Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, R011 said:

As it happened, the only people who seemed to have with firearms in the Capitol building and the only ones who used them were the security forces inside.

Several have been charged with carrying firearms while in the Capitol that day.  None used them, however.

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
3 hours ago, R011 said:

Apparently, this was one of the presidential SUVs instead of the limo, but I doubt access to the driver is much easier.

a06bb48bf98ef032.png

Posted
4 minutes ago, sunday said:

a06bb48bf98ef032.png

We know he was in the SUV during this supposed incident... so posts like this are just purposefully obtuse (or maybe naturally idiotic).

The real shame with this story is that this young woman had plenty of damning testimony to events she was eye witness to.  Instead the entire discussion is on one of her hearsay accounts... and there's zero reason to believe it's accurate just from the nature of it being hearsay.  (Who hasn't played the telephone game at some point in their life?)  The skeptic in me is that this is purposefully being driven by folks on the right to deflect and defend Trump... but the reality is plenty of folks on the left are focusing in on this as well over the rest of her testimony.

Trump reminds me of a lesson I once learned about good History writing - you have to wait several decades to get the real story so passions don't cloud over the truth.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

We know he was in the SUV during this supposed incident... so posts like this are just purposefully obtuse (or maybe naturally idiotic).

We do? Was it specifically entered as evidence? They repeatedly cited "the beast" in testimony. So asserting "We know he was in the SUV" seems silly. 

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The real shame with this story is that this young woman had plenty of damning testimony to events she was eye witness to.

What were the things she was eye witness to again? The ketchup on the wall? We already know former President Trump likes his steaks over cooked and with ketchup. So if it was on the wall at least it wasn't on his steak. 

What else was there? Summarize please those things she directly witnessed. 
 

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

  Instead the entire discussion is on one of her hearsay accounts... and there's zero reason to believe it's accurate just from the nature of it being hearsay.

Then why present it without corroboration? This is congress, not Ferris Bueller's home room. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

We know he was in the SUV during this supposed incident... so posts like this are just purposefully obtuse (or maybe naturally idiotic).

Right, so why was girlfriend referring to another vehicle?  And incidentally, she supposedly heard this third hand story from SS agents, no SS agent refers to the Presidential Limousine, or any other vehicle as "The beast."  Source, former SS agent twice assigned to the presidential protection detail which includes all of the motor vehicles, Dan Bongino.

I'm not sure to what other damning testimony you are referring, Trump throwing ketchup at a wall?  Wanting the magnetometers to be pulled to allow more people to enter the rally with greater ease?  All presidential handlers want to push the security envelope as much as possible to allow more access.  Maybe not Biden's handlers though.  Example, again, Dan Bongino related that on an overseas middle east presidential trip (Bush W) the presidential staff wanted to grant greater access so the magnetometers were pulled.  Subsequently a hand grenade wrapped in a towel was thrown onto the dias and apparently the towel prevented the grenade from fusing.  
Or maybe the damning evidence was the hand written note apparently not written by Hutchinson, though she claims at as her own? That Trump wanted to lead a march to the capitol?  Something we've known since he publicly made that statement during his January 6th rally.

Posted
3 hours ago, rmgill said:

We do? Was it specifically entered as evidence? They repeatedly cited "the beast" in testimony. So asserting "We know he was in the SUV" seems silly. 

If you had watched any TV you would have seen it was the SUV.

Posted
2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

If you had watched any TV you would have seen it was the SUV.

If you had listened to the actual testimony, you'd have heard that she referred to the BEAST specifically. 

I saw some footage of an SUV. Was there clear delineation that it was THAT SUV and what the configuration was? Some details on the specifics. 

But, again, "the beast" was cited by Ms Hutcheson specifically. So, which is it? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

But, again, "the beast" was cited by Ms Hutcheson specifically. So, which is it? 

How accurately can one relate the details of a dream?

In other news, apparently CNN contributor, Alyssa Farah Griffin, is who put Hutchinson in touch with Cheney.  Back to the dream, apparently Hutchinson suggested to Griffin that she had some "new" information she hadn't previously told the Kangaroo Committee during previous interviews.

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, rmgill said:

If you had listened to the actual testimony, you'd have heard that she referred to the BEAST specifically. 

I saw some footage of an SUV. Was there clear delineation that it was THAT SUV and what the configuration was? Some details on the specifics. 

But, again, "the beast" was cited by Ms Hutcheson specifically. So, which is it? 

Making an Olympus Mons out of a ant hill. How about some actual rebuttals to what she said that you don't agree with.

BTW, the 2 SS agents, and especially Ornato, are Trump 'yes men'.

Secret Service Ties to Trump Ring Alarm Bells Amid Jan 6. Revelations (msn.com)

Edited by MiloMorai
Posted
58 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Making an Olympus Mons out of a ant hill.

I think you've got that inverted. You think this is a bombshell, it's a pack of $5 fireworks from a state that doesn't let you have anything more fancy than sparklers and poppers. 

58 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

BTW, the 2 SS agents, and especially Ornato, are Trump 'yes men'.

And you'd hate Trump if he brought Peace to the Middle East. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I think you've got that inverted. You think this is a bombshell, it's a pack of $5 fireworks from a state that doesn't let you have anything more fancy than sparklers and poppers. 

And you'd hate Trump if he brought Peace to the Middle East. 

There is peace in the ME?

Posted
1 hour ago, rmgill said:

And you'd hate Trump if he brought Peace to the Middle East. 

Well, yes.  The left lost there ever loving minds when Trump initiatives had heretofore blood enemies making nice with Israel.  Can't have that, got to have perpetual warfare and revolution.

Posted
5 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Well, yes.  The left lost there ever loving minds when Trump initiatives had heretofore blood enemies making nice with Israel.  Can't have that, got to have perpetual warfare and revolution.

Hitler did a lot of good for Germany. Mussolini got the trains running on time in Italy.

Posted
6 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Well, yes.  The left lost there ever loving minds when Trump initiatives had heretofore blood enemies making nice with Israel.  Can't have that, got to have perpetual warfare and revolution.

One could argue it was Obama's doing. Had he not rescued Iran and scared the bejezus out of Israel's Arab neighbors, none of that would have happened.

Posted
18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

  Instead the entire discussion is on one of her hearsay accounts... 

Why would the committee allow hearsay evidence to be entered into the record if they didn't want to be taken for a joke?

Posted
5 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Hitler did a lot of good for Germany. Mussolini got the trains running on time in Italy.

Case in point. 

Posted
1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Why would the committee allow hearsay evidence to be entered into the record if they didn't want to be taken for a joke?

Could it be they can back up that hearsay.

Posted
1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

Could it be they can back up that hearsay.

The Right has had a field day with the hearsay fiasco.  If the Democrats had eyewitness evidence they should have stuck to that instead.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Why would the committee allow hearsay evidence to be entered into the record if they didn't want to be taken for a joke?

Because the commite is a one sided attempt to slam Trump. 

If it was an attempt to investigate the events of January 6th the Republicans would be represented also. I'm not big on the term "rino" but if you were hand selected by Speaker Pelosi the term fits.

If it was a fair hearing on the events of January 6th the failings of Speaker Pelosi and Mayor Bowser would be looked at.

As far as Former President Trump goes. I am hearing he did a lot of jerky things to put it mildly. Is this news? No . Did his actions rise to criminal?  I doubt it, if they had I think charges would have been brought long ago.

Who ever is pushing this has horrible timing.  The whole point of the hearings is tp bust Trump's balls  This time of year most people are not paying attention to the news.

Edited by 17thfabn
Posted
8 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Could it be they can back up that hearsay.

If they could back up hearsay they would have evidence and they would having a trial not a train wreck show committee.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

If they could back up hearsay they would have evidence and they would having a trial not a train wreck show committee.

The trial would be initiated by the DOJ. No one knows what the DOJ has.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...