What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119267622#Comment_119267622

The GOP accounts definitely are pretending like it doesn't matter to them either

And then they are getting roasted for it - by Twitter

Overheal

Lev Parnas sentenced today for 20 months in prison for his role in the scheme to launder Russian money into the Trump campaign

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/29/lev-parnas-sentence-giuliani/

Snake Plisken

You guys are really dumb if you believe Hutchinson's testimony. She wasn't even there she just heard the story.Hearsay is not admissable in court

Secret service agents are willing to testify under oath it never happened.

Peter Alexander is NBC btw so not Fox

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1541910389289635841?s=19

1000's of Glocks AR15s and knuckle dusters brought in by Trump supports which are illegal in Washington DC yet no one was caught on the day with them with all the security around the capital on that day?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268347#Comment_119268347

Her testimony was not hearsay.

https://twitter.com/LegalEagle/status/1541866889256787968?s=20&t=Wx6Twn0Rvboq8S8-_L9p_w

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/

Secret service agents are willing to testify under oath it never happened.

According to an anonymous source who isn't in the Secret Service, hey.

The committee has not had anyone come forward to identify themselves as willing to contradict her testimony under penalty of perjury.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jamie-raskin-dismisses-anonymously-sourced-rumors-of-secret-service-agents-disputing-testimony-on-trumps-tantrum/

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.

So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.

We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Snake Plisken

More of her lies...

https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1542092373760548866?s=19

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119265947#Comment_119265947

Post number #3 and your crystal ball tells you this, nothing short of amazing! I peer into my crystal ball and I predict that even more re-regs with low post counts will spout out similar bullshit and then vanish when challanged.

nigeldaniel

I am wrong to think that the secret service are trained to protect the president at all costs. If so they may feel duty-bound to say nothing that might make the ex-president look bad or in any way wrong. They might even feel like fibbing and saying things to continue to protect the president. It's just my thinking that's all. I think the secret service guy is between a rock and a hard place.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268599#Comment_119268599

A rebuttal to your first bullshit is above, care to address that?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268599#Comment_119268599

LIZ CHENEY: You told us that the White House Counsel's Office was in the camp encouraging the president to tell the rioters to stop the attack and to leave the Capitol. Let's listen. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: White House counsel's office wanted there to be a strong statement out to condemn the rioters. I'm confident in that. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Now let's look at just one example of what some senior advisers to the president were urging. Ms. Hutchinson, could you look at the exhibit that we're showing on the screen now? Have you seen this note before?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That's a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on January 6th, likely around 3:00.

LIZ CHENEY: And it's written on a chief of staff note card, but that's your handwriting, Ms. Hutchinson?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That's my handwriting.

LIZ CHENEY: And why did you write this note?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: The chief of staff was in a meeting with Eric Hirschman and potentially Mr. Philbin, and they had rushed out of the office fairly quickly. Mark had handed me the note card with one of his pens, and sort of dictating a statement for the president to potentially put out.

LIZ CHENEY: And — no, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That's Ok. There are two phrases on there, one illegal and then one without proper authority. The illegal phrase was the one that Mr. Meadows had dictated to me. Mr. Herschmann had chimed in and said also put without legal authority. There should have been a slash between the two phrases. It was an — an or if the president had opted to put one of those statements out. Evidently he didn't. Later that afternoon, Mark came back from the Oval Dining Room and put the palm card on my desk with illegally crossed out, but said we didn't need to take further action on that statement.

LIZ CHENEY: So, to your knowledge, this statement was never issued.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It was — to my knowledge, it was never issued.

Why would she perjure herself over something so easily disproven?

Call me Al

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268347#Comment_119268347

A relief then for Trump that this is the aspect of her testimony they dispute.

Not any of the other points she flagged that they were witness to.

He must be so relieved we hear nothing from them about how he encouraged an armed mob to attempt to take over Congress and steal an election by force, but that they disagree that he tried to strangle his secret service agent. He really is one of the good guys.

BruteStock

Cassidys testimony is by her own admission hearsay and the guy she heard it from is willing to come on to deny it but isn't allowed. This farce has hit rock bottom and everyone can see it.. It's just a TV show now, no different than Stranger Things or Quantum Leap 🤡

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268814#Comment_119268814

Except that wasn't the only thing she mentioned... In fact it's the least serious.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268814#Comment_119268814

Cassidys testimony is by her own admission hearsay

Can you identify when she said such thing?

I have the entire transcript here, and 'hearsay' isn't mentioned once in yesterdays hearing. Please highlight where this alleged 'admission' is.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

everlast75

Lots of trump supporters here again, claiming everyone else is lying.

Not a peep out of them when 45 was a 24 hour, 7 day a week bullsh1t machine.

Anyone contesting what she said should swear up, or shut up.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119268917#Comment_119268917

It'll be easier for them to say if the agent ever takes the stand.

I somehow get the feeling he won't. We'll get as far as aspersions that her testimony wasn't up to snuff, but nobody will try to prosecute her for perjury and the agency will come up with some reason the agent cannot testify.

During the transition that finally occurred post January 6 (Trump blocked any lame duck transition prior to this), the decision was made to rotate out secret service agents that protected Trump over reported concerns of 'loyalty' which as we all know, Trump was very big on, seeking loyalty pledges from everyone around him - I remember his Putin translator, and the notes he ate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/31/joe-biden-secret-service-team-trump-loyalty

For all I know at this point, given the confidence the committee has that they have evidence of obstruction of justice and witness tampering - that this witness claiming her testimony is false, has themselves been tampered with. The most charitable explanation to date is that as a secret service agent they are tasked with protecting the Office of the presidency, not just the president, and so they see this testimony as embarrassing. But, that wouldn't explain why they'd intentionally lie under oath - that does the opposite of what they claim to accomplish, it corrupts the presidency and the agency. So I'll boil it down to 2 outcomes: they'll huff, but never testify, because she's right and they've been tampered with, or they'll take the stand and refute her, and it will be down to other cross examination - none of the sources that have reported that the agents are contradicting her story about the steering wheel and the attempted assault, have at all tried to contradict the claim Trump tried to verbally order them to take him to the Capitol, instead of the WH, as discussed.

Overheal

Tina Peters, the MAGA election official in AZ who is under indictment for election law violations, is refusing to concede her loss for the Secretary of State. She came in 3rd. She's telling her supporters it was all a fix, obviously.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/indicted-pro-trump-election-official-refuses-to-concede-race-she-finished-third-in/

everlast75

Meadows, Rudy et Al saying they didn't ask for a pardon.

Reminded me of this...

Overheal

A skirmish is now on among the former Trump WH persons who have not yet testified.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/former-trump-officials-push-back-on-tony-ornatos-pushback-to-hutchinson-we-know-where-his-loyalties-lie/

https://twitter.com/OliviaTroye/status/1542236497239310337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1542236497239310337%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Fnews%2Fformer-trump-officials-push-back-on-tony-ornatos-pushback-to-hutchinson-we-know-where-his-loyalties-lie%2F

https://twitter.com/Alyssafarah/status/1542247899383402498?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1542247899383402498%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Fnews%2Fformer-trump-officials-push-back-on-tony-ornatos-pushback-to-hutchinson-we-know-where-his-loyalties-lie%2F

https://www.mediaite.com/news/ex-trump-official-defends-loyal-cassidy-hutchinson-over-limo-freakout-story-she-has-no-reason-to-lie/

everlast75

Pat, c'mon down!

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1542280540027604996?t=iospftnFMOAxet5S3_GSDg&s=09

He has grounds to fight it I understand (privilege) and could drag it out, but if he wants to attend (given what people know he said and if he doesn't, he'll be deemed a coward) it would be very interesting

everlast75

An incredible explanation of hearsay...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1541909079509020672.html

Naw, man, only some of it is hearsay. Need help understanding the difference? I'm here to help you. I'm hoping to help you.

/1

/2 So if a player comes up to you and says "hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead," that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out of court statement, it's something that person perceived.

/3 But if people came to you and said "hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams," that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements.

/4 Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said "I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'"

/5 That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump

Igotadose

Listening to the testimony by Hutchinson, they played a tape of cop chatter about gunmen around the area.

Wasn't it not all that long ago that there was at least 1 poster complaining that we were lying about firearms in the vicinity of the Capitol?

So, despite DC having a law against carrying firearms in the District, the insurrectionists flouted it?

Two things seem certain: 1) Cops are trained to recognize them so I trust their conclusions 2) The cops didn't see them all due to the mass of people

Quin_Dub

All of this back and forth about the veracity of Hutchinsons testimony could easily be cleared up if those that are complaining simply did what she did.

Sit down , take the oath and tell their side of the story under threat of perjury should they not be truthful.

As Fox News said last night when talking about Trumps responses - "She's testifying under Oath , Donald Trump is on Truth Social"

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6308653675112#sp=show-clips

At around the 1:30 mark in this clip , Baier describes the testimony as "Compelling" and what follows is a painful 10-15 seconds of utter silence as neither of the guests knows how to respond.

everlast75

Don't worry folks, when it all comes out and proven to be true, the followers here will still try to equivocate/excuse/distract.

The only reason everyone isn't beyond appalled is because we've put up with the drip drip effect of his corruption since he waved his way down those escalators.

By any normal metric, he's an absolute abomination, utterly disgusting, immoral, corrupt and despicable.

The only time he should be mentioned from now on is as a yardstick to compare others against in terms of their incompetence or corruption.

Leroy42

I do find it ironic that Trump supporters are so quick to cry 'hearsay' yet they are happy to accept pretty much anything Trump says as fact without even hearsay, its just something he says. 'I heard loads of people say' is a favorite line of his.

So the big lie, election fraud, is still a thing despite multiple law trials failing, the AG dismissing it, and not one shred of evidence, but a person stating things under oath is to be dismissed!

As usual, its the hypocrisy that is the most galling. I have no issue with being sceptical of any witness, but be consistent. Trump consistently refuses to testify under oath. Mark Meadows could have given a first hand account but refused to testify. This woman agrees, under oath, and these 'law and order' types jump all over it.

PropJoe10

I'm sure the question has been posed many times before, but you'd have to wonder what the line in the sand actually is for people supporting Donald Trump. What would it take for them to start questioning Trump? Or are they so devoted and so far down the rabbit hole that they're content to believe that everything is everyone else's fault, no matter what that is?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119272488#Comment_119272488

There is no line.

whatchagonnado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119272488#Comment_119272488

None. He could have choked the Secret Service agent to death and sh*t on his dying body while taking a selfie of his orange face to post on Truth Social, and they'd still vote for him.

BruteStock

If any of these claims could be held up in a court of law we'd be hearing them in... a court of law.. The fact the secert service agents are willing to deny the claims under oath and people still believe cassidy is Insanity. Its actually cult like behaviour to belive lie after lie after lie. Fact about this propaganda TV show, nobody can be forced to by law to testify. They show runners literally decide who they want and dont want to speak. The chart bellow is sure to burn many asses here 🔥

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1541834384822738946?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Cody montana

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119272671#Comment_119272671

You seem very invested.

Call me Al

Just because some voters say it doesn't matter to them, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

And for the sake of their democracy the disgraceful behaviour of this President, and what he brought them to, needs to be put on display for the country to see, no matter how uncomfortable this may make some people feel.