Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

+1. This is they typical trump defense. If it’s untrue, swear it under oath.

Will the committee allow them to testify?
They seem to not want any information that goes against their narrative.
I agree they should testify. And, they are willing.

You know who could easily provide information “that goes against their narrative” (such as it were)? Meadows. Meadows could clear up a lot of mistaken or untruthful testimony. So where is he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Yeah witness credibility: we don’t like what the witness is saying and she’s female. See also: Fiona Hill

When the people who were actually present call BS on the testimony, I listen.
Doesn't matter her gender or how she identifies. If it is BS, it's BS.

One after another after another after another after another etc. requested those pardons. Nothing BS about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Federal Rules of Evidence 801 (d). Look it up Trumper.

I suspect it has been verified.

You give this committee too much credibility.

NP here. I don’t but I believe it. Not worth arguing over since it will all come out anyway. If it’s not true, I’m sure the agents will swear it under oath. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Yeah witness credibility: we don’t like what the witness is saying and she’s female. See also: Fiona Hill

When the people who were actually present call BS on the testimony, I listen.
Doesn't matter her gender or how she identifies. If it is BS, it's BS. [/quote


But they haven’t called “bs” on it. You’re using unsworn hearsay counter my sworn hearsay! I believe it happened but would be willing to change my mind is the agents swore it under oath.

Make sure the committee calls them, then. Because, I am betting they are figuring out a way NOT to call them.

Nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That’s what the SUV is called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

She was very very credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

The Beast is whatever armored car with medical kit the President happens to ride in.

There is no discrepancy.

And reading through this thread, I note that Trump defenders are sparse and are not bringing convincing counter points to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

She was very very credible.

Bingo! and Trumpers don't like that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

+1. This is they typical trump defense. If it’s untrue, swear it under oath.

Under oath, on camera, and repeat it so that it is perfectly clear.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

The Beast is whatever armored car with medical kit the President happens to ride in.

There is no discrepancy.

And reading through this thread, I note that Trump defenders are sparse and are not bringing convincing counter points to the table.

It’s sad the trump-supporters just can’t let go. They’re like those horribly beaten dog who run back to their abuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

Video and photos show he was in an SUV. I don't know if that is technically also The Beast but these days that's shorthand for the car the prez is in.

That was a big Gotcha that people were using to discredit Hutchison - she said he rode in the Beast and they said he didn't. She's not a credible witness!

That’s the Beast. What about all the other evidence that he wanted to go to the Capitol, Meadows was too chickenshit to tell him he couldn’t, Trump said he was in his speech, and Engle had to be the one to tell him no? Why is it surprising that the hot-head ketchup slinger wouldn’t lash out and try to get his way? Also, if the story was in any way exaggerated, it was almost certainly Ornato or Engle who embellished it. She was very careful to accurately relate what other people told her without exaggeration. Her superpower as a staffer was remembering and noting what people said on the phone, in meetings, etc. It’s very important to her job to relate messages precisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

+1. This is they typical trump defense. If it’s untrue, swear it under oath.

Will the committee allow them to testify?
They seem to not want any information that goes against their narrative.
I agree they should testify. And, they are willing.

Yes, testify. Let's get specific. Where exactly did Trump touch them and what exactly did he do? Their denial is not as vroad based as you're implying.