Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or they might already have the driver's testimony from one of the private hearings. I doubt they would have asked Cassidy to tell this story on live TV if they didn't already have corroboration.
Thank you. I forgot for a minute that they already know the answers when they ask questions.
Not claiming that you're lying, but I don't see where this is coming from just by Google-check, would like to know who put it out there.
I actually heard something similar while watching ABC News. First, they reported the Secret Service will respond under oath only, then right at the end, Pierre Thomas said that he was just getting it in his earpiece, the Secret Service say they won't be responding, didn't say it didn't happen.
They might have some sort of protocol, or unwritten rules that you don't testify against the president. But somebody else in the car should be able to back her story up.
This is another, "had you watched the thing, you'd know."
Recordings of FBI, capital police and security agencies in the area as the crowd was gathering on the Ellipse, for one thing, communicating on their radios about what they were seeing, and guns were being taken off people trying to get into the Ellipse area through the check points there. I mean, trying to carry a rifle onto a field where the President is about to speak? Of course not, right? But Trump was mad because he wanted the crowd to appear totally full and it did not, people didn't want to go through the scanners and get their guns confiscated. He tried to tell security to remove the scanners and just let people through armed. Said, "They're not here to hurt me."
A lot of them are going to lose their shot at a plea deal once the first one flips and gets a suspended sentence for it. The second one will likely draw five years or so, and maybe the third, just to corroborate #1 and #2.
After that, anyone who wants a deal is going to have to come up with something nobody has heard before, or just need a 20 year vacation.
Good point. Indeed, I think those dominoes are already falling. Yet, there may still be time for, Mr. Meadows for example, to come forth.
We must remember this: Lots of the players in this attempted coup thereafter appealed to then-President Trump for a Presidential Pardon. Indeed, some of the Trump supporters that invaded the Capital Building have even said that they thought Mr. Trump would issue a blanket pardon.
Of course, he didn't. Those that invaded the Capitol were simply tools for Trump: tools that failed to do the job.
Whom did Trump pardon in the last days of his Administration? Steven Bannon. The rapper Lil Wayne. Charles Kushner (father of Jared). Elliot Broidy (a leading fundraiser for Trump in 2016). A commutation for another rapper, Kodak Black.
Indeed, then-President Trump literally issued a blizzard of pardons or commutations in his last few days. Want to see the list?
Look in vain for any of the January 6th rioters. Look in vain for people like Mr. Meadows or Rudy. Look in vain for those Republicans that stood up for Trump: Gaetz, Brooks, etc.
Trump simply didn't care about them. He ordered a coup, they failed.
So, yes, it may be a race to plea a deal in exchange for testimony against Trump. But that train is quickly leaving the station.
The only part of Cassidy's testimony I would discount is about the incident in The Beast between Mr. Trump and the Secret Service. She was repeating what she had been told her by a third party, hence, hearsay. However, I bet that, if he hasn't already, the agent in question, Mr. Engel, will be called upon to testify.
I have seen, not just here but elsewhere, complaints that 'only one side of the story' is being told.
True. However, the subjects of these series of hearings may, at any time, themselves testify. Indeed, just a week or two ago Mr. Trump proclaimed that he wanted to 'tell the truth' about that day. Yet, save for squibs on Truth Social about how he doesn't know anyone or such, or that everything everyone says is a lie, he has not stepped forth.
Others include Mr. Steve Bannon. Mr. Mark Meadows. Mr. Rudy Guiliani, Mr. Peter Navarro, Mr. Dan Scavino. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. All may testify at any time. Heck, even Ivanka and Jared appeared for video dispositions.
The thing about General Flynn is appalling. Whom in hell pleads the Fifth to the question, when asked "Do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?"
Mr. Flynn should be recalled to active service, and then court-martialed.
Finally, why did the committee suddenly call this hearing?
My opinion: the committee was tipped off that Federal indictments were coming soon. The committee is well aware (if not, shame on them), that Trump supporters will run riot if their adored leader is indicted and arrested.
One purpose of these hearings, in my opinion, is to prepare the public for the public spectacle of an arrest of a former President. So, in preparation of such an event, show that Mr. Trump not only encouraged the insurrection, but seemingly approved of the murder of the Vice President, ordered metal detectors removed (which order was ignored) so his followers could enter the area where Trump was speaking with guns, etc. Indeed, today's testimony, indeed all of the hearings, show that Mr. Trump was so frantic to remain in power (so he could not be indicted for some crimes committed while President), that he authorized an attempted coup.
There are times in one's life where they must make a choice. I was a firm supporter of President Nixon. I was a year too young to vote for him in 1972 (I was 17), but I was also but a year away from possibly being drafted and sent to Vietnam (we had lotteries back then; 365 birth dates. If your birth date was the first to be pulled out of the drum, you were screwed; if your birth date was number 365, you were safe. That last year of the lottery my number was around 150; so somewhat safe). Nixon ended the draft, and promised to end the war. He was my man.
However, by July 1974, I realized that Mr. Nixon was corrupt. I do not support corrupt people. I was damned glad that he resigned.
Otherwise, I would have simply been a coward to keep supporting him, in spite of the evidence. I had to make a choice, and I did.
I agree with everything you said and have the same questions. I agree the hearsay story about the Secret Service agents might be the only item in question. I need to watch that part of her testimony again.
I was also a few months too young to vote in the 1972 election. My draft lottery number was 212.
I spent the summer of 1974 living in Washington D.C. I had not followed Watergate that closely until that summer when I started reading all of Woodward and Bernstein's articles in the Washington Post. I supported Nixon until probably late July of 74. The night he resigned, I was in Georgetown and rode my bike over to the White House in time for a demonstration on Pennsylvania Ave.
I actually heard something similar while watching ABC News. First, they reported the Secret Service will respond under oath only, then right at the end, Pierre Thomas said that he was just getting it in his earpiece, the Secret Service say they won't be responding, didn't say it didn't happen.
They might have some sort of protocol, or unwritten rules that you don't testify against the president. But somebody else in the car should be able to back her story up.
Well, either of those things is different from what that poster was saying that they heard.
What had me going ??? was the claim that the Secret Service WOULD testify under oath - that it never happened.
Though actually now that I think of it, that wouldn't necessarily mean that C.H. was committing perjury today, if Engel came under oath and said it didn't go down like that. That's the reason that hearsay isn't often admissible. Could just mean that Ornato didn't have his story straight and Engel didn't feel like correcting him at the time.
Ya know, it would be very easy for me to huff and puff and scoff and blow off your radio guy as a source.
But.
I was listening to an entertainment talk radio show on 9-11 and they were the first to break the story as it was happening, I literally stood up in my office and started telling people and then was switching to different stations on my little radio trying to get a confirming statement from a more official source...and no one else was ever talking about it yet. No one. It was at least 10-15 minutes or more, before I could find another station carrying the news, which at the time was earth shattering, absolutely shocking.
So I don't write off these news jockey guys right away, but I'll say that I would like a more official source before I am fully on board believing that claim. BTW you're not a clown Sonic
Either way, we'll see one way or another. As I will be laser focused on every minute of every hearing and any information we are given about any trials that happen as well.
It looks like this story I mentioned is being reported by Peter Alexander (no fan of Trump) of NBC News. He says these 2 SS agents will state Trump never lunged for the wheel or attacked an SS agent. They will testify as so. You clowns got suckered again!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
