Cassidy Hutchinson. A true American hero

Both the left and the right tend to stand behind their own, thus, your task is NOT to convince Republicans, rather it is to convince the middle to give your position an overwhelming preponderance of support. You failed to convince the middle. You did not even come close.

 

The article you think says that says doesn't actually say that, it says 'a source close to....', we have yet to hear that directly from the SS driver and Robert Engel. Engel was the guy who told her the story. He'll have to testify under oath that he did not tell that story to Hutchinson for his story to carry the same weight as Hutchinson's. It's one thing to tell lies in social media, it's another thing altogether to lie to congress, ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

For the life of me, I don't see why a woman, a young woman, full of idealism, ready to serve America, a Republican, with very good credentials, excited to be on the Trump team, wanting to tell the world of Trump's good deeds (a republican viewpoint, of course), why she would, all of the sudden, want to appear on national television risk lying under oath and betray Trump. That makes no sense.

Unless, of course, Team Trump betrayed her belief in them.

Now, we have her, a credible witness.

Then we have Trump, an established liar, vile, despicable human being, corrupt as hell, derelict in his duty and impeached twice.

I'll go with her.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone.

 

No she claimed some one else who wasn't present told her that. Everything Cassidy presented is unsupported hear say is valueless.

 

most amercians figured out since the "grabbem by the Pu$$y" tape that many will support trump no matter what

the failure is thinking the trumpers even have a moral compass

 

Then why did you use the term "we" and then reference "our failure"?

If not trying to convince anyone, then what was your failure?

 

The "we" in my post is people who have given up trying to convince people that Trump is human garbage.

 

...and doesnt your usage of the term "we" include YOU whom has given up trying to convince?

 

And I won't. Unsupported hearsay evidence is worthless

 

That's a joke right? Trump doesn't read much less even understand the Constitution. He doesn't give a flying **** about the Constitution or the law. He is as reckless as he is demented. Gawwwd it's unreal how Trump worshipers can invent such insane nonsense that's so obviously false to try to defend this scumbag's actions.

 

the steering wheel testimoney is NOT what is important ..I will give you that..that part was hearsay eveidence

it is all the other stuff she swore to witnessing herself that was NOT hearsay

most of her testimoney was first hand evidence...

 

Working through the implication of your words that Trump simply does not care about the law...So it is your belief that he did not think (or even care) that he had any chance in his argument winning legally, and despite his concept being subsequently declared illegal, he was just going to occupy the office and nobody would or could do anything about it?

That is silly. Your mind-reading skills are perhaps not as sharp as you apparently think.

 

That's simply not true of most witness's:
Rusty Bowers
Brad Raffensperger
Gabriel Sterling
Ryan Goodman
Jeffery Clark
Eric Herschmann
Richard Donoghue
Steven Engel

All very credible I'm sure they were not there for any "fame", they've already had more publicity than they ever wanted. And I'm sure we'll learn more about the veracity of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony.

 

This is the secret service. The had some issues with hard partying down in South America, but I doubt they are quick to repeat such errors of the past.
But, I don't agree with your 'most men in law enforcement' swipe. Some are, but I doubt most of them are.

she spoke with White House deputy chief of staff for operations Tony Ornato in a room with Robert Engel, they told her the story.

It makes no sense they would have told her that story unless it was true. She had absolutely no reason to lie in front of Congress on national television and risk her career and prosecution.

Now, the fact that they did and she told Congress they did makes them look like they were engaging in loose lips, kinda reflects bad on them, that might be the reason they are considering back pedaling the story, however, I don't think it's so much of a bad reflection on them given that she was
Meadow's aid, and would have had a need to know about the goings on of the President and his chief of staff.

But that story isn't the salient story. The salient story, which she witnessed first hand was that Trump, worried that the rally arena wasn't being filled up, worried about crowd size, told the SS to 'take the mags down', which is to take down the metal detectors because the The trump fans didn't want to go through the mags because they didn't want to lose there weapons since the SS would confiscate them, and when the SS told him about the weapons, glocks, AR 15s, other weapons, Trump replied that they weren't going to hurt him, so let them in.

And then Engel told her that he wanted to go to the capitol, and they wouldn't let him. That is the salient story, not that he lunged at Engel and the driver.

Not to mention that guns were illegal at the time.

So, we have Trump wanting to march with an illegally armed army without sufficient assets to protech him, down to the Capitol in order to breach the capitol in order to 'fight like hell' and 'stop the steal'.

That sounds like legal jeopardy, to me.

 

She didn't directly anything she testified to.

 

Agreed. We need to stop expecting conservatives to act rationally.

 

Both the left and the right tend to stand behind their own, thus, your task is NOT to convince Republicans, rather it is to convince the middle to give your position an overwhelming preponderance of support. You failed to convince the middle. You did not even come close.

Given this reality, perhaps it is the left that is not acting rationally?

 

Oh man, I would love to be the meat in a Cassidy, Boebert smut sandwich. Hubba Hubba!

 

obviously you did not watch or listen to her testimony'

she was in the room ..she witnessed trumps actions

 

Apparently you didn't understand her testimony about the valet.

 

Wrong?? "the committee does not control who testifies....the committee decides who it WANTS to testify". The power to select witnesses IS the power to control who gets to testify.
I won't accept that you lack the intelligence to understand that, so I will assume you choose to dodge it.

If you don't want a "scumbag" president- why are you supporting the most incompetent man ever to hold office?
One whose political record is long but tarnished over and over, whose family has been involved in multiple scams with 9 arrests, whose son has been selling the political link to his father for big bucks to foreign governments for decades? At least, when he's not stoned on cocaine of buried in a hooker pile?

If you gave a damn about the country, you would abhor those things and separate yourself from them immediately.

Bitching and hanging trash fixes nothing- but supporting mentally impaired people in office does a great deal of harm.

 

You're not only inventing crapola about Trump, you're also inventing crapola about me. How many times has Trump suggested or demanded to take certain actions he was told by his own people were clearly illegal? Yet still insisted his demands be carried out (i.e. that Pence fail to certify the election or that the DOJ declare the election corrupt)? And in some cases done things on his own without one thought as to whether it was legal or illegal (i.e. demanding to "find" a specific number of votes). This is all documented and verifiable. Do you live under a rock? Check the mirror son before talking about my "mind skills".

 

And it's amazing how the Trump hate brigade will except any lie however egegious and obvious about Trump without a second glance.

 

Rather than dodging my post to which you are replying, how about you respond to what I actually said. I asked you one simple question, and you made no attempt to address it, opting instead to go off on a non sequitur. As a reminder...

Working through the implication of your words and that Trump simply does not care about the law...So it is your belief that he did not think that he had any chance in his argument winning legally, and despite his concept being subsequently declared illegal, he was just going to occupy the office and nobody would or could do anything about it?

That is silly. Your mind-reading skills are perhaps not as sharp as you apparently think.

If you do not intend to address what I said, then please do not quote my post because you do not need it to express a different point altogether.

 

Never heard that. Link?