• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

January 6 Hearings Live

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The head of Trump's Secret Service detail, Robert Engel, had previously testified before the committee, and his testimony corroborated that he had a disagreement with Trump about going to the capital. It was Engel that Cassidy Hutchinson said was attacked by Trump in "the Beast" for trying to stop him from grabbing the steering wheel, and it was Engel who sat in the room while Ornato told Hutchinson about what had happened in the limo. She testified that Engel never denied the details she had been given, even though he was present when she got them. Here is a link to a story about Engel's testimony:

Trump privately raised Jan. 6 Capitol appearance with Secret Service agent, select panel hears


Now the Secret Service is complaining that the Jan 6 committee did not reach out to them before Hutchinson gave her sworn testimony. They have contradicted her claim that she wrote a note to Trump, but that it had been a different person who wrote the note in question. They have also said that they would make any SS agent (presumably, Engel) available to answer further questions, if asked. So it will be interesting to see what he says about the incident under oath, especially since Ornato would be able to confirm or contradict her testimony, as well.

Secret Service: Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony

 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,210
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side. Both sides equally phony, fraudulent, hypocritical.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.
The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.
The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...
And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good things he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Just for you, Lumpen.
As then-President Donald Trump left a rally with his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, he appears to have held out hope until the last minute — even as chaos unfolded — that he’d be able to join them at the Capitol.

Trump even raised the prospect privately with the head of his Secret Service detail at the time, Robert Engel, according to a person familiar with the agent’s congressional testimony. Engel rode with Trump in the presidential armored car called “The Beast” back to the White House after the Ellipse rally that preceded that day’s violent riot.

Engel told Jan. 6 select committee investigators that the two men discussed Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic. Engel noted that they went back to the White House instead of heading to Capitol Hill. The contents of Engel’s testimony have not been previously reported. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi declined to comment.

The testimony shows just how much Trump wanted to be at the Capitol with his backers as Congress voted to certify his Electoral College loss to Joe Biden. And he expressed his desire to join the protesters even as violence was unfolding.
From Copernicus' Politico link above.

Obviously there was a dispute. Without knowing more from Engle's testimony we can't be sure. But considering lawyers know to never ask a question they don't know the answer to, I'm thinking Engle will confirm. Or already has.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,210
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.
The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...
And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good thins he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.
And therefore the testimony of those Secret Service agents is not necessary? It's OK that she lied and nothing about it should be investigated? because she was a Trump supporter it's OK to excuse the lying and not investigate who prompted her to tell these lies? And how many other lies are there that Dems should not investigate? How much more of the truth must Dems suppress in order to advance their propaganda crusade?

No, if Dems refuse to get that testimony, they prove themselves to be liars, putting political propaganda ahead of the truth and the good of the nation.

And further, this lying and fraud will cost Democrats even further votes in November and will increase the likely Republican majority next year. This will only confirm the propaganda of the Right-wing talking heads and radio talk shows, which influence millions of Republican voters (and also some independents). They are already cashing in on this.

Dems must issue those subpoenas and face the consequences in order to prove that they have any credibility.

If it turns out that the witness did lie, then Dems might absolve themselves by apologizing for this fiasco. Or they could claim her testimony is still mostly credible though some of it was perjury. And it's also possible the SS agents will confirm most of her story, and the damage can be minimized. But if they fail to put those SS agents into the hearings to get their testimony, they have lost all credibility, and it's obvious that the Dems are just as fraudulent as the other side.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars.

They can issue subpoenas to the Secret Service agents who were in that car. If they don't they are proving they are liars as much as Trump and the Repubs.

House Dems have no excuse not to issue those subpoenas and get the testimony of anyone in the Secret Service, or anyone named by Hutchinson. This is their chance -- the Dems -- to prove that the Trumpsters are the real liars.

It's simple: If they issue those subpoenas and get that testimony, they will prove that they are trying to get at the truth. If not, they're proving they're only propagandists, as bad as Trump. Just as dishonest. Only grandstanding, putting on a show trial, only caring about scoring points for the next election.

If those SS agents contradict their witness from Tuesday 6/27, the House Dems must admit that their witness was not honest and her testimony cannot be trusted. And there should be an investigation to determine if she was pressured to give false testimony. And they should take the blame for the wrong they did putting her on there to give false testimony.

But if the agents confirm her testimony, with no significant contradiction, then they can claim that it's only Trump who is lying, and not both sides equally.

If their witness is contradicted, they should apologize and admit that the Blues are just as dishonest as the Reds, and do something to clean their own house. Instead of just continuing to use their political power to propagandize and score political points.

If they don't issue those subpoenas and get that testimony -- let the chips fall where they will -- then they're admitting they're just as guilty of lying as the other side.
The witness in question isn't a Democrat, she was a member of Trump's staff...
And an avid Trump supporter who said he was "ruining all the good thins he's done."

Do keep up, Lumpy.
And therefore the testimony of those Secret Service agents is not necessary? It's OK that she lied and nothing about it should be investigated? because she was a Trump supporter it's OK to excuse the lying and not investigated who prompted her to tell these lies? And how many other lies are there that Dems should not investigate? How much more of the truth must Dems suppress in order to advance their propaganda crusade?

No, if Dems refuse to get that testimony, they prove themselves to be liars, putting political propaganda ahead of the truth and the good of the nation.

And further, this lying and fraud will cost Democrats even further votes in November and will increase the likely Republican majority next year. This will only confirm the propaganda of the Right-wing talking heads and radio talk shows, which influence millions of Republican voters (and also some independents). They are already cashing in on this.

Dems must issue those subpoenas and face the consequences in order to prove that they have any credibility.

If it turns out that the witness did lie, then Dems might absolve themselves by apologizing for this fiasco. Or they could claim her testimony is still mostly credible though some of it was perjury. And it's also possible the SS agents will confirm most of her story, and the damage can be minimized. But if they fail to put those SS agents into the hearings to get their testimony, they have lost all credibility, and it's obvious that the Dems are just as fraudulent as the other side.
Poor Lumpen. Bless your heart.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars...

That is not at issue here. Personally, I don't know whether Democrats would lie as much if they had a president like Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure that they would never put themselves in the position by nominating such a flawed, incompetent individual. I think that Democrats are personally just as honest and dishonest as Republicans. They are all human beings, and officeholders have little choice but to pander to their voting base. Otherwise, they tend to lose elections.

The issue here is whether Trump intended to go to the Capitol to support the rioters, whom he apparently knew to be armed and dangerous. It is not whether Hutchinson, a loyal Republican and erstwhile Trump supporter, got some details wrong because her memory failed her. She appeared to be trying, as best she could, to recall the events of the day, and it is very possible that she remembered them to be more dramatic than they actually were. We'd need testimony from witnesses who could corroborate her. Even eyewitnesses to crimes tend to misremember things and have false recollections of what happened.

See:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,210
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars...

That is not at issue here. Personally, I don't know whether Democrats would lie as much if they had a president like Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure that they would never put themselves in the position by nominating such a flawed, incompetent individual. I think that Democrats are personally just as honest and dishonest as Republicans. They are all human beings, and officeholders have little choice but to pander to their voting base. Otherwise, they tend to lose elections.

The issue here is whether Trump intended to go to the Capitol to support the rioters, whom he apparently knew to be armed and dangerous. It is not whether Hutchinson, a loyal Republican and erstwhile Trump supporter, got some details wrong because her memory failed her. She appeared to be trying, as best she could, to recall the events of the day, and it is very possible that she remembered them to be more dramatic than they actually were. We'd need testimony from witnesses who could corroborate her. Even eyewitnesses to crimes tend to misremember things and have false recollections of what happened.

See:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Making excuses why those agents need not testify only confirms the Trumpster-Reds propaganda and strengthens their likely election victory next November. The entire show being put on by the House is undermined by this. If they do nothing to undo the damage, they prove themselves to be nothing but political propagandists just as dishonest as the other side.

You can never excuse perjury, which is what this is, if there was no physical altercation in that car. If that's a lie, someone prompted her to say that. Who? this is witness tampering, which you cannot excuse. This crime is just as serious as what they're accusing Trump of. It proves the whole thing is a show-trial for sensationalist effect. All Dems' credibility is lost.

Stop making excuses and demand that those agents be brought to testify. Unless you don't care about the truth, but only about promoting the Dems propaganda, no matter how much lying it takes.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,109
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
When it comes to assessing witness testimony, I think we can ignore the guy who thinks the gospels are enough proof for miracles.

We can also ignore Trumpy Ornato if he were to contradict Hutchinson.

Details of what happened on Jan. 6 : ‘I Alone Can Fix It’ book excerpt - The Washington Post.

Around this time, Kellogg ran into Tony Ornato in the West Wing. Ornato, who oversaw Secret Service movements, told him that Pence’s detail was planning to move the vice president to Joint Base Andrews.

“You can’t do that, Tony,” Kellogg said. “Leave him where he’s at. He’s got a job to do. I know you guys too well. You’ll fly him to Alaska if you have a chance. Don’t do it.”

Pence had made clear to Giebels the level of his determination and Kellogg said there was no changing it.

“He’s going to stay there,” Kellogg told Ornato. “If he has to wait there all night, he’s going to do it.”

Ornato, through a spokesman, denied having this conversation.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,947
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars...

That is not at issue here. Personally, I don't know whether Democrats would lie as much if they had a president like Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure that they would never put themselves in the position by nominating such a flawed, incompetent individual. I think that Democrats are personally just as honest and dishonest as Republicans. They are all human beings, and officeholders have little choice but to pander to their voting base. Otherwise, they tend to lose elections.

The issue here is whether Trump intended to go to the Capitol to support the rioters, whom he apparently knew to be armed and dangerous. It is not whether Hutchinson, a loyal Republican and erstwhile Trump supporter, got some details wrong because her memory failed her. She appeared to be trying, as best she could, to recall the events of the day, and it is very possible that she remembered them to be more dramatic than they actually were. We'd need testimony from witnesses who could corroborate her. Even eyewitnesses to crimes tend to misremember things and have false recollections of what happened.

See:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Making excuses why those agents need not testify only confirms the Trumpster-Reds propaganda and strengthens their likely election victory next November. The entire show being put on by the House is undermined by this. If they do nothing to undo the damage, they prove themselves to be nothing but political propagandists just as dishonest as the other side.

You can never excuse perjury, which is what this is, if there was no physical altercation in that car. If that's a lie, someone prompted her to say that. Who? this is witness tampering, which you cannot excuse. This crime is just as serious as what they're accusing Trump of. It proves the whole thing is a show-trial for sensationalist effect. All Dems' credibility is lost.

Stop making excuses and demand that those agents be brought to testify. Unless you don't care about the truth, but only about promoting the Dems propaganda, no matter how much lying it takes.

Nobody is making excuses for anyone. We have Cassidy Hutchinson's hours of sworn testimony, making her liable for perjury. To convict her, the government would need to prove that she knowingly lied, although she came off as quite sincere. What happened in the car is irrelevant, since she only testified about what people told her that happened in the car. If they lied, embellished, or misled her for whatever reason, that doesn't make her guilty of perjury. If she sincerely believed what she said but simply didn't remember the facts accurately, that doesn't make her guilty of perjury. She could be a very good actor, and a lot of pro-Trumpers will be inclined to believe that. We still need to hear from Engel, Ornato, and Cipollone. The committee just subpoenaed Cipollone, who is no longer cooperating with the committee. He is an extreme pro-Trump partisan, so it isn't clear whether he will defy the subpoena, claim the fifth, or claim executive privilege. The Secret Service has said that they will let Engel testify. They appear ready to cooperate fully with the committee. I don't know what else you want, but I understand that you might not want Hutchinson to be telling the truth. I doubt she would perjure herself just to get back at Trump because he allegedly wouldn't let her join him in Florida. I don't actually believe that she would seek to work for such a man again, but you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars...

That is not at issue here. Personally, I don't know whether Democrats would lie as much if they had a president like Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure that they would never put themselves in the position by nominating such a flawed, incompetent individual. I think that Democrats are personally just as honest and dishonest as Republicans. They are all human beings, and officeholders have little choice but to pander to their voting base. Otherwise, they tend to lose elections.

The issue here is whether Trump intended to go to the Capitol to support the rioters, whom he apparently knew to be armed and dangerous. It is not whether Hutchinson, a loyal Republican and erstwhile Trump supporter, got some details wrong because her memory failed her. She appeared to be trying, as best she could, to recall the events of the day, and it is very possible that she remembered them to be more dramatic than they actually were. We'd need testimony from witnesses who could corroborate her. Even eyewitnesses to crimes tend to misremember things and have false recollections of what happened.

See:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Making excuses why those agents need not testify only confirms the Trumpster-Reds propaganda and strengthens their likely election victory next November. The entire show being put on by the House is undermined by this. If they do nothing to undo the damage, they prove themselves to be nothing but political propagandists just as dishonest as the other side.

You can never excuse perjury, which is what this is, if there was no physical altercation in that car. If that's a lie, someone prompted her to say that. Who? this is witness tampering, which you cannot excuse. This crime is just as serious as what they're accusing Trump of. It proves the whole thing is a show-trial for sensationalist effect. All Dems' credibility is lost.

Stop making excuses and demand that those agents be brought to testify. Unless you don't care about the truth, but only about promoting the Dems propaganda, no matter how much lying it takes.
So let me see if I've got this straight....

An increasingly long list of former Trump staffers, aides, career officials and appointees up to and including the Attorney General have testified under oath that Trump attempted to overturn a democratic election and install himself as El Presidente For Life, and your hot take is:

"Dammit we've got to do something about these Secret Service agents!"

That's it. That's all you want to hear about, and they are the only credible source of truth in this entire sordid affair. In fact if they don't testify, you feel there simply WAS no sordid affair. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Did you also think Nixon was an innocent man unjustly railroaded because we never heard testimony from his security detail?

But you know what? I actually agree with you on one narrow point. Let's get them up on the Hill as soon as possible and have them testify under oath. Not "an unnamed source indicates that one of the agents in question disputes the account," but a swearing-on-the-bible afternoon 'o testimony from the guy who was driving the President that day. Let's see it. Because right now we've got the sworn testimony of a person who volunteered to give her statements under pain of perjury and (as always) security threats from rabid Trump supporters vs "I heard that some unnamed Secret Service agent said off the record that what she said that other person said isn't true."

Finally, you know who would be great to see on the stand under oath? I'll give you a hint: He's got tiny hands, an anger management problem, and really, really, really hates testifying under oath.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,613
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So they want to claim both parties suck so it shouldn't matter whether they join the party of "let's make it suck worse" vs the party of "let's make it suck less".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Do Dems lie as much as Trump and Repubs?

House Democrats have a chance now to prove that the Repubs are the worse liars...

That is not at issue here. Personally, I don't know whether Democrats would lie as much if they had a president like Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure that they would never put themselves in the position by nominating such a flawed, incompetent individual. I think that Democrats are personally just as honest and dishonest as Republicans. They are all human beings, and officeholders have little choice but to pander to their voting base. Otherwise, they tend to lose elections.

The issue here is whether Trump intended to go to the Capitol to support the rioters, whom he apparently knew to be armed and dangerous. It is not whether Hutchinson, a loyal Republican and erstwhile Trump supporter, got some details wrong because her memory failed her. She appeared to be trying, as best she could, to recall the events of the day, and it is very possible that she remembered them to be more dramatic than they actually were. We'd need testimony from witnesses who could corroborate her. Even eyewitnesses to crimes tend to misremember things and have false recollections of what happened.

See:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

Making excuses why those agents need not testify only confirms the Trumpster-Reds propaganda and strengthens their likely election victory next November. The entire show being put on by the House is undermined by this. If they do nothing to undo the damage, they prove themselves to be nothing but political propagandists just as dishonest as the other side.

You can never excuse perjury, which is what this is, if there was no physical altercation in that car. If that's a lie, someone prompted her to say that. Who? this is witness tampering, which you cannot excuse. This crime is just as serious as what they're accusing Trump of. It proves the whole thing is a show-trial for sensationalist effect. All Dems' credibility is lost.

Stop making excuses and demand that those agents be brought to testify. Unless you don't care about the truth, but only about promoting the Dems propaganda, no matter how much lying it takes.
Are you arguing not enough Trump appointees and Republicans testified? Because like almost everyone who has testified so far were in the Trump Administration. Many of them approved by the GOP controlled Senate.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,418
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Trump lied he did not know Cassidy Hutchinson. Though she had a small office just a few steps down the hall from the oval office. And as assistant to Mark Meadows attended all meetings involving Trump and Meadows. Accompanied both on Air Force One when they travelled. And of course all of this will have been logged officially leaving a long and official paper trail.

Lumpy, Trump lies. So do the shrill chorus of panicky Republicans who realize Ms. Hutchinson has royally screwed Trump.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?
I doubt it, but they've probably got some pretty nifty surveillance technology at their disposal.

That aside, in addition to what I said earlier about the committee being methodical (they bring the receipts), they've also done something which may or may not have been intentional. I watched a clip of "Morning Joe" just now talking about Hannity railing against the Hutchinson testimony. Fox was the network that didn't want to air the first day of hearings...so that their viewers would say "committee? Didn't watch it." Now their opinion hosts can't wait to chime in, and bring on guests to talk about the hearings. So now - assuming the committee brought the receipts for the Hutchinson testimony - Fox may have to issue some stern denials/retractions/screaming when the rest of it comes out.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,210
Dems must stop pussyfooting around and issue the subpoenas.

Bottom line: House Dems are feeding the whole Right-wing propaganda machine and handing more votes to Republicans in the Fall elections if they do not take steps to put those 2 SS agents on the stand to give their testimony.

(Or, if that testimony would discredit their witness, that's just the truth coming out, whatever it is. Is that what they're afraid of?)

The Hannitys and others are capitalizing on the refusal of House Dems to get that testimony. Saying that the 2 agents have contradicted the Dems' witness and are willing to testify under oath.

All the excuses for not issuing the subpoenas serve only to feed the Right-wing pundits and strengthen the resolve of pro-Trump Republicans, who don't listen to PBS news but only to Hannity etc. telling them that the witness is contradicted by both of the SS agents in that car. Those are the most credible witnesses, and House Dems are refusing to have them testify.

This failure of the House Dems to do the right thing serves to solidify the Red-Blue Divide separating the country into 2 realities -- the Red Truth vs. the Blue Truth with no objective truth anywhere to believe in. If their case is based on the (objective) truth rather than party ideology/propaganda, they must take the steps to resolve any conflict about the facts. Where their witness is contradicted by someone else who is willing to testify, they are obligated to get that contrary testimony if possible, which so far they are not doing.

The problem is easily solved when House Dems issue those subpoenas. Until they do that they are discredited, proving their interest is not finding the truth but only Party politics.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,467
Location
Ignore list
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
How many more subpoenas to Trump staff are needed? How many more GOP senate approved nominees need to come before the committee?

Your objection is preposterous.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
How can she not be present at an event that didn’t happen? He said she wasn’t there when he did something. Then he adds he didn’t do that something.

There is a reason he deleted the tweet.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,210
Someone will correct me on this point if it's incorrect: Isn't it the case that Giuliani has been issued subpoena to appear and has refused? and some others also? If the witness refuses to appear to testify we can only assume they're hiding something, and if they're contradicted by a witness who has testified, then the latter has more credibility.

But what about someone contradicting the Committee's witness and who is willing to testify under oath -- who should we believe? The 2 Secret Service agents in the car have reportedly contradicted Hutchinson and are willing to testify. So, why is the Committee failing to issue subpoenas to them?

When will they quit dragging their feet and do the right thing?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,467
Location
Ignore list
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
How can she not be present at an event that didn’t happen? He said she wasn’t there when he did something. Then he adds he didn’t do that something.

There is a reason he deleted the tweet.
You mean the event where Giuliani alleged he said he did not want or need a pardon?

Not that it matters either way. ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining. Ron Filipkowski was honest enough to display the tweet in full.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
How can she not be present at an event that didn’t happen? He said she wasn’t there when he did something. Then he adds he didn’t do that something.

There is a reason he deleted the tweet.
You mean the event where Giuliani alleged he said he did not want or need a pardon?

Not that it matters either way. ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining. Ron Filipkowski was honest enough to display the tweet in full.
He said, unsolicited, that she wasn’t there when he did something.

He followed that up, like a 6 yr old trying to cover an over-disclosure, by saying oh and I didn’t do that.

A drunk insurrectionist posting a Freudian Slip on Twitter. Fucking moron.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,467
Location
Ignore list
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
How can she not be present at an event that didn’t happen? He said she wasn’t there when he did something. Then he adds he didn’t do that something.

There is a reason he deleted the tweet.
You mean the event where Giuliani alleged he said he did not want or need a pardon?

Not that it matters either way. ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining. Ron Filipkowski was honest enough to display the tweet in full.
He said, unsolicited, that she wasn’t there when he did something.

He followed that up, like a 6 yr old trying to cover an over-disclosure, by saying oh and I didn’t do that.

A drunk insurrectionist posting a Freudian Slip on Twitter. Fucking moron.
Say what you like; ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Something tells me that's not the original tweet. I checked some articles on that tweet and I'm finding broken links on multiple websites. I could be wrong though but it is possible Guliani deleted and then rewrote the tweet to include the last part.

Edit: Never mind not enough sites have that error. Just two. so it's highly likely the original tweet.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,613
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Something tells me that's not the original tweet. I checked some articles on that tweet and I'm finding broken links on multiple websites. I could be wrong though but it is possible Guliani deleted and then rewrote the tweet to include the last part.

Edit: Never mind not enough sites have that error. Just two. so it's highly likely the original tweet.
And like, he was typing this out and said "she was not there when I did the thing that I didn't do", clearly recognizing that his prior statement makes it look like he was saying he was in such a meeting.

And he couldn't just... Delete the part where he facially contradicts himself before posting it. Instead of the <- button, he used a whole bunch of different buttons and made himself look MORE like a fucking idiot.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,418
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
One wonders. Do secret service agents wear body cameras?
I doubt it, but they've probably got some pretty nifty surveillance technology at their disposal.

That aside, in addition to what I said earlier about the committee being methodical (they bring the receipts), they've also done something which may or may not have been intentional. I watched a clip of "Morning Joe" just now talking about Hannity railing against the Hutchinson testimony. Fox was the network that didn't want to air the first day of hearings...so that their viewers would say "committee? Didn't watch it." Now their opinion hosts can't wait to chime in, and bring on guests to talk about the hearings. So now - assuming the committee brought the receipts for the Hutchinson testimony - Fox may have to issue some stern denials/retractions/screaming when the rest of it comes out.

Never mind cable and Faux Noise. NBC had the hearings live and 21 million viewers. I don't know how many million more watched the hearings on ABC, CBS, NPR etc. Congress will have returned by July 14 and more hearings are scheduled. The evidence is mounting and the denials and gas lighting will soon be futile. That said, out there in darkest America it is likely more Americans watched WWE wrestling than the hearings.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You mean the event where Giuliani alleged he said he did not want or need a pardon?

Not that it matters either way. ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining. Ron Filipkowski was honest enough to display the tweet in full.
He said, unsolicited, that she wasn’t there when he did something.

He followed that up, like a 6 yr old trying to cover an over-disclosure, by saying oh and I didn’t do that.

A drunk insurrectionist posting a Freudian Slip on Twitter. Fucking moron.
Say what you like; ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining.
No, that isn't a quote mine. Especially in the context of the entire tweet. The second portion does not help Giuliani clear the claim he made initially... without any solicitation.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Seems to me that anyone who knew that Trump was both aware that his insurrectionists were armed, and that he wanted to lead their assault on the Capitol, yet failed to speak up, should be arrested immediately for complicity in an armed coup attempt.
Why isn’t this done? Probably because of the likelihood that all such people would lie their faces off, leaving no witnesses to testify to his intent.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
"The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent," he said. "The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon."

Go home, Rudy. You're drunk.
Are we not above indulging in egregious quote mining?

Here is Giuliani's tweet in full:

giuliani.jpg
How can she not be present at an event that didn’t happen? He said she wasn’t there when he did something. Then he adds he didn’t do that something.

There is a reason he deleted the tweet.
You mean the event where Giuliani alleged he said he did not want or need a pardon?

Not that it matters either way. ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining. Ron Filipkowski was honest enough to display the tweet in full.
He said, unsolicited, that she wasn’t there when he did something.

He followed that up, like a 6 yr old trying to cover an over-disclosure, by saying oh and I didn’t do that.

A drunk insurrectionist posting a Freudian Slip on Twitter. Fucking moron.
Say what you like; ZiprHead indulged in egregious quote mining.

On its face, the tweet looks like it can be interpreted as he asked for one but then later changed his mind. :ROFLMAO:
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,684
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I have no love for Giuliani, but Hanlon’s Razor tells me that he’s merely bad at expressing himself.

He says “…she was never present when I asked for a pardon”, but what he was trying to say was “…I never asked for a pardon in her presence”; He then goes on to say that he explicitly said he didn’t want or need one.

That may well be a lie, but it’s not an obvious and infantile piece of self-contradiction.

Of course, it does leave open the bigger can of worms, that is Trump handing out pardons like candy - clearly the act of a president who expected his administration to need them.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I have no love for Giuliani, but Hanlon’s Razor tells me that he’s merely bad at expressing himself.

He says “…she was never present when I asked for a pardon”, but what he was trying to say was “…I never asked for a pardon in her presence”; He then goes on to say that he explicitly said he didn’t want or need one.

That may well be a lie, but it’s not an obvious and infantile piece of self-contradiction.

Of course, it does leave open the bigger can of worms, that is Trump handing out pardons like candy - clearly the act of a president who expected his administration to need them.
That is a viable argument. Tweeting while drunk makes such things possible. BUT... here is the important thing, what did Giuliani say? He doesn't say "I never asked Trump for a pardon." Instead he says:

"I told the President I did not want or need one."

Wait what? Why in the heck are pardons even a topic then, if you didn't need or want one?

Trump: Need another Diet Coke here!
Giuliani: I do not want or need a pardon.
Trump: Wha?
Giuliani: You know, I just don't need one.
Trump: Where's my diet coke?!

or

Trump: Okay, now things could get kind of crappy if the murdering gets out of hand. Who wants a pardon?
Giuliani: I do not want or need a pardon.
Trump: Seriously? We are committing sedition bigly here. Gonna break all sorts of laws.
Giuliani: I'll be fine.
Trump: Gaetz wants five, one for his uh... what is Nestor again?
Giuliani: I'm a lawyer, I know what I'm going.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,418
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Something tells me that's not the original tweet. I checked some articles on that tweet and I'm finding broken links on multiple websites. I could be wrong though but it is possible Guliani deleted and then rewrote the tweet to include the last part.

Edit: Never mind not enough sites have that error. Just two. so it's highly likely the original tweet.
And like, he was typing this out and said "she was not there when I did the thing that I didn't do", clearly recognizing that his prior statement makes it look like he was saying he was in such a meeting.

And he couldn't just... Delete the part where he facially contradicts himself before posting it. Instead of the <- button, he used a whole bunch of different buttons and made himself look MORE like a fucking idiot.


She did not say she was there when Guiliana said anything. But she knew a lot of people were contacting her boss Meadows to inquire about being put on a possible pardon list. Guiliana is setting up a big, fat straw man.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,684
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I have no love for Giuliani, but Hanlon’s Razor tells me that he’s merely bad at expressing himself.

He says “…she was never present when I asked for a pardon”, but what he was trying to say was “…I never asked for a pardon in her presence”; He then goes on to say that he explicitly said he didn’t want or need one.

That may well be a lie, but it’s not an obvious and infantile piece of self-contradiction.

Of course, it does leave open the bigger can of worms, that is Trump handing out pardons like candy - clearly the act of a president who expected his administration to need them.
That is a viable argument. Tweeting while drunk makes such things possible. BUT... here is the important thing, what did Giuliani say? He doesn't say "I never asked Trump for a pardon." Instead he says:

"I told the President I did not want or need one."

Wait what? Why in the heck are pardons even a topic then, if you didn't need or want one?

Trump: Need another Diet Coke here!
Giuliani: I do not want or need a pardon.
Trump: Wha?
Giuliani: You know, I just don't need one.
Trump: Where's my diet coke?!

or

Trump: Okay, now things could get kind of crappy if the murdering gets out of hand. Who wants a pardon?
Giuliani: I do not want or need a pardon.
Trump: Seriously? We are committing sedition bigly here. Gonna break all sorts of laws.
Giuliani: I'll be fine.
Trump: Gaetz wants five, one for his uh... what is Nestor again?
Giuliani: I'm a lawyer, I know what I'm going.
I am seeing it more like:

Senior Administration Official: Sir, I may need a presidential pardon from you, because if I get dragged into court, I might be forced to say things that will make you look bad.

Trump: Shit, if the people in my administration get dragged into court, they might say stuff that makes me look bad. Pardons for EVERYONE!!

Giuliani: I neither want nor need a pardon
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,882
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Someone will correct me on this point if it's incorrect: Isn't it the case that Giuliani has been issued subpoena to appear and has refused? and some others also? If the witness refuses to appear to testify we can only assume they're hiding something, and if they're contradicted by a witness who has testified, then the latter has more credibility.

But what about someone contradicting the Committee's witness and who is willing to testify under oath -- who should we believe? The 2 Secret Service agents in the car have reportedly contradicted Hutchinson and are willing to testify. So, why is the Committee failing to issue subpoenas to them?

When will they quit dragging their feet and do the right thing?
You have a convoluted way of saying you don't like what the hearings are revealing and as such dismiss anything that counters your world view out of hand.
 
Top Bottom