Last year, Hutchinson testified before the House Jan. 6 committee that she overheard then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows recounting Trump's reaction when told rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" -- that he responded he "deserves" it.
Trump has denied saying Pence deserved to be hanged, calling Hutchinson a liar....
Well, it is odd that a new detail has emerged. If it's important — and presuming that it's true — Hutchinson should have told the committee. But I can see thinking that it wasn't important. If Trump was gazing at the television, listening to rioters chant, he might repeat the key word out loud as part of absorbing what he was hearing. Don't we do that — repeat words we hear out loud? I could imagine repeating a chanted word as a way of saying: Wow, they're actually saying that. In that light, saying Pence "deserves" it, would seem more important.
Of course, I don't know whether Trump or Hutchinson or both are lying.
And here's my post from 3 days ago, wondering why Trump antagonists were stressing the dining room: "What's special about the thought of him sitting in that particular place? Is there some idea that we'd be more outraged if we pictured Trump in the dining room?"
পোস্টগুলি
৪৯টি মন্তব্য:
Is there some idea that we'd be more outraged if we pictured Trump in the dining room?
Trump, in the dining room, with a rope.
Same person who accused Trump of choking a Secret Service agent while trying to take over "The Beast" SUV. A known liar.
Mollie Hemingway has written that this woman totally fabricated a story about her.
Circus.
The more Joe is exposed the louder the "inferences" get?
Rod Serling stuff. Seem Joe isn't the only dem shitting himself!
her own lawyers words belie that statement, she's blasey ford with better hair,
Hutchison is a liar. Her claims that Trump tried to grab the wheel of "the beast" were proven wrong by the fact that Trump was not in that vehicle at the time she claims it happened nor was she present and nobody that was present with Trump supports her story. That the jury foreperson in Atlanta found Hutchison the most credible tells me about the problems with that indictment.
It's way too late to 'reveal' this. If it actually meant anything it'd have been showcased during the post-Jan 6 show trial.
Hutchinson is also the only person who said that Trump, despite the security barrier in front of the passenger compartment, somehow tried to attack his limo driver.
Cassidy is getting lots of narrative out in the ether.
None of it is true. But there is lots of it.
Didn’t this woman completely lie about Trump trying to take the wheel of the presidential limo?
False in one, false in all.
It's not important. "He deserves it" seems like perfectly normal grousing from a frustrated person. It would be irrational (or dishonest) to conclude without more that he was serious and really was saying Pence literally deserves to be hung.
Same for the crowd, it's irrational (or dishonest) to conclude without more that they really wanted him strung up.
This story needs some ketchup.
And she seemed so honest and sincere in the committee hearing. But she's GUILTY of lying, the high court of wing nut justice has meandered to a truth.
These people smell of flop sweat.
“If Trump was gazing at the television, listening to rioters chant, he might repeat the key word out loud as part of absorbing what he was hearing. Don't we do that — repeat words we hear out loud? I could imagine repeating a chanted word as a way of saying: Wow, they're actually saying that.”
Ah, the charitable interpretation, and this time Althouse is actually charitable. But wouldn’t it be even more charitable to suppose Trump was yelling for the rioters attacking the Capitol to hang? That’s his thing, right, calling for people to hang for treason.
What's special about the dining room is that it's not the Oval Office or the Situation Room. And it's not just the dining room, it's the fact that for three hours he's watching TV, calling Senators under attack, on burner phones, to ask them to delay the electoral count and rejecting repeated requests from his own people (family, staff, Congressional leaders, Fox news hosts) to call off his followers--when everyone recognized that was by far the most effective means to end the violence and allow the count to continue. When he finally did call them off, they left promptly and the count resumes.
The Jan. 6 related crime is not murder. It's conspiracy to disrupt the electoral count. The key question is whether in the run up to January 6, the actions of Trump and his co conspirators were taken in good faith, or with corrupt intent. What Trump didn't do in the three hours after the assault on the Capitol is important evidence of corrupt intent. And as Hutchinson's testimony shows, the proof will come in through almost exclusively Republican witnesses, including Pence, McCarthy, and others.
So it's important to have Trump's account of what he thought he was up to while he was refusing requests to call off his followers, if it was more than simply feeling vindicated and hoping that the violence would somehow work to force a postponement. Welker was right to ask him, and it's telling that Trump evaded the question five times and then refused to answer. Will he offer an answer on the stand at trial, or, as in the New York sexual assault case, will the threat of effective cross examination cause him to exercise his right not to testify? Either way, what will the jury, and the persuadable voters in the middle, make of this conduct?
Trump has an ego, and he would delight if the crowd disliked someone who was thwarting him.
Pence didn't deserve to hang. He deserved to have the crowd turn against him and taunt him. He deserved the "Lock her up" treatment.
The Left sees a monster. He's just a petty man.
It would be irrational (or dishonest) to conclude without more that he was serious and really was saying Pence literally deserves to be hung.
I am not at all saying I believe Pence deserved to be hanged. But I will say this: even if Trump were deadly serious and "really was saying Pence literally deserves to be hung," he still wasn't doing (and didn't do) anything to bring about that result. No one is even alleging, are they? that Trump ever even egged on the crowd at the big rally to hang the VP.
The "stochastic terror" post of yesterday makes the suggestion that he was basically hoping someone would get the idea that he, Trump, wanted something really bad but unspecified to happen and therefore they ought to make something really bad happen, but - even if this were true - you'd have to prove that the really bad thing's happening was Trump's intent although he did not outright suggest it. That's a high bar but maybe not an insurmountable one, if for instance he'd said something to an aide or written something in his diary about, "Today I'm going to try to foment an insurrection! Wish me luck!"
This dining room crap is just thoughtcrime.
Where's Punctuation Nit-Picker Ann when you need her? Hang!!! is something very different than hang? or hang...
...but the most dangerous place in Madison is standing between Ann and her keyboard when someone mistakes a diaeresis for an umlaut...
Assuming there's any truth to this at all (which is being generous), Trump was probably saying that Pence deserved to have a crowd of conservative protesters jeering at him that he should be hanged (and whatever else they were chanting); not that Pence deserved to hang.
In any case, judging Trump or anybody by the things they yell at a TV is beyond imbecilic.
The infamous recovered memory that just happens to advance the narrative all the media wants advancing, just exactly what Biden needs in the way of distraction right now. How unbelievably coincidental.
And I don't seriously believe that you needed me to help you with that.
You shouldn't. I'm mocking you. My umlaut line is kinda funny, innit?
...this whole post and the contents of it deserve nothing but mocking but the Mock Oscar here should go not to Ann but Stephen for the carefully crafted paragraphs trying to convince us there's something worth intellectual rigor going on here...
Justine Smolliet has more credibility
Just to be clear here, we're now condemning Trump for repeating words protesters said, in the relative privacy of a dining room of the White House, with only staff around him? Descartes is swapping places with the horse, here, and Trump stands condemned for causing a riot because he watched it. Cause and effect are being conflated, reversed, or at least discombobulated here, I think.
Point One: the Oval Dining Room is significant because, unlike the Oval Office or the Roosevelt Room or any other notable WH meeting room, there is a television in the Dining Room. Actually, I think there were 3 televisions in that room.
Trump was watching the violence, perpetrated in his name, unfold in real time on television.
Point Two: "Well, it is odd that a new detail has emerged. If it's important — and presuming that it's true — Hutchinson should have told the committee."
Did Cassidy Hutchinson withhold that detail? From the Committee? From any of the several grand juries that she has appeared before? Was she asked about it? I think that she has been a remarkable witness, and I look forward to Trump's criminal trials, and seeing her as a witness. Including defense cross-examination. Trump of course will not testify and epose himself to cross-examination.
for me - the most devastating part of that silly speech he gave on Jan 6th - was his delusion that Mike Pence had the power to over-turn a fraudulent election.
That said - this woman has zero credibility.
Unless it's on camera - it didn't happen. It's hearsay.
Dave Begley said...
Didn’t this woman completely lie about Trump trying to take the wheel of the presidential limo?
No, she didn't. She related a story, told to her by Tony Ornato in front of Bobby Engel, who (Engel) had just finished telling his eyewitness account to Ornato.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/30/reporter-acolyte-disputed-hutchinson-testimony-broke-every-secret-tradition_partner/
Who cares what Trump said while watching TV? Or what some low-level staffer "OVERHEARD". Did she talk to trump about it? No.
Its just mind-reading. And what is it supposed to prove?
You have Trump's speech on J6. You have him condeming the violence and calling for peace on J6. Everything else is bullshit.
The MSM reported that Trump fought with a secret service agent for control of the car on J6. It reported J6 protesters "Killed five policeman". Like "Russia-gate" its been a nonstop series of lies and distortions. All with the same object: Destroy Trump at any cost.
I call bullshit. Where is the actual proof?? Not some Trump hater thinking she can get rich by lying about him because she will gain favor with the elites.
wondering why Trump antagonists were stressing the dining room: "What's special about the thought of him sitting in that particular place?
Perhaps they want the narrative to place Trump where this "witness" says he was so she could have been able to overhear him and it would jive with her story. I don't when her book came out, but the word was probably out about some of what was in it beforehand.
Ann Althouse said...
"Where's Punctuation Nit-Picker Ann when you need her? Hang!!! is something very different than hang? or hang..."
The "hang" that's followed by a question mark isn't in quotes: "I hear him say 'hang' repeatedly. Hang? What's that about?" So the "hang" that comes from Trump, the one that's in quotes, is not a question. The word "say" is used, not "ask." The "Hang?" is Hutchinson expressing her question: "Hang? What's that about?" That's the inside of Hutchinson's head.
And I don't seriously believe that you needed me to help you with that.
I'm not interested in the punctuation of Hutchinson's statement and certainly not have interest in 'what's in her head'. Instead we should examine Hutchinson's hearing of the word hang from Trump and not be so generous in her interpretation of what it meant. If Trump said it at all there are multiple interpretations of what he meant by it- an interjection of surprise and confusion is just as likely as what Trump's enemies want us to believe. Ann does't like it when people interpret what she was supposedly thinking, so the point is let's not be so generous to Trump's enemies when they do it...
the most devastating part of that silly speech he gave on Jan 6th - was his delusion that Mike Pence had the power to over-turn a fraudulent election
Really? The thing that didn’t happen is “most devastating?” To whom? All Trump was saying, in accordance with John Eastman’s theory, is that the VP can return the EC counts to the states to be counted and certified. How you make the leftist leap to “overturn the election” bullshit is beyond me. Congress pretty much agreed with Eastman’s reading because they changed the wording after the fact removing VP’s “discretion” and making that function purely ceremonial. Why “clarify” the law after J6 if the Eastman interpretation was so off-base? Why do you call Trump delusional for accepting the plain wording of the Constitution? The GOPe and Democrats certainly believed the wording needed clarification to reach the definition that they wanted.
Sounds like you are deluded. With Trump hatred coloring your reading comprehension.
"In that light, saying Pence "deserves" it, would seem more important."
Is that a legal opinion, or a personal one? Saying someone deserves to hang, to someone who is not in a position to hang him, was not criminal the last time I checked. Not in my country, anyway.
What is Hutchison doing hanging around ease dropping on private conversations being had by the President in another room? And since when does the White House have an Oval Dining Room? There is a Dining Room on the first floor, a State Dining Room, and a Blue Oval Room. As the first floor is rather formal, I don't think there is a TV there. In the Executive Residence, there is another Dining Room and the Yellow Oval Room. If in the Executive Residence, then what was this admin doing hanging around the President's Residence?
That's if you accept her story at any level. Who wants to hire this person professionally? If you believe her, then she admits to ease dropping on conversations, passing along third-party information that reflects negatively on her employer, and doesn't seem to know the differences between things like a Limo and a SUV or a Dining Room and a Sitting Room.
We'll all always remember where we were when Cassidy Blasey Heard showed up.
Amazing how many eavesdroppers there are in the Trump circle.
"Last year, Hutchinson testified before the House Jan. 6 committee that she overheard then-White House counsel Pat Cipollone and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows recounting"
So hearsay then. Got it.
We're told that when Iranians chant, "Death to America", they only mean "Down with America" (I'm a bit peeved with your country) but when pro-Trump protesters chant "Hang Mike Pence" they mean it literally and also want to destroy America. They could be chanting "USA! USA!" and it would still be seen as a threat. It's not what they're saying, it's who is saying it.
This just in. A source has told CNN she heard Trump singing the following in the shower on J6:
They will hang Mike pence to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Mike pence to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Mike Pence to a sour apple tree!
As they march along!
Glory, halle—hallelujah! Glory, halle—hallelujah!
Glory, halle—hallelujah! Trump's army is marching on!
This had been "confirmed" by ABC and NBC news. And Liz Cheney.
This Cassidy person sure gets around. Here she is, in her fact-free book, accusing Rudi G of groping her on the same day she claimed Trump was shouting "hang":
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-book-rudy-giuliani/index.html
p.s. Leland is spot-on: who would want to hire this fabulist?
Little liar Cassidy got caught in just ANOTHER lie. She tried to claim she didn't date Matt Gaetz...but he has receipts...in pictures. She is a liar. I wonder how much Soros is paying her and what he has on HER.
https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/09/27/cassidy-hutchinson-matt-gaetz-maddow-dating-n2387852
for me - the most devastating part of that silly speech he gave on Jan 6th - was his delusion that Mike Pence had the power to over-turn a fraudulent election.
The VP does have the power to reject electors from states he deems did not run a clean election.
That action would turn the election over to the combined House and Senate, with each State getting one vote. Determined by a vote of Senators and Representatives of that State
(Pelosi knew this, which required a reason to suspend the counting of EC votes. This was all gamed out.Pelosi wanted and planned (who opened doors and removed barricades? Who put provocateurs in the crowd?)
UNLESS, you can name what constitutional power can overturn the VP action.
And since when does the White House have an Oval Dining Room?
There is a small dinning room off the Oval. President use it to eat breakfast or grab a prepared snack. It's tacky to eat a peanut butter and Miracle Whip Sandwich from the Resolute Desk.
Iowan,
No practicing lawyer that I am aware of has opined that the VP had power to reject electors in 2021. Eastman himself has said that the better view is that the VP did not have such power. White House Counsel and Pence's counsel said that it was clear that no such power existed. So did John Yoo and Michael Luttig, both asked to opine on the issue by Pence.
Pence himself agreed. To have exercised power of that kind, the VP would have had to overrule the contrary decisions of state election officials and state courts, not contested by state legislatures, as well as the contrary determinations of Federal executive and judicial officers, and the determination of both Houses of Congress that the slates should be accepted. In effect, the argument would have to have been that the Presiding Officer of the Joint Session, himself a candidate for office, had the unreviewable power to overrule the decisions of every active branch of state and federal government and declare himself the winner. Make the case for that, as a matter of constitutional power, if you can.
Stephen thats a long answer.
Now try the actual question.
Who has the constitutional power to over rule the Vice President when he refuse to count electors from some a State?
Hutchison lied about Trump trying to take over the limo.
She lied about not seeing Matt Gaetz.
Lied about Mark Meadows being drunk.
Her reliability is nil.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন