January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

[The Dog 44138]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Right now DOJ IG (which has jurisdiction over crimes committed by DOJ officials) is showing more balls than Garland - given they are the ones leading the Jeffrey Clark raid for evidence. 
 

If we’re sitting here in the next few months and we don’t hear about FBI or DOJ investigation/indictments for the very top people involved in Jan 6 then we’re truly fucked as a nation

You're going to be disappointed. Nobody is being indicted from these hearings until they conclude. 

[Eskimohorn 5642]

I guess we'll have to wait until November to see if Paxton can overcome the net change in support (+23% - 25% = -2%) from the poll cited above for Garza to tip the balance when he won by +3.56% in the general in 2018. It should be close, and I'll be very happily and surprised if he loses, but I doubt that'll be the case.

The GOP has already made up those losses by leveraging covid, establishing a foothold with Tejanos in the valley, and scaring soccer moms (books, pedos, crt, crime). 2018 was a long time ago.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Bullneck said:

How stupid do you think the posts are?  Brace yourself . . . 

•  

 

 

Politics

That dumb woman's "testimony" is unraveling extremely fast

371 Views | 7 Replies | Last: 18 sec ago by fredfredunderscorefred

 

Bonfire1996

10:26p

 

AG

 

Even the leftist media is destroying her

 

 

 

I guess she'll have an OF account soon. She has nice up tops.

So we now have questions about the "grabbing the steering wheel" and now questions about the handwritten note. When they showed that note and said it was her handwriting, I distinctly remember thinking "that doesn't look like a woman's handwriting."

The thing is, if both those aren't true, they are dumb thing to have misrepresented. It makes no difference who wrote that note and Trump grabbing the wheel was just presented for shock value as it doesn't really tie into the overarching story of Jan. 6th. So for what is no real gain, the committee may be seeing the deterioration of their most explosive witness to date. 

Trumpworld needs only a crack in the story to convince people it's not real. You're giving them a road.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

16 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So we now have questions about the "grabbing the steering wheel" and now questions about the handwritten note. When they showed that note and said it was her handwriting, I distinctly remember thinking "that doesn't look like a woman's handwriting."

The thing is, if both those aren't true, they are dumb thing to have misrepresented. It makes no difference who wrote that note and Trump grabbing the wheel was just presented for shock value as it doesn't really tie into the overarching story of Jan. 6th. So for what is no real gain, the committee may be seeing the deterioration of their most explosive witness to date. 

Trumpworld needs only a crack in the story to convince people it's not real. You're giving them a road.

What utter bullshit. 1) no denials or counter statements from liars should be taken seriously- especially when not under oath. 2) who gives a shit about the trivial details?
 

Trump knew about the violence and supported the overthrow of government. But let’s get a handwriting expert in here bc girls usually draw a heart over their letter i 

[The Dog 44138]

20 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So we now have questions about the "grabbing the steering wheel" and now questions about the handwritten note. When they showed that note and said it was her handwriting, I distinctly remember thinking "that doesn't look like a woman's handwriting."

The thing is, if both those aren't true, they are dumb thing to have misrepresented. It makes no difference who wrote that note and Trump grabbing the wheel was just presented for shock value as it doesn't really tie into the overarching story of Jan. 6th. So for what is no real gain, the committee may be seeing the deterioration of their most explosive witness to date. 

Trumpworld needs only a crack in the story to convince people it's not real. You're giving them a road.

The steering wheel stuff and throwing of the plate were third hand info too. Completely unnecessary.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2848]

46 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

If we’re sitting here in the next few months and we don’t hear about FBI or DOJ investigation/indictments for the very top people involved in Jan 6 then we’re truly fucked as a nation

Eh, I think you are wrong about that.  We will be fucked as a nation when we do have the indictments and then President Desantis/Trump stops prosecution and pardons everyone involved. 

[aggie08 21531]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

What utter bullshit. 1) no denials or counter statements from liars should be taken seriously- especially when not under oath. 2) who gives a shit about the trivial details?
 

Trump knew about the violence and supported the overthrow of government. But let’s get a handwriting expert in here bc girls usually draw a heart over their letter i 

It's eyewitness testimony. Something being obviously untrue casts doubt on the validity of everything else that was said. That's how the world has always worked. That's especially how the world works the past 6 years.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

What utter bullshit. 1) no denials or counter statements from liars should be taken seriously- especially when not under oath. 2) who gives a shit about the trivial details?
 

Trump knew about the violence and supported the overthrow of government. But let’s get a handwriting expert in here bc girls usually draw a heart over their letter i 

It calls in the credibility of all her testimony. If it comes out for sure that these statements aren't true, then it's a huge blow to everything she said -- not just those details.

[Fudge Nuggets 19221]

2 hours ago, softlynow said:

Just because we all know that her running again would be terrible doesn’t mean she can keep her ambition in check.

How many times must everyone be wrong about what is possible in this hellscape before y’all accept that the worst-case scenario is always the most likely?

She didn't run in 2020, dumbass.

[Red Five 40894]

Didn’t she say Trump lunged at him? She didn’t say that he literally choked him. There isn’t much distance between those stories, and again she was just relaying what she was told.

The handwritten note thing is weird. It’s hard to believe the committee would make an unforced error like that.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Where is this Hillary 2024 crap coming from?  She's 5 years younger than Joe Biden.  If she were to win, she'd take office a whopping 1 year younger than Joe did.

The Dems should steer well clear of giving the Republicans any ammo against their 2024 candidate, whether it's age, past history, whatever.  If she still has ambitions, she can run for Senate again, or push for a cabinet post.  Or, she can fade into the sunset.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

23 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

What utter bullshit. 1) no denials or counter statements from liars should be taken seriously- especially when not under oath. 2) who gives a shit about the trivial details?
 

Trump knew about the violence and supported the overthrow of government. But let’s get a handwriting expert in here bc girls usually draw a heart over their letter i 

It's not utter bullshit.  I agree that these details are largely irrelevant.  But it's a hit on her credibility.

Then you ask, why was she mistaken (at best) about trivial details?  Is she misremembering or lying about the big stuff too?

Credibility matters.  Ask Amber Heard.

I saw a few articles before her testimony indicating that she felt "hung out to dry" by Meadows and others.  Hopefully, that was just a motive to come clean and not to embellish.  But she may be vulnerable to a solid cross-examination, and I haven't felt that way about other witnesses.

Edited June 29, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Dutchrudder 11150]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Where is this Hillary 2024 crap coming from?  She's 5 years younger than Joe Biden.  If she were to win, she'd take office a whopping 1 year younger than Joe did.

The Dems should steer well clear of giving the Republicans any ammo against their 2024 candidate, whether it's age, past history, whatever.  If she still has ambitions, she can run for Senate again, or push for a cabinet post.  Or, she can fade into the sunset.

Some dumbass conservative writer named John Ellis:

"Now is her moment," he wrote. "The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/hillary-clinton-2024/index.html

Obvious clickbait bullshit with ZERO supporting evidence that she's thinking of running again. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Dutchrudder

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

And what’s her motivation to lie? What’s her personal gain from this experience compared with those whose freedom depends on trashing her (but not brave enough to do it under oath)?

GTFO with this garbage 

[Beau Vine 54426]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She’s not running again. Don’t be stupid.

It’s too bad Jim Comey didn’t keep his big yap shut or she would’ve won the election in 2016 and that would’ve saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. And wouldn’t have resulted in record debt and record trade deficits. And wouldn’t have resulted in the normalization of hate speech. And it wouldn’t have set up the overthrow of American constitutional democracy which is likely coming in two years.

Yeah, but gas prices!

[aggie08 21531]

6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And what’s her motivation to lie? What’s her personal gain from this experience compared with those whose freedom depends on trashing her (but not brave enough to do it under oath)?

GTFO with this garbage 

You want things to be one way, but they're the other way.

 

Just managing expectations.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Right now DOJ IG (which has jurisdiction over crimes committed by DOJ officials) is showing more balls than Garland - given they are the ones leading the Jeffrey Clark raid for evidence. 
 

If we’re sitting here in the next few months and we don’t hear about FBI or DOJ investigation/indictments for the very top people involved in Jan 6 then we’re truly fucked as a nation

We know that various others (Navarro) have received grand jury subpoenas from the "broader" DOJ.  They do happen to be a bit busy with the 800 someodd lower-tier 1/6 defendants, many of which are giving evidence on the bigger fish.  It's not so much a matter of "can't get to it yet," as those prosecutions are an active/essential part of the ongoing investigation by the broader DOJ.

I think it was @The Dog that mentioned that while the actual Watergate burglars were indicted fairly quickly, Nixon's aides weren't indicted until March 1974, nearly two years after the break-in. https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/watergate

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

You want things to be one way, but they're the other way.

 

Just managing expectations.

You and I disagree on the value and impact of the testimony. That’s fine. 

[Dutchrudder 11150]

Gotta remember this quote from 2016 lol...

[Pato del Muerto 52596]

“Take the fifth” is such a clumsy phrase.  Invoke, exercise, plead, hide behind, utilize…

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Who cares about the note?  She wouldn't say it's her handwriting if it's not at least close.  It would be a silly thing to lie about.  She and the attorney both claim responsibility, and the committee says they find her claim credible.

What matters is what's on the note.  Memory is never perfect.  I couldn't possibly tell you whether I took notes in a meeting 15 months ago, but if you showed me something in what looks like my handwriting, I'd probably believe I wrote it contemporaneously.

[royiv 9353]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

She and the attorney both claim responsibility, and the committee says they find her claim credible.

People also keep glossing over that Mick Mulvaney tweeted yesterday that he knows her and doesn’t think she’s lying. I think that’s important coming from the guy who was the predecessor to Meadows.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

One thing that somewhat surprises me is that Herschmann would so publicly contradict her on a trivial matter.

I suppose one of the things that makes me feel good about the credibility of most of these witnesses is that so many are lawyers.  Not that they are in any way above lying. but they tend to be aware of the issues concerning recall and are unlikely to phrase things loosely so they get reamed on cross.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

Whatever gets people talking about something other than this:

[Francisco 2.0 32428]

40 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And what’s her motivation to lie? What’s her personal gain from this experience compared with those whose freedom depends on trashing her (but not brave enough to do it under oath)?

GTFO with this garbage 

 

Come on, it's so obvious:

 

 

 

[aggie08 21531]

For the record: I don't think she's lying. But the lunging at the steering wheel thing is pretty obviously false, and why Mark Meadows would say that--even as an obvious exaggeration--with multiple people within earshot doesn't make a ton of sense. But these people be crazy.

But why include that in the testimony, when you know it's going to be the headline grabber?

[TwiceHorn 31535]

Just now, aggie08 said:

For the record: I don't think she's lying. But the lunging at the steering wheel thing is pretty obviously false, and why Mark Meadows would say that--even as an obvious exaggeration--with multiple people within earshot doesn't make a ton of sense. But these people be crazy.

But why include that in the testimony, when you know it's going to be the headline grabber?

Yeah, the major takeaway is that the two questionable items (note and lunging) are trivial and largely irrelevant and seem to be an unforced error by the Committee, which has not made many.

[chainsaw 9873]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that somewhat surprises me is that Herschmann would so publicly contradict her on a trivial matter.

I suppose one of the things that makes me feel good about the credibility of most of these witnesses is that so many are lawyers.  Not that they are in any way above lying. but they tend to be aware of the issues concerning recall and are unlikely to phrase things loosely so they get reamed on cross.

Maybe, but I also think many lawyers are complete dumbasses cut from the same cloth as Rudy

[yoladu 4094]

8 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Probably because they were thrown some bone that the SS guy was going to expose her as a fraud and destroy her credibility.  Then whatever she reported to have heard first hand is in doubt.   

I just don't see the committee not having thought that out well before hand, and they've got some strong support from others for her statements.    

Might just be tossing out bait.  

While some people seem to think they are wasting time, I am with gandorf and others and say they had to do something, they couldn't just let it slide.   They have exceeded and continue to exceed my expectations on the strategy and production of this.  Not sure where it's going to end up, but they're doing a pretty damn good job laying it all out.

the absence of the usual shit flingers on the committee looking to deflect, distract, pontificate, and filibuster has been refreshing.

[royiv 9353]

16 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

For the record: I don't think she's lying. But the lunging at the steering wheel thing is pretty obviously false, and why Mark Meadows would say that--even as an obvious exaggeration--with multiple people within earshot doesn't make a ton of sense. But these people be crazy.

But why include that in the testimony, when you know it's going to be the headline grabber?

Mark Meadows could always come before the committee and testify under oath to dispute what she said.

[Macanudo 13012]

2 hours ago, royiv said:

You're talking about the same people who voted for a guy that fucked a pornstar and then paid her off to keep quiet. They certainly don't care that Paxton is cheating on his wife.

Hell, his mistress could have an abortion on live TV and he'd still probably win.

[Beau Vine 54426]

30 minutes ago, royiv said:

People also keep glossing over that Mick Mulvaney tweeted yesterday that he knows her and doesn’t think she’s lying. I think that’s important coming from the guy who was the predecessor to Meadows.

Mick is a RINO!!!

[wildcat09 29382]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not utter bullshit.  I agree that these details are largely irrelevant.  But it's a hit on her credibility.

Then you ask, why was she mistaken (at best) about trivial details?  Is she misremembering or lying about the big stuff too?

Credibility matters.  Ask Amber Heard.

I saw a few articles before her testimony indicating that she felt "hung out to dry" by Meadows and others.  Hopefully, that was just a motive to come clean and not to embellish.  But she may be vulnerable to a solid cross-examination, and I haven't felt that way about other witnesses.

I don't know why you're assuming that anonymous denials are more credible than her sworn statements.

[TexArcher 38062]

So, my fear is that if anyone is charged after this, it'll just get clogged up in the courts until January of 2025 when Trump, Don Jr, or DeSantis pardons everybody.

Am I wrong?  Because I want to be wrong.

[RomaVicta 30016]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yup. Just like with impeachment. They couldn’t not do it. 

And, like with impeachment, some people are determined to say it's worthless if the correct result doesn't happen. It indeed adds to a useless "why bother?" cynicism. That's the goal of Putin with his own people and now the west. Democracy dies with a "why bother?" attitude that deters engagment, discourse, and action.

It's also insulting the intelligence of those who comment on the event by presuming such analysis indicates blind optimism. If someone writes that Hutchinson's testimony is damning, a few people can't wait to post, "it won't matter" or "she's not a hero because she worked for Cruz and Trump."

The first is quite possibly true. The second is an obvious observation. In fact, they're both obvious. Like with Pence, commending or admiring her actions in one case is not sanctification. 

Post whatever you like. Try not to be a parrot.

 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Why would anyone think it odd that a deranged narcissist would reach for the steering wheel and then push back when restrained?

Have you people been WATCHING Donald Trump?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11820]

12 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

So, my fear is that if anyone is charged after this, it'll just get clogged up in the courts until January of 2025 when Trump, Don Jr, or DeSantis pardons everybody.

Am I wrong?  Because I want to be wrong.

You're not wrong.  If you're white (or slightly orange shaded) and can yell really loud, you can run this country.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Judge Roybeanbag

[aggie08 21531]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why would anyone think it odd that a deranged narcissist would reach for the steering wheel and then push back when restrained?

Have you people been WATCHING Donald Trump?

Yes. He's a coward and a pussy. Squirming around trying to unbuckle his seatbelt is much more on brand.

[RomaVicta 30016]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

You want things to be one way, but they're the other way.

 

Just managing expectations.

Thanks, Mom. 

[TexArcher 38062]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

You want things to be one way, but they're the other way.

 

Just managing expectations.

 

Just now, RomaVicta said:

Thanks, Mom.

Marlo Stanfield is your mom?

Holy shit, I have some questions.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

37 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Maybe, but I also think many lawyers are complete dumbasses cut from the same cloth as Rudy

You're not wrong.  But most of these guys, Rosen, Donoghue, Engel, Herschmann, are pros and you put them under oath and they aren't going to make unforced errors.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't know why you're assuming that anonymous denials are more credible than her sworn statements.

I am mostly concerned with the note.  That is not an anonymous denial.  And, some things I have read indicate that it was known to the Committee that Herschmann claimed authorship.  The authorship doesn't really matter, but if it was known to be an issue, the Committee could have handled it better.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am mostly concerned with the note.  That is not an anonymous denial.  And, some things I have read indicate that it was known to the Committee that Herschmann claimed authorship.  The authorship doesn't really matter, but if it was known to be an issue, the Committee could have handled it better.

Again, why?  Of all the things to wring your hands over.  We have seen credible witness testimony with minor inconsistencies for years now, and it doesn't matter, the Republicans are gonna push back and misinterpret everything they can.  It doesn't matter if it's 100% accurate.  The outcome is the same.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

21 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

So, my fear is that if anyone is charged after this, it'll just get clogged up in the courts until January of 2025 when Trump, Don Jr, or DeSantis pardons everybody.

Am I wrong?  Because I want to be wrong.

There is a pretty high likelihood of that, yes.  Even if the DC Circuit slaps down all of TFG's dilatory appeals (one concern is that he appeals every pretrial decision, which normally doesn't work, but because of the potential issues surrounding presidential immunity, might actually work), it is still likely to be on appeal and not a final conviction several years into the future.

This would be true even if he was indicted on March 6, 2021.

And, whether the conviction becomes final or not, the specter of a pardon from any GQP administration, at any time, remains.

[royiv 9353]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a pretty high likelihood of that, yes.  Even if the DC Circuit slaps down all of TFG's dilatory appeals (one concern is that he appeals every pretrial decision, which normally doesn't work, but because of the potential issues surrounding presidential immunity, might actually work), it is still likely to be on appeal and not a final conviction several years into the future.

This would be true even if he was indicted on March 6, 2021.

And, whether the conviction becomes final or not, the specter of a pardon from any GQP administration, at any time, remains.

Not to mention a very friendly Supreme Court.

[Biff Tannen 45734]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a pretty high likelihood of that, yes.  Even if the DC Circuit slaps down all of TFG's dilatory appeals (one concern is that he appeals every pretrial decision, which normally doesn't work, but because of the potential issues surrounding presidential immunity, might actually work), it is still likely to be on appeal and not a final conviction several years into the future.

This would be true even if he was indicted on March 6, 2021.

And, whether the conviction becomes final or not, the specter of a pardon from any GQP administration, at any time, remains.

So basically, as I have espoused here before, the justice system moves too slowly to be useful in this day and age, at least when it comes to treasonous shitbags in power.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Again, why?  Of all the things to wring your hands over.  We have seen credible witness testimony with minor inconsistencies for years now, and it doesn't matter, the Republicans are gonna push back and misinterpret everything they can.  It doesn't matter if it's 100% accurate.  The outcome is the same.

I am somewhat concerned about the criminal trial of the matter.  Hutchinson appears to be a good witness for establishing motives and behaviors at the time.  This somewhat unnecessarily puts her credibility in issue, although now that it's a known issue, it can probably be worked around.

Also, although she is a pretty good witness of the Trump-related events of January 6, and one of the few that came forward to the Committee, I'm sure there are others and they won't be able to resist a subpoena to a criminal trial.  They may lie their asses off though or take the fif.

 

[Dutchrudder 11150]

Isn't there a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay that could serve as the location for the trial instead? 

[TwiceHorn 31535]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

So basically, as I have espoused here before, the justice system moves too slowly to be useful in this day and age, at least when it comes to treasonous shitbags in power.

No.  As I concluded, Trump can likely escape justice via pardon whenever a GQP administration comes to power.  Timing isn't really the issue.

[RomaVicta 30016]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why would anyone think it odd that a deranged narcissist would reach for the steering wheel and then push back when restrained?

Have you people been WATCHING Donald Trump?

Plus, he thinks he's going to his coronation. He thinks this is his only shot at staying in office. He needs the safety of the White House and power of the presidency to forestall the shit storm of his private affairs and likely criminal prosecution. He wants to be king.

A horse! A horse! My kingdom lost for a horse!

He wasn't mad because they didn't have time to pick up some drive-thru McDonalds. This was an existential crisis moment. For him, it was the same as though the car were sinking into the Potomac and he had to get out.