Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

She reported what she "heard", doesn't mean she is not being honest, at least she has the balls to come forward and talk unlike the trump sicofants who just catcall from the sidelines..............go on up there MGT and testify

 

Wow! I knew Trump would blow a gasket, but he went full blown looney tunes on his Truth Social tweets after that testimony. I was reading a few on the article link below. Tweet after tweet after tweet of unhinged BS. It's gonna be a full force Trump and associates mob slandering attack and witness pressuring now, as they scramble to avoid criminal prosecution.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...p-truth-social-tantrum-jan-6-hearing-1375762/

 

.

 

Eric Trump Saw Potential Violence From Election as 'Fair Game'

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-saw-potential-violence-election-fair-game-filmmaker-1719647

 

As mentioned Trump knows the riot wouldn't harm him and he bask in the glory as the leader. He may have wanted to play the conquering hero. It makes sense that he'd want to be there.

 

or . . . just a thought . . . he didn't think they would riot because . . . again, just thinking out loud here . . . he wasn't trying to incite them to riot.

I know, I know. Crazy.

 

If he didn't think they would riot, he wouldn't have refused to do anything when the riot started. In fact he said Mike deserves it and the rioters weren't doing anything wrong. That's what Trump said.

He was told before hand they WOULD riot and breach the capitol in numerous briefings. He wanted the violence if need be. His whole team was aware there would be violence. He was told they had already overwhelmed the police and still wanted to go there.

I get that your just thinking out loud, but it makes no sense that after being told beforehand there would be violence, after being told they had overwhelmed police and were rioting that he would somehow still want to go there thinking they wouldn't riot.

Have you been watching the hearings?

 

what hearings

 

Just the ones showing what happened in the planning of January 6th and how events transpired.

 

I'm with this guy

http://theglitteringeye.com/what-we-learned-yesterday/

 

Presidential protection or abduction? Secret Service wrong for all the right reasons on Jan. 6

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...was-wrong-for-all-the-right-reasons-on-jan-6/

excerpt:

Was Trump effectively under arrest or in a custodial hold? Probably not, but it certainly is intriguing. The president could have gotten out of the limo; there is no report that Ornato locked the doors or turned a presidential protective mission into a presidential kidnapping.

It is unclear, though, what the Secret Service would have done if the president got out and tried to join his supporters in marching to the Capitol. The agents absolutely were correct that by doing so he would have put himself in danger — but the Secret Service cannot control the presidency by limiting the movement of a president. Otherwise, it can look like a modern Roman Praetorian Guard accused of dictating outcomes or events.

This act of disobedience may have saved the country from an even greater crisis, one in which the president and vice president stood on opposing sides of a protest line or, worse yet, in the middle of a full-fledged riot. The fact that Trump knew some of his followers were armed, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, only makes that prospect more nightmarish.

As usual, the Secret Service did not ask permission (as opposed to later forgiveness) in taking action in a president’s best interests. As a result, we did have a type of captive president, if only briefly. And it is worth contemplating the implications of that. After all, Trump was correct, if crude: He was "the f-ing president."

In the end, the security team was correct on the merits but probably wrong on the law. This was not an unlawful order, and a president must be able to control his own travel. In other words, the agents were wrong for all the right reasons.
​

more at the link

 

Of course he did. Why else would he tell those terrorist type thugs he loved them after the fact. Trump is psycho! Don't know who you were responding to, but I'm guessing it's an Antifa blaming Hunter Biden card carrying conspiracy theorist up to his eyes in denial that Trump shouldn't be convicted.

 

The irony I'm enjoying is that some Trumpers had been disappointed that after Trump's speech he didn't go to the Capitol like he said he would and they felt let down and betrayed by him. And then this story comes out how he got railroaded by the Secret Service and that he valiantly fought to get them to take him to the Capitol, even grabbing the steering wheel with one hand while choking a b**** with the other. So maybe Trump didn't betray them after all, or at least tried his best not to. But no, the political calculus demands that the credibility of the witness be attacked, so the little vignette about Trump's valiant fight to be taken to the Capitol is undermined. No, to deny Hutchinson's account you must revert to the original narrative -- that Trump told his people they were going to march to the Capitol and he was going to be with them, and then retreated to the White House betraying his people to fight the Capitol Police alone.

What are you talking about? This is great material for the Trump biopic!

 

Fixed it for you.....


T_Man

 

Yes, he sounds like he isn't really interested. It has little to do with whether someone never liked Trump or used to love him. But that guy didn't get it. This information is all coming from people who were loyal to Trump and Republicans. Hutchinson worked for Scalise, Ted Cruz, and Trump. It isn't a case of partisan business as usual as this guy seems to think.

But, yesterday told us of foreknowledge of violent intent. It showed Trump was aware and knew the people were armed and still encouraged them to march on the capitol.

It showed he wanted to be there with them. It confirmed that Trump knew all of that was criminal and he still wanted all of that to happen.

It showed that if not for a very few people that were Republicans Trump would have overturned democracy in our nation.

Of course the previous hearing sessions showed Trump and his team knew for a fact that the election was not stolen and they continued to claim that it was.

This hearing doesn't have commiitte members trying to grandstand, ask gotcha questions for building their social media presence, or making campaign speeches. It has been focused from testimony from loyal Republicans and people who worked for and with Trump. It isn't a situation of never-Trumpers and Democrats going on again about how bad Trump is.

But I guess if someone goes in expecting that and doesn't really pay attention they might see that and believe that's all it was.

 

So, Trump's latest lie is that Ms. Hutchinson is testifying against him negatively with lies in revenge for him not taking her to be on his staff to Mar-a-Lago post-presidency? LOL. Uh huh. I'm sure she would want to perjure herself in front of the world for something like that. Believability Meter (0 - Unbelievable, 10 - Believable): 0. It sounds like she really wanted to be in Mar-a-Lago with you after Jan. 6th. Uh huh. I can't believe there are people believing this dumbass. Also, do you ever notice that anyone who comes at him...a lot of the time he dismisses them as I don't even know this person. His first instinct is to disavow any kind of relationship with this person so as to discredit them. It's textbook liebook. There's a new word for you. Trump and his liebook. He probably has them all written down, in what order to sound them off on social media, and in what situations for which lies.

 

just a small technical point. The mere fact that people are armed is not necessarily evidence of an intent to engage in violence. (I'm not saying anything else about Trump, insurrection, riots, or attempts to overthrow the government.)

It is possible to be armed -- legally, with a concealed carry permit -- and have no other motivation for carrying those arms besides self-defense.

Again. more of a technical point. One worth keeping in mind though I think.

 

Well, that is probably true. Thanks!

 

I appreciate that point, even though it isn't applicable to situation on 1/6. And I get that you aren't trying to apply it to that specific incident but are speaking about the broader situation.