January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
lol some insurrectionist nut says that they are happy to testify. Huh, where did I hear this one before?
View attachment 5156365

lol what a difference a couple weeks makes in Trumplandia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/ginni-thomas-cassidy-hutchinson-trump/View attachment 5156362
Subpoena her and when she shows up, provoke her, provided they don't have her so tranquilized she can stay awake! A skilled lawyer could have her raving on the stand like a lunatic (because she is one) in 5 minuets and she would probably hang herself and Clarence with her own mouth. Though I'm sure Clarence will be suborning perjury by coaching her on what not to say! However, I think it would be a bit like coaching Donald, the same issue perhaps in trying to get her to take her meds....

They are only painting with broad strokes, the FBI and grand juries will fill in the details and we will continue to hear from the committee's mountain of evidence for a long time to come. If they think they will lose the house in November, they will publish all of it and put it on the public record. If the republicans win the house by a half dozen, there are a dozen of them that can be convicted as part of the J6 conspiracy.

If the DOJ does not act on these congress people with a mountain of evidence against them for political reasons. Then if the democrats win the house, they should use inherent powers and start trying them in the house on TV, then giving out 10 year sentences in the congressional dudgeon. All the while humiliating the DOJ for their inaction and calling in Garland for a little talk. This is the choice I would give a reluctant Garland who had a case against these people, but did not pursue it for political reasons. After the election, if the democrats win, the attitude of the DOJ could change dramatically. Right now he has to worry about Gym Jordon or other criminals, taking over the house judiciary committee, calling him to the hill once a week, in between impeaching Biden. Those republicans who don't vote to impeach Biden will get thousands of death threats a week, as the founders intended I imagine!
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
So what are the rules for people protected by the secret service? Can they assault them? If the secret service agent didn't open Don jr's limo door fast enough, can he slap him around to teach him a lesson? Are they mere punching bags for the rich and powerful? People who are above the law and it's concerns?

Both those secret service agents are described as Trump loyalists (yes he corrupted them too) and one guy got a political appointment by Trump. So they need to be brought in under oath, the secret service won't like it, but these guys went tribal, even though they knew he was a POS and criminal.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Looks like everybody involved needs to testify under oath, there were federal crimes involve here and testimony given under oath. So even Trump needs to testify before a grand jury at least, along with everybody else. One of those secret service agents took a government appointment given by Trump and both are reported as Trump loyalists, he corrupted them too it appears.

One side is sworn testimony under penalty of perjury and the other side is not, yet, but they publicly called the lady a liar and she was under oath. Or perhaps they failed to report the incident officially, as they were required to do? What did Trump offer or threaten, to induce them to lie on their reports and logs? I will believe it when I see it under oath by the two agents involved under cross examination. There are a lot of video cameras around these days and perhaps some one saw something through the windows? Other agent witnessed it standing outside the car as it was pulling away? We can we the car stop briefly in one video already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secret Service officials: Agents willing to dispute Trump SUV incident under oath
202,332 views Jun 29, 2022 Officials from the US Secret Service have announced that Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, the agents named in Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, are willing to testify before the Jan. 6 committee and dispute Hutchinson's account of an alleged incident involving then-President Trump. CNN's Josh Campbell has more.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Looks like everybody involved needs to testify under oath, there were federal crimes involve here and testimony given under oath. So even Trump needs to testify before a grand jury at least, along with everybody else. One of those secret service agents took a government appointment given by Trump and both are reported as Trump loyalists, he corrupted them too it appears.

One side is sworn testimony under penalty of perjury and the other side is not, yet, but they publicly called the lady a liar and she was under oath. Or perhaps they failed to report the incident officially, as they were required to do? What did Trump offer or threaten, to induce them to lie on their reports and logs? I will believe it when I see it under oath by the two agents involved under cross examination. There are a lot of video cameras around these days and perhaps some one saw something through the windows? Other agent witnessed it standing outside the car as it was pulling away? We can we the car stop briefly in one video already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secret Service officials: Agents willing to dispute Trump SUV incident under oath
202,332 views Jun 29, 2022 Officials from the US Secret Service have announced that Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel, the agents named in Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, are willing to testify before the Jan. 6 committee and dispute Hutchinson's account of an alleged incident involving then-President Trump. CNN's Josh Campbell has more.
There would be no independent record of what happened in the car. The president has to trust the men in the car, they may decide it best to pretend it did not happen in order to retain the trust. If the president wanted to change out men as he did not trust the ones he has protecting him he could get maga types in that position. And it would be nothing for them to deny the incident.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
There would be no independent record of what happened in the car. The president has to trust the men in the car, they may decide it best to pretend it did not happen in order to retain the trust. If the president wanted to change out men as he did not trust the ones he has protecting him he could get maga types in that position. And it would be nothing for them to deny the incident.
They are reputing sworn testimony and would be sending a 25 year old woman to prison for perjury. There could also be other witnesses, cars have windows. We will see when they get under oath, because if their stories conflict under oath, someone will go to jail.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Only if it can be determined beyond reasonable doubt who lied.

This principle has served that man in weaseling out of countless court cases, as Stormy Daniels can attest.
They will get to the bottom of it I'm sure, this is a serious conflict that calls all of her testimony into question. I believe her, considering Trump's mental condition and past behavior. He also has tampered with witnesses here and in the past, so this will get interesting with a serious investigation. It is also a key piece of evidence for seditious conspiracy, if he wanted to participate in a violent act against the government. He said he was going to go to the congress from the stage and sometimes he speaks the truth. It's one for the lawyers and I'll be posting some legal opinion on it.
 

MickFoster

Well-Known Member
They are reputing sworn testimony and would be sending a 25 year old woman to prison for perjury. There could also be other witnesses, cars have windows. We will see when they get under oath, because if their stories conflict under oath, someone will go to jail.
Nobody is going to jail on a "he said - she said" situation.
Even if they deny they said it to her............it doesn't mean she's lying.
The court doesn't give a shit about this.
I enjoy your enthusiasm, but you tend to go a little over the top.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Nobody is going to jail on a "he said - she said" situation.
Even if they deny they said it to her............it doesn't mean she's lying.
The court doesn't give a shit about this.
I enjoy your enthusiasm, but you tend to go a little over the top.
Unless they can come to a compromise, some one lied under oath, or will. One way or another, we will know if Trump said anything, grabbed the wheel or a secret service agent. It is all very important to the criminal investigation and not an isolated incident that can be memory holed. Let's see what the lawyers say, I'll post some videos
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Even Foxnews is turning on Trump. The secret service took the agents at their word for it and are sending them to testify under oath, let's see if they fight the orders, or require subpoenas. Both of these characters seem suspicious to me, were tight with Trump and Trump appointed one to a political position. Did they falsify reports and logs, or is it a giant misunderstanding? We will see under oath I guess. Any secret service agent who grew to admire Trump after getting to know him personally would be suspect in my books, WTF were they thinking? Everybody else grew to despise him and thought he was an actual moron, what made them different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe: Democracy Was On The Line And Mark Meadows Refused To Do Anything About It
209,010 views Jun 29, 2022 The Morning Joe panel discusses Tuesday's testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a senior aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson testified that Mark Meadows and former President Trump on January 6 knew the protesters had weapons.
 

Offmymeds

Well-Known Member
She can always testify herself, I'm sure she knows a few things, as do the secret service and if they testify the questions might be a bit broader and cover other incidents.

She is an IQ test for her voters, they obviously have a greater "cause" to be blinded to this stupid cunt. They wanted to "git" someone by electing her, the same reason they went for Trump, another stupid cunt. People in a district can't be that stupid, unless there was a chemical spill at the water supply awhile back. Something tells me the klan was big in her area years back, but the white sheets were dropped for red MAGA hats.

It's a part of cult psychology. TFG always wants to dangle something uncertain. There must always be some doubt about something. TFG - "Will I run? Will I endorse A or B? Who might I pick for VP now since the last guy's health doesn't look too good? Will I make Jr. the AG?"

Trolling, "sticking it to 'em", "owning the libs" is rewarding. Jr. is in charge of that area. Have you read "Triggered"? I make joke.

It is nearly impossible to get them out of it. I learned that the father of Trump's former strategic communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin, would not attend his daughter's wedding because she criticized Trump. That is sad.
 

Offmymeds

Well-Known Member
Even Foxnews is turning on Trump. The secret service took the agents at their word for it and are sending them to testify under oath, let's see if they fight the orders, or require subpoenas. Both of these characters seem suspicious to me, were tight with Trump and Trump appointed one to a political position. Did they falsify reports and logs, or is it a giant misunderstanding? We will see under oath I guess. Any secret service agent who grew to admire Trump after getting to know him personally would be suspect in my books, WTF were they thinking? Everybody else grew to despise him and thought he was an actual moron, what made them different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe: Democracy Was On The Line And Mark Meadows Refused To Do Anything About It
209,010 views Jun 29, 2022 The Morning Joe panel discusses Tuesday's testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a senior aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson testified that Mark Meadows and former President Trump on January 6 knew the protesters had weapons.

What's rotten in Denmark is the same problem with SCOTUS which is $$$ of course. Why did the Capitol Police issue a statement that would clear Ron Johnson when it's an obvious lie? Maybe $? Kavanaugh might have a clue or a few hundred thousand.

That is personal embarrassment to a malignant narcissist with a $250 M war chest in a desperate time.

That question should be asked directly. Have you acquired anything of significant value
recently or will you within the next year?
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
What's rotten in Denmark is the same problem with SCOTUS which is $$$ of course. Why did the Capitol Police issue a statement that would clear Ron Johnson when it's an obvious lie? Maybe $? Kavanaugh might have a clue or a few hundred thousand.

That is personal embarrassment to a malignant narcissist with a $250 M war chest in a desperate time.

That question should asked directly. Have you acquired anything of significant value
recently or will you within the next year?
The DOJ busts criminal conspiracies everyday and they have mafia investigators on it. Like Garland says, you go where the evidence leads and there is plenty of that and much more to come as the rats start squealing and dealing. If those two secret service agents falsified reports and logs, then others higher up at the secret service or homeland security will order them to appear. It's just like a cop testifying in court, they have no reason to refuse the order, I'm betting there will be trouble getting them under oath and it will require a subpoena. The confusion and doubt they sew will cause her to get even more death threats by calling her sworn testimony false or throwing it into doubt. So we will see what they say under oath and penalty of perjury, they told her about the crazy bastard, perhaps they told others too?
 
Top