're the president. You believe that patently obvious, done-in-daylight election shenanigans over many months, plus possibly done-in-darkness election fraud during and immediately after the election, cost you a second term. You hold a rally. It's massively attended but you hear that many more people want to attend, and metal detectors are slowing their progress in. Frustrated, you "demand" that the mags be removed so your supporters can be where they want to be - with you, protesting.

The Secret Service says, "Can't do that, sir - some are probably armed. Maybe even certainly."

You, still frustrated, answer, "They're not going to hurt me!" BECAUSE, jim5301, you see, the Secret Service is charged with protecting the president. Your retort is intended to remove their objection to letting more of your supporters in.

Can you see that? Can you look beyond your feelings about Trump to see that this explanations is MUCH more probable than yours, which is that Trump experienced the world's worst Kinsey gaffe and revealed that he was the head of an armed insurrection with plans to kill the VP?

Crazy World said...

What Wendybar said at 9:25 am