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.
The J6 committee has manipulated evidence. That is smearing.
The agents per NBC News are willing to testify under oath, so that is not a question.
A smear campaign would not get the agents' testimony before airing Hutchinson nationwide, because they'd know that it is important to get 1 version out first to smear. No matter what agents say at a later date, millions will now only remember Hutchinson.
This is a hit job.
How did they manipulate what the witnesses testified to under oath? What evidence did they manipulate?
I didn't say witnesses. But yes, it is manipulative to have Hutchinson go knowing what she will say without having the agents themselves the same day go.
Megan Kelly showed how a video the J6 committee played used evidence that was BS, comments made well before the J6 riot juxtaposed with the riots to make it seem like those comments from a different year were pushing the riots.
You only do stuff like that if you want a hit job.
I've been listening to eye witness accounts of what went on, up to and including yesterday's witness. I saw nothing manipulated, especially when they are testifying in real time. I've also seen videos of Barr and others who were asked questions and answered them. Nothing manipulated there.
Not sure what Megan Kelly showed.
So let the SS agents have their say as well. It doesn't have to be who goes first. If she said something incorrect, let them correct the record. We're smart enough to follow along.
The J6 committee has manipulated evidence. That is smearing.
The agents per NBC News are willing to testify under oath, so that is not a question.
A smear campaign would not get the agents' testimony before airing Hutchinson nationwide, because they'd know that it is important to get 1 version out first to smear. No matter what agents say at a later date, millions will now only remember Hutchinson.
This is a hit job.
The Democrats knew this testimony was coming and CHOSE not to get the testimony of those directly involved. Didn't even reach out to see if they agreed or disagreed, probablyknew through the grapvine the secret service agents wouldn't help the narrative. Hit job.
Nancy Pelosi's "Wrap Up Smear Tactic" in her own words. The J6 committee is doing the same thing.
The J6 committee has manipulated evidence. That is smearing.
The agents per NBC News are willing to testify under oath, so that is not a question.
A smear campaign would not get the agents' testimony before airing Hutchinson nationwide, because they'd know that it is important to get 1 version out first to smear. No matter what agents say at a later date, millions will now only remember Hutchinson.
This is a hit job.
Not really...it is a small piece of the testimony yesterday and one of the very few pieces where Cassidy Hutchinson admitted she did not have first hand knowledge. Both agents agree that Trump was irate and demanded to go to the capital....that's what is damning here...not who pushed or grabbed who where.
Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel both have their own credibility problems in that they are Trump lackeys...it would be more serious if these were serious non-partisan ss agents. Anything they say will have the shadow of Trump hanging over it.
The Democrats knew this testimony was coming and CHOSE not to get the testimony of those directly involved. Didn't even reach out to see if they agreed or disagreed, probablyknew through the grapvine the secret service agents wouldn't help the narrative. Hit job.
They'd have to be pretty stupid do air this testimony if the secret service agents would just refute her testimony. More likely is that they know the secret service agents will back this up, it was just a matter of who would be the first and likely take the brunt of the MAGA mob. My guess is you'll hear the secret service agents either back this up under oath, or plead the fifth, basically saying its true but they don't want to have to say it (probably for their own personal safety.) And they will all be witnesses for the ongoing grand jury probes, where it will matter more.
But thinking the committee would air this testimony without ensuring that they could present corroborating evidence from other witnesses would be naive. Even if you think Democrats might do that, Liz Cheney wouldn't.
Not really...it is a small piece of the testimony yesterday and one of the very few pieces where Cassidy Hutchinson admitted she did not have first hand knowledge. Both agents agree that Trump was irate and demanded to go to the capital....that's what is damning here...not who pushed or grabbed who where.
Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel both have their own credibility problems in that they are Trump lackeys...it would be more serious if these were serious non-partisan ss agents. Anything they say will have the shadow of Trump hanging over it.
Since when is being irate "damning" evidence and considered a crime?? Is the president not allowed to go to the capital if he wants to??
Since when is being irate "damning" evidence and considered a crime?? Is the president not allowed to go to the capital if he wants to??
It's not about being irate. It's about acting like a child. It all just bolsters the evidence he was a big baby, a coward, a bully, and a pathological liar. Might have been bi-polar as well. But the point of the testimony is to demonstrate intent to commit sedition, which the testimony does. He definitely intended to incite the mob further and help them try to take over the US government. Thank God there were professional people around him to stop him.
And yes, a president should be able to go to the capital if he wants to. But not to incite a mob to try to take down the US government. No one around him would let him commit these seditious acts, and the crazies that tried are going to jail now.
They'd have to be pretty stupid do air this testimony if the secret service agents would just refute her testimony. More likely is that they know the secret service agents will back this up, it was just a matter of who would be the first and likely take the brunt of the MAGA mob. My guess is you'll hear the secret service agents either back this up under oath, or plead the fifth, basically saying its true but they don't want to have to say it (probably for their own personal safety.) And they will all be witnesses for the ongoing grand jury probes, where it will matter more.
But thinking the committee would air this testimony without ensuring that they could present corroborating evidence from other witnesses would be naive. Even if you think Democrats might do that, Liz Cheney wouldn't.
They could care less about that because there is no cross examination allowed. Hearsay evidence testimony would never be allowed in a real jury trial anyway.
That could account for the lack of detail in his original testimony to the Committee. A "disagreement" by Trump is not quite as startling as a "lunge".
Just the fact that with minutes after she testified. Trump was denying what had happened. Probably means its true. He is so predictable. The best part of her testimony. She helped clean the ketchup off the wall when Trump threw a temper tantrum and threw his lunch against the wall. Then pulling the table cloth off the table and everything on the table went flying. He doesnt handle a crisis very well. Yep, a stable genius.
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.
