Could there really be a Bombshell, about to Drop, from the Jan. 6 Committee?

You're so sadly misinformed, it is pathetic.

Just blame it on the Illuminati, mmm'kay?

 

That's all you got, garyd?

 

While I must start out by saying that I did not see the hearing (as I was working) and have only heard a smattering of details, thus far, they all seem to point at-- I have no problem with admitting, at least among my thread's earliest respondents-- your seeming to most accurately nail the call, about today's testimony.

I wish to add that, for anyone who saw the hearing and thinks my assessment is too heavily skewed toward a few specific bits, and would care to enlighten me, on the real "bombshells," that dropped today, I would appreciate the 411, and be all ears. But perhaps read a little of my take, before replying to correct it.

From listening to the talking heads, and all their guest legal experts, and sundry others, one would get the impression that they believed the "evidence" were being considered by a sober- minded jury, intent on objectively judging the law. While the commentators may well, themselves, be shocked at the new details to come out, their thinking that today hugely changed things, only points to their failure to relate to the perspectives of the "commoners," in the audience, the citizenry, on the whole.

That is, giving the Democratic base more reasons to find Trump repulsive, is the least productive, of possible results, unless we're talking about Democrats who had been unlikely to vote in the midterms, before now. It would be the bigger coup, in public relations, however, were they to present testimony which jogs the unaffiliated voter, from an accepting attitude, towards January 6th, due to feeling that it isn't as important as other concerns, more of the moment.

Instead, though, today's affair seems to have been as much about PR, as anything else; one strong reason for today's testimony, was the hope that it would encourage others to come forward. I'd also heard a news guest, who'd been blown away by today's hearing, say that he didn't think the public had yet even really heard, "anything," relative to what was still left to be discovered. I think he was correct, but not in the way he'd meant.

And the details about Trump having wanted, so badly, to go down to the Capitol building, with his people-- his not having done so, being one of the biggest faultings of Trump, coming from supporters-- finding that he'd tried to take the wheel from a Secret Service agent, grabbing him by the neck, in the process: how will this not raise Trump's stock, among those, on the Right?

My one caveat, is that perhaps those I'm hearing in the media, have just focused on a new goal, for the hearings: not that the hearing's effects, upon the voting public, will most profoundly change the political situation, but that they will lead the DOJ, to indict Trump. Under those circumstances, how many new, potential crimes one legal expert heard today, or the fact that "juries are told they can infer (motives) from evidence," could become as important as the coterie of commentators are making out, to be the ramifications of today's testimony.

I see you seem to be placing your hopes, now, not on any great public awakening to Trump's unsavory nature, but rather, in the DOJ's riding in, to save the day. We shall have to continue waiting, to see. Whether or not this effect is his specific aim, Garland is one, of whom it is difficult to be very sure, about many things.

That is very true, Popscott; your comment, for a change, is very on- point for the topic. Kudos.



Honorable mention, prediction:

 

Like always you don't have a clue what the point is in the first place..

 

This is false; Ms. Hutchinson already has been receiving threats. In fact, this has been cited as another reason for expediting her testimony, and for doing it in the secure setting of Congress-- before those threats might cause her to lose her nerve.

On what possible (factual) bases, would you found any of your stated conclusions? The tremendous pressure, put on other government people, who have defied the Committee?

Or on the belief that Trumpists never threaten others? Your final assertion, about having a job, in perpetuity, in "official Washington," is ridiculous, on its face. You would have done better to push the stereotype, that she will be a favorite guest of the Leftist (that is, mainstream) media, at least the cable tv sphere of it. I do not know that Ms. Hutchinson would even be interested in such a thing, but at least she would have the looks, to make this seem plausible. Instead, your reply feels like something you just gave to someone else, to mail in for you.

 

That is an incredibly poor-mannered way to reply to a compliment. As is your wont, your argumentative challenge is so clearly nothing but your own fabrication, and childish name-calling, that it would be an over- elevation of your charges, to call them "farfetched."

I, "don't know what the point is in the first place," in my own thread, in which I congratulated you, for being so on- point?

For the sake of parallels, I will ask what you could possibly mean by that, though not only am I sure that your reply, like this surprise hearing, will fail to meet what expectations one might have of it, from your comment, but also that it will probably be completely off- topic, if it is even intelligible.

But go ahead. "Wow," me

 

I know that it is your custom to ignore posts, when they prove you to be pedalling tripe, but I will still put this weak contention of yours, to the test. So, you are suggesting that the rioters' unfortuitous timing, is what stopped, not so much the certifying of the votes, as the objections to the votes, being lodged by some Republicans? And when the vote counting resumed, are you unaware that so did the Republican objectors?

Bottom line: there were not enough Republican no- votes, to stop certification, only to be a disgrace upon themselves. So you are trying to give the impression of implying some strong point when, in reality, there is no tangible point, behind your suggestions.

 

I hope you two are both right. Personally, though, relying on AG Garland, is not the securest of feelings.

 

Cassidy the Catsup lady? The Secret Service essentially says she's psycho. The unhinged crap she was slinging about Trump wrestling with Secret Service Driver for control of the Limo and then lunging for his neck? Seriously, you weren't dumb enough to swallow that load of nonsense, were you?

 

Self portrait?

 

I also know it is the custom of the left to ignore reality whenever it suits them

 

According to her and her allies easy to say easy to prove but they assume you will believe it without any proof whatever. And again for what it is worth both FBI agents on the scene say her story is false.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurr...s-who-objected-to-the-electoral-college-count

This info isn't really that hard to find.

 

Maybe you should actually pay attention instead of posting unpatriotic kneejerk reactions. Just a thought.

 

That's no way to talk about Jim Jordan.

 

I did. That’s why I posted. Because the bombshell was a big nothing burger

 

Biden cough,

 

Oh, God.....nothing short of Trump raping farm animals, bombing orphanages and sacrificing Mike Pence to Satan would cause concern to you. And even then it would be "he probably shouldn't do that stuff."

 

Looks like the "bombshell' blew up the last remaining shred of the J6 Committee's credibility.



I too am amazed

 

The same bombshells like peeing on strippers, drinking bleach, starting WWIII(Biden has been closer), calling the KKK fine people, being responsible for everyone who died of Covid.....ect. What's next??? Blaming him for telling people to be peacefully march to the capital?? And when he said it, people were already there being stupid. Time travel is amazing. WOW, that's some violent rhetoric!!!!

 

As I have related, I did not see the actual hearing, and have heard a limited amount of coverage, scrutinizing every detail. What I have heard, however, seemed to suffice in painting a picture of what sounds a colorful hearing, but not one in my which there were any real smoking guns, to my mind, despite all the significances being attributed to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, by "experts," or at least by those who are paid to relate their political insights to us.

As to your question, though, I had no reason to doubt the word of someone I took to be a very high- position aide, to the extremely important, and powerful, Chief of Staff, of our former President, Trump. I did not understand your "Catsup Lady," reference. Nor did I assume that anyone relating borderline crazy behavior by D.J. Trump, must therefore have a screw loose. If, however, your allegation is correct-- and I don't take the Secret Service's offering a "better- sounding," narrative, as proof that Hutchinson's account was off-- it would beg the question as to why Meadows would not realize his aide, whom it sounds was exposed to much sensitive information, was a nut job. Was he boning her? Or did the "psycho," vibe, just fit in with the general atmosphere, in the Trump White House/Administration?

 

I’ve been looking at this focusing on the midterm elections. Often wondering how many folks really care about Trump anymore. I know the Democrats do, they want him in jail. Now they’re going to vote Democratic in the midterms anyway. Most Republicans don’t, but they’re going to vote Republican whether Trump is charged or not. That leaves independents, do they care about the 1-6 hearings? That is as in changing their votes for the midterms or is all this irrelevant to them? That inflation, rising prices take top priority in deciding their vote, what happens to Trump, who cares. That’s been my thesis on this from the beginning.


How relevant was all the 1-6 hearings and Trump to the midterms, had it changed anyone’s mind as to whom they planned on voting for? According to 538 generic congressional ballot, on 8 June the GOP held a 45.0 to 42.8 lead over the Democratic congressional candidates. Today the GOP still leads 44.8 to 42.7. One can assume the 1-6 hearings meant nothing as to who folks plan on voting for this November, at least according to 538.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/


We also have RCP and their generic congressional ballot, on 8 June the Republicans lead 46.2 to 42.8, today the GOP lead is 44.8 to 42.3. A bit of a drop for the Republicans, 1.4 points, but the Democrats have also dropped, not by that much, but a drop of 0.5 of a point. Now how much of the GOP’s drop of 1.4 points was due to the 1-6 hearings or the SCOTUS abortion decision is up for debate.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html


Independents back on 8 June were planning on voting Republican 47.1 to 41.9 Republican and today they still plan on voting for Republican congressional candidates by a 46.5 to 42.1 margin. No change really when on considers the MOE of plus or minus 3 points. No movement at all due to the 1-6 hearings and all their findings. What happens to Trump, I don’t think independents give an owl’s hoot. If he goes to jail, fine, if not, that okay also. Only the Democrats have the ultimate desire to see Trump behind bars.

 

When you take the time to review her testimony, you will.

We have a long long long history, all the way into the colonial era of Due Process. The right to confront accusers, the need to corroborate evidence but first and foremost is you do not use testimony of rumor, gossip and innuendo, and certainly not when first person testimony is easily available. The J6 committee are the ones with the screws loose. Do you know how many of them are members of the bar and as all lawyers are, experts in Due Process? There is an old truism "behind every safety rule is a tragedy." Certainly also true is that "behind every due process standard is a travesty." This girl's 24 years old, yes she's an adult, yes the more seasoned and experienced who have seen more of life should also watch out for her. And even the most elementary work to confirm her claims would have quickly raised some flags, then they could have gone to her, quietly, helped her refresh her actual memory, and confirmed her credibility before they threw her before a national audience. The Secret Service has confirmed, no one reached out, no one asked, not even a phone call. We can't help these folks, they are insane in their Trump Hatred and completely out of their senses.

Well aren't you a piece of work. You go from uncorroborated testimony from a 24 year old girl, that falls apart nearly before she even finishes delivering it, to pulling out of your nether regions that she was having an affair with a man in a 42 year marriage? For some reason I had a much higher opinion of you than was clearly warranted.

Why don't you study up on some of the challenges of obtaining accurate testimony from a human witness before you humiliate yourself even further?

To the uninformed it may seem impossible for a 24 year old, in the midst of a highly charged day and extremely intensive news coverage to create a false "memory", but it is not. You've clearly never conducted a critical incident review, but many people have and this is common knowledge to those who deal with due process; a witnesses understanding of what occurred changes with time and retelling, it simply does.

I have repeatedly taken a witness statement, and they know that I have an audio visual (av) recording of the incident that I will review with them after they complete their written and verbal statement, and they still get key facts wrong, completely wrong, and both ways. I've seen folks who had zero fault claim they were a 100% at fault, and folks that were 100% at fault claim they were zero at fault, and everything in between. And generally, my sense is that they thought they were telling the truth in their statements before reviewing the av.

What happened here is not unusual, not unexpected, with proper procedures it would have been corrected quietly. This is a travesty. This committee is every bit the complete farce we have maintained that it is.

 

The same thing, your error-filled post, its ideas so poorly- considered, makes clear, can be said about your self- opinion. YOU referred to Hutchinson as a "psycho," I remind you. Now, please pay better attention to what I am saying, than you have, thus far. I am not FAULTING you, for using this term (and, even though you were relating the claims of the Secret Service, about her, I am sure the word psycho, was yours, not theirs). I was posing my question, based on, for argument's sake, an acceptance of your characterization. So, if a person like Meadows, kept around an aide, who was "psycho," how can you not, yourself, wonder why he never noticed, and got rid of her? You just accepted the idea that the President's C.O.S., could work closely with a psycho, w/out realizing it? That seems like it should reflect very poorly on Mr. Meadows.

However, a boss schtooking an underling-- and this one is probably more true, when it comes to politicians, and their young, admiring interns/aides, than it applies to just "bosses," in general-- is not a rare situation. Therefore, it seemed like a logical possibility.

Because this rationally deduced potential explanation, never occurred to you, is no reason for you to come to any negative judgement about me, FYI.

Because, for one thing, I find no cause, in your being so utterly mistaken, about my opinion, despite my stating it with crystal clarity (including directly to you) to feel that your exorbitantly presumptive ideas, humiliate me. IMO, it is you, who is given reason for embarrassment, by your wandering, non sequitur, yet braggadocious, by pedantic implication, reply.
But that's just me.

And you have undercut this presentation of yourself, as being more competent than most (from your own, self- touted experience) at gleaning truth from testimony, due to, if I may call it, your reputedly wide peripheral awareness, fused with a very deliberate, detail oriented, and intent focus-- when you get the very simple information, of Ms. Hutchinson's age, wrong. She is 26, not 24.

I have solely been concerned with the question of how this testimony will AFFECT OTHERS. It is meaningless, to my opinion of Trump, whether or not any of the details I have heard, from the testimony, are accurate. Trump was our President for four years, in which there was more than ample evidence, from which to judge the man. I cannot fathom the mind of the American whose opinion of aTrump, until yesterday, was yet unformed.

 

Yeah, you can claim "probably more true" with no evidence beyond your unanchored musings, I doubt we will have any meetings of the mind on probability that extends beyond coincidence.

So in your logic system "logically possible = probably true"?

Actually you are confirming my concerns.

Not being a fan of word salad, your talents are wasted on me.

This topic directly relates to this witness and her absurd claims. Vivid fanciful retellings of fabricated events goes directly to her credibility. My comments are precisely focused the issues of this topic.