Hearsay, second hand? No, the really damning stuff is first hand

The most damning account was first hand, Hutchinson swore under oath that Trump said (all quotes are paraphrased) 'take the mags (metal detectors) down, let them all through' meaning he was more concerned about crowd size that the fact that many were armed, and he also wanted to go to the capital to be with his people, many of whom would be armed if they had taken the mags down (but the secret service wouldn't let him go to the capital, they took him to the west wing).

So, Trump says about the Proud Boys 'stand by, stand down', then he want's armed people to march on the capital, and he wants to be their with them to 'stop the steal' and fight like hell'.

And she revealed that Meadows and Giuliani met on Jan. 2, and afterwards the White House chief of staff told her “things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6.” We have Trump's tweets that 'it's going to be wild",

And then, after many attempts by his staff to get hm to make a big announcement to condemn the attackers, finally, hours later, at 4;17 pm he makes a video asking them to leave peacefully,. but he says 'we love you' and doesn't condemn them.

She said that Trump told White House staff his vice president “deserves” changes of “hang Mike Pence”, well, I think this has been corroborated or it will easily be corroborated.


sounds like legal jeopardy to me.

But, what the **** do I know? I'm no lawyer. Just sayin'.

 

Lol yalls wet dream about trump being charged with something over Jan 6 will never come to fruition. Not only is your commission not providing all the evidence but they’re even FABRICATING evidence with this new clown they put up there yesterday.

LoL y’all are hilarious. Oh and the “we are putting these hearings on hold so we can check out all of the new info” and not because “our ratings are bombing worse than Nagasaki” is even MORE hilarious

 

The secret service says it didn't happen. That was first hand as well.

 

Lol lets bump this thread when no charges come and you can explain why it was so danming then

 

Clark's home was raided, Eastman's Iphone confiscated, the only way the FBI could have done these two things is for a Judge to sign off on it, the AG to sign off on it, and they only way they were going to sign off on it is they has some very strong probable cause and some evidence.

No one has countered Hutchinson's testimony, to date.

 

Not true. The article you think says that says 'a source close to...." which is hearsay. We don't know it until the SS guy and Engle testify under oath that Hutchinson was wrong. Hutchinson is only repeating what Engle told her, so he'll have to deny he said that to her. Under oath? I don't think so.

 

We don't need any of that. The entire world outside North Korea saw and heard him...


1. tell those people an outright lie to incite them to go after Pence.

2. ignore phone calls pleading for help (even from his own staff and daughter-crush). <-- That's dereliction of duty.

3. not say one single word about the Capitol police officers since that day. (This would have paved the way for him to claim that he stands behind his law and order claim).

4. is dangling a carrot blanket pardons to the convicted rioters (bribing voters).

5. As recently as last month has repeated the same lie about Pence's authority and is trying to have him investigated.



Anyone other than the Orange Stain would have been facing charges by now. It's not that his supporters think he's innocent. It's that they know he's guilty but don't care.

 

Believe what you like.

 

Her testimony was second hand. She wasn't in the car. Perhaps you should be sure of "facts" before posting.

 

She wouldn't be the first person to lie to congress....... I mean, how many examples would you need....

 

FISA created two illegal investigations that I can recall, during the Russia hoax... Tell me it doesn't happen.

 

I'd say she's lying. Likely because someone paid her to do so. do you remember that BS Blasey Ford said??

 

That wasn't an opinion. Your response was not a refutation.

 

Let me explain it to you. The woman was not in the car. Instead she offered up something she heard from someone who also was not in the car. The secret service was in the car. They said it didn't happen. Believe what you like. Your post was garbage just like her testimony.

 

There is no evidence she is lying, or that she was paid. What does she gain by lying? She could easily be found out. She believed a story was told to her.

Anyway, the story of Trump losing his temper isn't that damaging.

The important aspect of the story was that he wanted to go to the capitol, let's see them deny that part of the story.

She believed the story that Ornato told her, and Engel was in the room when he told it. If the story was wrong, Engel would have said so in the room.

It makes no sense.

 

Engel was in the car, and was in the room when Ornato told her the story.
Neither have testified under oath that her story was false.

Okay, let me explain something to you:

Let's review what I, essentially, wrote:

The article you think says that says 'a source close to...." which is hearsay. We don't know it (is false) until the SS guy [Ornato] and Engle testify under oath that Hutchinson was wrong. Hutchinson is only repeating what Engle [actually it was Ornato] told her, and she did it under pain of perjury, so he'll have to deny he said that to her under pain of perjury, as well.

What I wrote is not an opinion. The only thing I got wrong was that it was Ornato that told her, not Engel, but that doesn't change the substance of the statement.

 

There is no evidence she is lying. Most people do not lie to congress, how many examples do you need?

 

She testified as to what she was told. Nothing unclear about that fact.

Obviously, it's not proof, but unless someone denies her allegation under oath, it's predication for more DOJ investigation.

If Engel or Ornato want to refute her testimony, they will have to do so under oath.

We have yet to hear from them DIRECTLY that they are willing to do that.

Then, and only then, will you have a counter argument.

 

Nice attempt at moving the goal posts.

Your witness' credibility is precariously perched over the crapper and she holds the credibility of the entire J6! Committee.

That's the beauty of Due Process, which this committee had no interest in. Not only does it protect rights of the accused, but it protects the finder of fact from complete and total humiliation. You all were warned!

​

 

Well it wasn't your opinion. It was somebody else's opinion. I'm all for you posting your opinions. I do it all the time. What you posted was nonsense because you believed nonsense.

 

have they? Can you share it? I haven't seen anything where the secret service actually says that.

 

this idea that the FBI is going to continue with the sloppiness of the FISA debacle isn't particularly logical. What is logical is that the FBI, after the debacle, would go out of their way to dot ever 'i' and cross every 'T'.

MOreover, it's not a FISA warrant that the judges signed.

 

That caused me snicker.

 

Of course there is. Literally everyone she referenced has said her testimony was false.... Liz likely already knows this, but thought she could try the ol Feinstein and Blasey Ford the president too....

 

LOL... no.. wait.. LOL.... And yes, folks whom she identified have literally all said she lied. Now, get Garland to indict her and move along.