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

The evidence is overwhelming that this was a planned criminal conspiracy. It was planned months in advance as Trump's approval began slipping over Covid. He started setting the stage way back then when he pardoned his criminal co-conspirators. They owed him, and he used them to help with his dirty work. That same mob mentality is now deflect and blast anyone speaking out as liars. He used his young social media right wing propaganda, hate and lie spreaders to help him by making them feel special.

 

You don’t read very well, or you see what you want. “Supposedly”. No, the story you quoted says they testified before. Says they want to deny the story. Does not say they did. In fact, it says their testimony doesn’t even talk about the incident at all. Exactly where in this story do they “supposedly deny everything the lady claimed?”

Ornato is a partisan serial liar. Trumpers always deny and lie to trumpers via “sources”. Ornato won’t even go on record IN AN ARTICLE to deny he told that story to Hutchinson (you can say her name, it’s ok). I’d bet a good amount of money that he won’t ever testify….because he doesn’t have to. Idiot trumpers have already assumed the truth of the unnamed source expressing denial on his behalf. Trumpers believe what they want to believe and don’t read or think.

as for the SS agent, it will be fascinating if he testifies. And if so, will he testify that Trump didn’t attack him? Will he say Ornato didn’t tell that story.

finally, wake us up when someone denies that Trump said take away the Magnometers even though he knew the insurrectionists had weapons, and then sent them down to the capitol. Oh wait, you can’t.

trumper.

 

Exactly. Open issues are what need to be focused on. Especially since 'we will attempt the coup again'.

 

you know what is a real disgrace?

A president trying to rig the vote, insight a riot and destroy our democracy AND a bunch of cartoon posting morons supporting him through it all.

 

WaPo OpEd piece

Opinion The Jan. 6 committee’s zeal to impugn Trump is in danger of backfiring

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/01/hutchinson-jan-6-testimony-may-backfire/

excerpt:

Never have we seen such a scripted production masquerading as a congressional hearing. Narration and questions are carefully read from a teleprompter. The witnesses even appear to have been coached to pause at specific points to await the next prepackaged query. While chair Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and vice chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) do the heavy lifting, other committee members sit in zombie-like silence, unless it’s a day designated for one of them to perform, too.
​

more at the link

 

I stand corrected.

 

Why aren't you talking about the evidence that shows Trump was told repeatedly that he fairly lost the election, yet he still wanted to seize voting machines?

Why aren't you talking about the evidence that shows Trump urged Department of Justice to just declare fraud even though he and the DOJ knew that was false so that he and Republican congressmen would take it from there?

Why aren't you talking about the evidence showing that groups that breached the capitol planned it in advance and stationed people there ahead of time?

Why aren't you talking about the evidence that shows that when the DOJ refused to declare the election was a fraud, Trump sought to replace the AG yet again?

Why aren't you talking the evidence that Trump and his team wanted to send alternate Trump delegates in order to disallow the lawful electors even though Trump and his team knew it was illegal and that they had lost?

Why aren't you talking about the evidence from multiple witnesses that shows when told Pence's life was in danger Trump said Mike deserves it?

Why aren't you talking about the evidence that shows even though Trump knew the mob was armed but wanted to make sure they could they could get to the capitol and told them "You're never going to take back your country with weakness"?

I know... Because you want to talk about the steering wheel.

 

Which doesn't counter any of the evidence at all despite what this person feels it appears to be. Pointless fluff editorial about pointless fluff.

 

I love the 'it's the teleprompter!' Never mind the substance of the content, this time under oath.

 

ignore at your peril

 

The Abernathy essay in the Washington Post picks up on the same point I made yesterday:

Most head-turning was Hutchinson’s hearsay account of Trump’s alleged rumble with his Secret Service detail inside an SUV on the day of the Capitol riot, wherein Trump supposedly first grabbed at the steering wheel, then made a “lunge” toward the throat of a second agent.

Numerous news outlets reported almost immediate denial of the story, although generally from anonymous sources. But as George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley tweeted: “It is the type of problem that arises when the focus of a hearing is persuasive rather than investigative. The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.”

Still, someone on the committee playing the role of skeptic could have perhaps challenged her on the details, as well as another episode wherein she said she personally heard Trump “say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t f-ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing mags away.” Her habit of couching her recollected conversations in terms of people saying “something to the effect of” leaves plenty of wiggle room for later revision.

Everything Hutchinson said on Tuesday may well be true. But it’s more likely that she got some things wrong. By rushing her in front of the cameras without more fact-checking — or wiser heads determining to prune her testimony to only events she witnessed firsthand — the committee opened the door for her entire appearance to be summarily dismissed by critics. Such sloppiness doesn’t harm Trump nearly as much as it impugns both the committee investigating him and journalists too eagerly relaying its overscripted and faulty narrative as news.
​

more at the link

​

 

With recent record setting audience for the January 6th hearings, the fact this reporter doesn't care for the aesthetic appearance is not going to make the hearings backfire.

What would make it backfire would be if there were legitimate counters to the evidence.

 

because after all, ratings are what matter

 

They matter as much, if not more than questions being read from a teleprompter which was in the piece you posted.

I made another post with bolded emphasis on what matters. But for some reason you and others post about the trivial matters or blame the committee for not having opposition on it, when that was the choice of the Republicans.

They can't refuse to seat members at the formation but then complain because they don't have members. That ship has sailed and they missed it. Evidence has been given and corroborated, but the only things hopeful detractors talk about are teleprompters and the steering wheel. So because I try and engage on the trivial things in the same neighborhood as the piece you posted...

I'm not really the one focused on the the unimportant parts of the hearing.

 

if I post about trivial matters you shouldn't read what I post

 

as luck would have it, Dave Schuler picks up on the same article in the Washington Post, draws attention to some of the passages I did.

http://theglitteringeye.com/a-scripted-production-masquerading-as-a-congressional-hearing/

His conclusions resemble the "trivial matters" FranchiseBlade thinks I'm addressing:

From the very outset of the House’s January 6 investigation committee, I pointed out that to have any sort of authority and legitimacy, Speaker Pelosi needed to accept and involve the representatives selected by the House minority, however antagonistic and obstructionist they might prove. Gary Abernathy’s column in the Washington Post illustrates how right I was:

Never have we seen such a scripted production masquerading as a congressional hearing. Narration and questions are carefully read from a teleprompter. The witnesses even appear to have been coached to pause at specific points to await the next prepackaged query. While chair Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and vice chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) do the heavy lifting, other committee members sit in zombie-like silence, unless it’s a day designated for one of them to perform, too.​

***
The committee investigation might have served many different purposes. It could have been a thorough-going investigation of the events of January 6 with an eye to preventing their recurrence. That might have included investigations of the condition and conduct of the Capitol Police Force, the reports of police ushering people into the Capitol or agents provocateurs among the demonstrators, as well as a dispassionate analysis of the demonstrations, the breaching of the Capitol, and the conduct of the president and other public officials leading up to and during the events. It could have been educational, as George Will has urged. I think what we’re seeing is what happens when those purposes are completely overwhelmed by battlespace preparation for the next general election.

Mr. Abernathy concludes:

The committee is anxious to prove that Trump knew the election wasn’t fraudulent and yet engaged in numerous unsavory tactics to engineer and encourage an attack on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to prevent Biden’s certification as president. It’s a misguided objective, and will likely never produce evidence that will be trial-worthy. It is clear that Trump acted irresponsibly on Jan. 6, but it remains highly unlikely that Trump was involved in actually planning the attack on the Capitol.
​

There are multiple ways of looking at our present politics. My way is that politicians inevitably conflate their own personal welfare with the common good, that there is a considerable separation between elected officials and their staffs from the party rank-and-file, that many people are not particularly interested in politics and not strongly partisan, and that party affiliation is malleable, changing with conditions (yours, local, and national) and location, performance, and personalities. Maybe my view is old and anachronistic.

Another way is that we have become completely tribal. Once a Republican, always a Republican. Your tribe is completely right and the other tribe is completely wrong and cannot be swayed by logic, reason, decency, or appeals to the common good.

I wonder what people holding that view will think should Republicans gain decisive majorities in both houses of the Congress in the next election? My conclusion will be that Democrats screwed up. I presume theirs will be that Republicans cheated.

​

more at the link

 

I read it to find out if there are any relevant points made and what those trying to detract from the hearings are saying. I'd like to understand from where they are coming.

My objection came at the implication that I was focused on the unimportant matters after all the other posts you and others have made about things that don't matter.

If it's okay for you and others to post those things, it shouldn't be an issue for me to comment on them with less than profound observations as well.

 

here, you'll probably like this one more

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Changed Our Minds about Indicting Donald Trump

https://www.lawfareblog.com/cassidy...hanged-our-minds-about-indicting-donald-trump

 

Trump is guilty, should be tried for Sedition and those in his orbit for conspiracy, including several congress people who gave tours knowing what was about to happen.

DD

 

Of course conservative Trump defender wrote a book defending Trump on collusion. He's also a regular Fox News contributer. He had previously said there wasn't significant evidence to prosecute Trump. He's changed his mind. So has Trump's former chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. Now this attorney believes Trump will be indicted.
https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/f...w-mccarthy-believes-trump-will-be-prosecuted/