January 6 Hearings Live

[Cheerful Charlie]

Merrick Garland should start with subpeonoeing those persons Trump pardoned. They can no longer claim the fifth. But can be prosecuted for lying. And can be locked up if they refuse to testify until they do so. It is time for the DOJ to act and to play hard ball. Congressional committees cannot do that. And then on to the fake electors. Easy pickings with a good paper trail.

 

[laughing dog]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I think the DOJ is very wary of participating in a political trial, especially when elections are coming up. When (not if) Trump announces his re-election effort, the DOJ will be stymied because Trump and the craven majority in the GOP will claim political witch-hunt and their loony base will eat it up.

 

[Toni]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I think the DOJ is very wary of participating in a political trial, especially when elections are coming up. When (not if) Trump announces his re-election effort, the DOJ will be stymied because Trump and the craven majority in the GOP will claim political witch-hunt and their loony base will eat it up.

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS. Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

 

[TomC]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom


Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.
[fixed by mod for you]

 

[Toni]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom

Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.

Sorry: I forgot about his grift game.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that there is and will continue to be a real reluctance to actually prosecute Trump on the part of the Senate.

The Senate doesn't have prosecutorial powers.

True—There’s always the DOJ. My understanding is that there is a turf war with the committee refusing to turn over materials—yet. There are possibly impending charges in NY and GA.

I sympathize with Rep. Zoe Lofgren's reaction to the news that the DoJ felt blindsided by the Jan 6 committee for not turning over transcripts of Hutchinson's earlier testimony behind closed doors. Logren was surprised that the DoJ was caught off-guard:

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd.

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

I'm suspecting Christopher Wray still being in charge of the FBI has something to do with this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom

Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.

Use the Toggle BB Code button on the upper right.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

I certainly hope something substantial comes of her testimony. The big revelation is that she switched lawyers. Did any of us think all that grift money was going to pay lawyers that would help witnesses tow the line and not disclose important information? There isn't any law against the arrangement but it sure is revealing.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm suspecting Christopher Wray still being in charge of the FBI has something to do with this.

Possibly, but he reports to the DoJ, and it is the DoJ that is criticizing the congressional committee for not turning over transcripts of testimony that it takes behind closed doors. As Lofgren pointed out, Congress is not an arm of the Justice Department. The FBI is.

 

[Toni]

Turf wars are not at all uncommon. Pick the turf.

 

[TV and credit cards]

“I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here; let the people in and take the mags away.”

Satisfying Brandenburg v. Ohio in that it produced "imminent lawless action".

And

Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away.

moves

Fight like hell.

from being a political metaphor to being Incitement to Riot.

And all of this would and did Obstruct Congress.

And what is inciting a riot and obstructing congress but an Insurrection. And all that is needed now is contact between the White House and the rioters for a Seditious Conspiracy charge.

Now then, the DoJ must conclude that the decision to charge is in the interest of justice. Would it serve a substantial federal interest and do adequate alternatives to prosecution exist?
Federal interest: It would send a clear message that no one is above the law. Adequate alternatives: In that these are violent felonies where people were killed and injured, there is no alternative to prosecution and prison.

So says Lawfare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've complained in this thread about DoJ foot-dragging before, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that the DoJ has to rush into hasty indictments without sufficient evidence. They are being extremely lazy if they think that they can sit back and let a congressional committee do their work for them. Merrick Garland has an obligation to pursue criminal investigations of this sort, and very little of what we are learning now about what happened on January 6 is new in terms of what has already been reported on earlier. The main news here is now that we have testimony under oath, and the Justice Department is upset that they didn't see it coming. They have more power than a legislative committee to secure that kind of testimony under oath. I suspect that they didn't pursue it, because they can't handle the truth and wish it would just go away.

Laziness or too much MAGA influence?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, there are problems with prosecuting someone who is a declared candidate for POTUS.

This is true. Not impossible, but the political landmines are huge and complex.

Which, btw, is the only reason Don the Con would do so.

This is not true.
Trump can keep scooping up money until the election. From campaign donations to advertising dollars to selling Trump brand swag, as long as he keeps up the charade he can keep cashing in on "a sucker is born every minute" style ethics.
Tom

Dammit, I can't figure out to fix the quotes.

Upper right of the editor, []. It gives you raw BB code and lets you fix things that are unfixable with the WYSIWYG editor.

 

[bilby]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

I certainly hope something substantial comes of her testimony. The big revelation is that she switched lawyers. Did any of us think all that grift money was going to pay lawyers that would help witnesses tow the line and not disclose important information? There isn't any law against the arrangement but it sure is revealing.

Toe.

Obedient people toe the line.

It’s originally a naval expression; Sailors who mustered smartly and obediently would make perfect ranks by ensuring that their toes were on the line marked on the deck. A sloppy crew would have ragged looking ranks, because they didn’t toe the line.

It has nothing to do with towing anything; And you don’t tow a line, you use a line to tow something else.

 

[Jarhyn]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

I certainly hope something substantial comes of her testimony. The big revelation is that she switched lawyers. Did any of us think all that grift money was going to pay lawyers that would help witnesses tow the line and not disclose important information? There isn't any law against the arrangement but it sure is revealing.

Toe.

Obedient people toe the line.

It’s originally a naval expression; Sailors who mustered smartly and obediently would make perfect ranks by ensuring that their toes were on the line marked on the deck. A sloppy crew would have ragged looking ranks, because they didn’t toe the line.

It has nothing to do with towing anything; And you don’t tow a line, you use a line to tow something else.

It's the same way in army boot.

 

[Patooka]

Merrick Garland should start with subpeonoeing those persons Trump pardoned.

Who did he pardon, and in what context? The only one who I think would be dicey would be Michael Flynn.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Merrick Garland should start with subpeonoeing those persons Trump pardoned.

Who did he pardon, and in what context? The only one who I think would be dicey would be Michael Flynn.

Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, and of course, Flynn.

 

[Arctish]

Merrick Garland should start with subpeonoeing those persons Trump pardoned.

Who did he pardon, and in what context? The only one who I think would be dicey would be Michael Flynn.

Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Steve Bannon among others.

 

[bleubird]

President Liz Chaney?

 

[Politesse]

That would be the end of the nation. The last thing we need is a popular, more respectable-seeming fascist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

From raw story. A nice quote from Anthony Scarramuchi about Trump.

"On more than one occasion throughout the campaign he would turn to me and others and say funny things like, ‘Why can’t people realize what you guys realize about me, that I am playacting and full of it at least 50 percent of the time?’ That sort of joking. So he knows that this is all a lie.”

'He knows that this is all a lie': Trump insider claims ex-president told him he's 'playacting'

As part of a New York Times analysis on the impact that the Jan 6th hearings are on having on those who are skeptical that Donald Trump will be held to account for the Capitol riot that sent lawmakers fleeing, one Donald Trump insider is claiming that the former president knew fully well that he...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Elixir]

That would be the end of the nation. The last thing we need is a popular, more respectable-seeming fascist.

I think that if Liz lost a presidential election by 8 million votes, she’d probably concede.

 

[Politesse]

That is a low bar. Don't let them pull a Rabban/Feyd on you, these people are not our friends.

 

[Toni]

President Liz Chaney?

Fuck no. But yeah, that’s her goal. She’d settle for VP to Mike Pence. But if I were Pence, I’d sleep with both eyes open.

 

[Elixir]

That is a low bar. Don't let them pull a Rabban/Feyd on you, these people are not our friends.

Strange bedfellows for sure. What Toni said … don’t sleep too soundly.
Still, not Cheato.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

With Liz Cheney, who knows? She might be playing a long game. Early Reagan attempts to run for office failed. Cheney just might be contemplating moving the GOP from Trumpism and QAnon crazy. And electoral success years from now when Republicans tire of the batshit crazy.

 

[Swammerdami]

Raw Story reports Congressman Adam Kinzinger has announced since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, that on a daily basis lots of people have contacted the January 6 Committee to volunteer to testify. This is getting better by the day.

I certainly hope something substantial comes of her testimony. The big revelation is that she switched lawyers. Did any of us think all that grift money was going to pay lawyers that would help witnesses tow the line and not disclose important information? There isn't any law against the arrangement but it sure is revealing.

Toe.

Obedient people toe the line.

It’s originally a naval expression; Sailors who mustered smartly and obediently would make perfect ranks by ensuring that their toes were on the line marked on the deck. A sloppy crew would have ragged looking ranks, because they didn’t toe the line.

It has nothing to do with towing anything; And you don’t tow a line, you use a line to tow something else.

Perhaps Mr. Moogly was thinking of Captain Queeg. He towed the line, but failed to toe the tow-line properly.

 

[Copernicus]

President Liz Chaney?

It remains to be seen whether she could even win a statewide primary in Wyoming, let alone a national Republican primary for president. Doesn't seem likely.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

President Liz Chaney?

It remains to be seen whether she could even win a statewide primary in Wyoming, let alone a national Republican primary for president. Doesn't seem likely.

At first, nobody thought Trump could be elected president, either. Ron Desantis or Liz Cheney? Word is that Greg Abbott of Texas has not ruled out running in 2024. If Trump gets article 18'd, 2024 is going to get insane.

 

[Copernicus]

President Liz Chaney?

It remains to be seen whether she could even win a statewide primary in Wyoming, let alone a national Republican primary for president. Doesn't seem likely.

At first, nobody thought Trump could be elected president, either. Ron Desantis or Liz Cheney? Word is that Greg Abbott of Texas has not ruled out running in 2024. If Trump gets article 18'd, 2024 is going to get insane.

That's true, but most people that nobody thinks could be elected president don't, in fact, get elected president. Trump was an outlier.

 

[ZiprHead]

President Liz Chaney?

Never happen. Her career is done for.

 

[marc]

President Liz Chaney?

Never happen. Her career is done for.

Yea, her only hope is if the party woke up from The delusions that Trump had any redeeming qualities, and that FOX, OAN, etc had any credibility. Not seeing that happening any time this decade.

her work with the Jan 6 hearings just make me think of the movie The Rocketeer. For most of the movie mobsters are trying to steal the jet pack. They get it, but stop when they learn the people that paid them to get it are Nazis. “I’m a crook, but I’m an American crook”, then help the FBI in a shootout with the Nazis.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of careers being done for, so is Cassidy Hutchinson's. She'll probably need personal protection for a very long time.

 

[Arctish]

Two former White House aides say top Secret Service official defending Trump on Jan. 6 has history of lying

Anthony Ornato has repeatedly disputed key White House conversations

Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t the only one whose version of events Ornato has disputed. It’s now happened publicly at least three times — with at least one person saying he lied, but another vouching for him.​

 

[Toni]

President Liz Chaney?

Never happen. Her career is done for.

Eh, I'm not counting her out. I'm sure her blood runs every bit as cold as her dad's does. If she is able to genuinely appeal to Democratic voters to vote for her, proving that she has a broader appeal than traditional non-psycho republicans, she has a chance. GOP likes to win and they like money. Trump is proving to be toxic.

 

[Bronzeage]

The latest round of hearings has become an interesting exercise in set theory. We have the set of people who requested a pardon, the set of those who claim they did not request a pardon, and a third set of those that White House staff thought should request a pardon. When it's all sorted out, we will see the subsets defined by the intersections and unions of all the sets.

In the meantime, the main argument put forth by Trump supporters follows a central theme, which can be stated as. "the committee and all its staff are stupid."

It would be incredibly stupid to bring out a witness such as Hutchinson, without corroborating her testimony. A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents. If the agents were so frank with her, what are the odds they didn't tell the same story to someone else? There will be other people who can testify, "Yeah, he told me the same thing." If the agents claim Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel and did not wrestle with his body guard, the next question is, why did you lie to so many people about it?

Side note: Secret Service training for handling the President in public is pretty specific. When a threat appears, such as a gun in the crowd, some agents are tasked with moving the President to safety and others are tasked with getting between the President and the gun. This is just for the sight of a gun. The Secret Service knew there were uncountable numbers of guns in the crowd. Taking the President into that situation could easily be interpreted as the set up for an assassination attempt. After the smoke clears, the first question would be, why did you let the President be exposed to so many gun?

There's really no way it could end without considerable casualties for civilians and agents alike.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

With Trump loudly braying he would march with the crowd to the capitol, that would be an open invitation to would be assassins. An invitation for a Squeaky Fromm moment.

 

[Patooka]

A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents.

I don't see how Secret Service can testify without compromising the organisation. Rightly or wrongly, their job is to protect the life and image of the President. Putting them in a spot where they hang shit on the President would lead to some unintended consequences.

As much as I dislike using sporting metaphors, I suspect Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the car was the first unforced error this committee has made so far. You only have to look at how Lumpenproliteriat leaped at the opportunity to tar the entire findings of this hearing to see how magatards will respond to this.

 

[Arctish]

As much as I dislike using sporting metaphors, I suspect Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the car was the first unforced error this committee has made so far. You only have to look at how Lumpenproliteriat leaped at the opportunity to tar the entire findings of this hearing to see how magatards will respond to this.

I don't think it was an error. I think it was a necessary component of the case.

Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.

 

[Patooka]

Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.

And all of that is now overshadowed by this bullshit drama about what happened in the Beast. I mean, this isn't a trial but still you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to in a setting like this.

 

[Arctish]

Hutchinson attested to Trump's knowledge that some people in the crowd had weapons, that he wanted the magnetometers taken away so that more armed persons could join the crowd, and that Trump was determined to lead armed protesters to the Capitol and play a leading role in the insurrection. If her testimony is corroborated then Trump and his closest advisors will be directly implicated in plotting sedition.

And all of that is now overshadowed by this bullshit drama about what happened in the Beast. I mean, this isn't a trial but still you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to in a setting like this.

I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.

 

[Patooka]

I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.

Ask what happened and what was said at the rally. Don't ask what Hutchinson heard about what might have happened in the car. That provides a far more compelling narrative. Then have the testimony of a DC cop stating what the gun laws are in Washington. The limo story then becomes incidental.

Just so we're clear, I don't see this as a deal breaker. It's just odd something that would be obviously challenged was asked when every other facet of these hearings has been managed with such precision. I guess it stands out all the more because of that.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think they could have avoided it. You can't establish Trump's intent without talking about his tantrum.

Ask what happened and what was said at the rally. Don't ask what Hutchinson heard about what might have happened in the car. That provides a far more compelling narrative. Then have the testimony of a DC cop stating what the gun laws are in Washington. The limo story then becomes incidental.

Just so we're clear, I don't see this as a deal breaker. It's just odd something that would be obviously challenged was asked when every other facet of these hearings has been managed with such precision. I guess it stands out all the more because of that.

But everyone is talking about trump's tantrum in the car that he threw like a little baby. That's worth something.

 

[Patooka]

But everyone is talking about trump's tantrum in the car that he threw like a little baby. That's worth something.

I'd argue it allows obfuscation like this to occur. And if that's the case, the 80 million US citizens who didn't vote in 2020 are just going to dismiss this as some both sides bullshit. Everybody else I suspect made their minds up long ago.

I don't even need to look to guess what FOX, Newsmax, RSBN etc are going to be doing this week. They can now say, "Look at this bullshit story that can't be corroborated! If they're lying about that they must be lying about everything else!" Once that narrative takes a life of its own the whole hearing it tainted with partisan politics. Kinda like how certain so and soes believed Mueller was allowed to investigate Trump, or Hugo Chavez stole the election.

I suspect everybody believes it happened. But because the committee didn't cross all their t's and dot their i's and bring receipts it's an easy win for all the Tucker Carlsons to blow smoke up everyone's arse. And obfuscation is something they are incredibly competent at doing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The latest round of hearings has become an interesting exercise in set theory. We have the set of people who requested a pardon, the set of those who claim they did not request a pardon, and a third set of those that White House staff thought should request a pardon. When it's all sorted out, we will see the subsets defined by the intersections and unions of all the sets.

In the meantime, the main argument put forth by Trump supporters follows a central theme, which can be stated as. "the committee and all its staff are stupid."

It would be incredibly stupid to bring out a witness such as Hutchinson, without corroborating her testimony. A good part of Hutchinson's testimony was recitation of conversations with other people, notably the secret service agents. If the agents were so frank with her, what are the odds they didn't tell the same story to someone else? There will be other people who can testify, "Yeah, he told me the same thing." If the agents claim Trump did not try to grab the steering wheel and did not wrestle with his body guard, the next question is, why did you lie to so many people about it?

I think the issue is that the Secret Service isn't going to come out and say this in public first. Getting Hutchinson to testify first might be the catalyst that allows them professional courtesy to testify in a manner that isn't very common.

Side note: Secret Service training for handling the President in public is pretty specific. When a threat appears, such as a gun in the crowd, some agents are tasked with moving the President to safety and others are tasked with getting between the President and the gun. This is just for the sight of a gun. The Secret Service knew there were uncountable numbers of guns in the crowd. Taking the President into that situation could easily be interpreted as the set up for an assassination attempt. After the smoke clears, the first question would be, why did you let the President be exposed to so many gun?

There's really no way it could end without considerable casualties for civilians and agents alike.

No kidding. The security of the President in that crowd would have been impossible. I doubt very much they even planned to go to the Capitol, so not only would it have been unsecured, it'd been entirely unplanned and unscouted. So there was no way in heck they'd take him there. The Secret Services's technical regard to his safety, might have saved dozens to hundreds of lives. As if the crowds were more emboldened by him being there, the armed staff would have been opening fire in multiple locations when the mob got too close to the areas that the armed guard would not let fall.

 

[Swammerdami]

Unlike most of her ilk, Liz Cheney is very intelligent and has no obvious psychiatric disorder. But she is still a hard-core right-winger.

President Liz Chaney?

• Cheney supported her father's War on Iraq, and still believes the lie about Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
• Cheney opposes the no-first-use nuclear policy.
• Cheney has supported the use of torture.
• Cheney refused to denounce adherents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
• Cheney gave the keynote address at a dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, a conspiracy/hate group led by anti-Muslim hater Frank Gaffney.
• Cheney opposed same-sex marriage.
• Cheney opposed environmentalists.
• Cheney opposes abortion, and recently praised SCOTUS for overturning Roe v Wade.
• Cheney voted the Trump line 93% of the time, much higher than many GOP Congresscritters. In 2019, according to the New York Times, Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

With lots of new witnesses stepping forth to testify, expect new details, cooberations and denials. And subpeonas, and demands for records and materials. Who was driving when Trump had his tantrum? Records will show that. Do SS agents have to officially report such incidents to superiors for later CYA purposes? Do written reports exist? Who else besides the SS driver witnessed this?

 

[Politesse]

I honestly do not understand why everyone is obsessing over the wheel-grabbing part and not the insurrection against the government part.

 

[Elixir]

Unlike most of her ilk, Liz Cheney is very intelligent and has no obvious psychiatric disorder. But she is still a hard-core right-winger.

President Liz Chaney?

• Cheney supported her father's War on Iraq, and still believes the lie about Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
• Cheney opposes the no-first-use nuclear policy.
• Cheney has supported the use of torture.
• Cheney refused to denounce adherents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
• Cheney gave the keynote address at a dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, a conspiracy/hate group led by anti-Muslim hater Frank Gaffney.
• Cheney opposed same-sex marriage.
• Cheney opposed environmentalists.
• Cheney opposes abortion, and recently praised SCOTUS for overturning Roe v Wade.
• Cheney voted the Trump line 93% of the time, much higher than many GOP Congresscritters. In 2019, according to the New York Times, Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier".

But her daddy did try to blow the face off another RW operative, right? Points for that.

 

[ZiprHead]