![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
OBVIOUSLY adequate security would have solved everything but that is too easy of a solution so they have to go through all this nonsense instead.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Perfect summary....I would only add to point #2 that D.J.T. haunts their dreams and simply cannot be allowed to run for the Presidency again.Mel Bradford wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 pmThe shit show is a cover for the egregious prosecutions by Garland and Co. A long drawn out process to pin 'felon' on all the attendees and send the clear message:
1) only government sanctioned riots are allowed.
2) Donald Trump is to blame for everything.
I definitely would like to see "the other side" represented. But my wish (call me naive) is that everyone would engage in facts. I think the committee is doing a fairly good job of this, but I'd like to see what an opposing evidence-base view would look like. Not "they are out to get Trump". Not "we have all heard this shit show before. Not ad hominem attacks. But evidence and logic.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't know if it's the truth. I doesn't affect my overall assessment of the evidence that has been presented at the hearings. It's a minor detail, although (I think I said this) it's lurid and sensational and obviously that drives eyeballs for the media.Walla Walla Dawg II wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:01 pmAll the SS is denying the claim.
Another question regarding "grabbing the wheel"....how long are President Trump's arms. That is a stretch limo, and he is in the back. It's also safe to assume there is a wall (partition) between the cab and the passengers.
How fucking stupid do the Democrats think we are?
And.....
Come on Gil. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and you still disappoint me with your attitude that this is "actually" the truth.
I'm only seeing this (her calling the hearings BS) on sites that I consider pretty much right wing leaning. But doesn't it make sense? She is a Republican and served in the Trump administration. That position (the hearings are BS) is pretty much what everyone here (other than me) is saying, isn't it? I don't see why her saying that in a private text would be at all surprising.ddraig wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:17 pmHutchinson stated in an email on February 1 that the J6 hearings were "BS." Then too, I saw the video of the Beast before it was pulling away. You can see hands on the back of the front seat, but you can't see who those hands were connected to or whose hands they were.
So why did Hutchinson decide to testify on something that was so much hearsay? She wasn't in the car and at best couldn't see in the vehicle. And she's not worried about perjury because if they brought her up on charges, she'd have to tell everyone who fed her this story. Adam Schiff? Liz Cheney?
So.... why didn't they subpoena the people she claimed to have heard these things from - and corroborate her 'testimony"? This is basic cross examination stuff here. She makes a claim - then they don't follow that up by asking the people directly? In what world would that ever happen? If this was a court - 100000000000% those people would be compelled to testify. The ONLY reason you would NOT call them is if you KNEW they would not corroborate it. Why would they NOT corroborate it? Because it's not true. In any real court, her testimony would be considered hearsay - period. "Oh, I heard this..." is not admissable, but you can get away with it in a congressional hearing - a perfect platform if you are trying to smear someone. Remember - NO ONE has ever been called to testify in support of Trump. Again, this would never happen in a real court.gil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:29 pmI'm only seeing this (her calling the hearings BS) on sites that I consider pretty much right wing leaning. But doesn't it make sense? She is a Republican and served in the Trump administration. That position (the hearings are BS) is pretty much what everyone here (other than me) is saying, isn't it? I don't see why her saying that in a private text would be at all surprising.ddraig wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:17 pmHutchinson stated in an email on February 1 that the J6 hearings were "BS." Then too, I saw the video of the Beast before it was pulling away. You can see hands on the back of the front seat, but you can't see who those hands were connected to or whose hands they were.
So why did Hutchinson decide to testify on something that was so much hearsay? She wasn't in the car and at best couldn't see in the vehicle. And she's not worried about perjury because if they brought her up on charges, she'd have to tell everyone who fed her this story. Adam Schiff? Liz Cheney?
It also makes sense that she only testified because she was subpoenaed. The texts I read on the daily caller website said she felt that she had to testify after she was served the subpoena. I mean, if I were a political operative and in her position, I'd feel that I had to tell the truth. But I would not stretch the truth or make things up in any way to be unfavorable to the party I worked for.
From what I heard of her testimony, Hutchinson was very clear what she saw firsthand and what she heard. She never testified that she was in or near the Presidential vehicle. She did testify about what people told her happened in the vehicle. She testified about conversations with Mark Meadows (Trump's Chief of Staff) as well as things she heard Trump say. These are not hearsay. I heard only part of the testimony, but I think the hearing was 2 hours and the vehicle thing (which I did hear live) was ... what, 1 minute of testimony?