Jan 6 Hearings

[Lucidus]

(06-30-2022, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, one would certainly think so.  But I also never underestimate the capability of a politician to completely screw the pooch on even the simplest matter.  As we've discussed, it will be interesting to see if these agents are willing, and then allowed, to testify themselves.

Agree on both points.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-30-2022, 06:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is not a difficult concept.  If she's falsifying testimony or even repeating inaccurate information it throws the validity of everything she testifies to into question.  You're clearly a person who wants to get to the truth of what happened, you should be as upset about this as anyone.



Uhh, they're Secret Service agents, they joined to protect the POTUS, which btw is a high tier position in the agency.  Notice I said the POTUS, not Trump.  Unless you have some evidence they are compromised by some undying loyalty to Trump the default position is that they are not Trump loyalists.  Or are you asking for me to prove they are not?  Because that would be silly.

Wow, you're delusional. Why quote everything when you're going to ignore most of it? What are you afraid of?

Did she convince the DC police to lie about "an elevated threat in the trees" about a guy in the trees with a gun?
Did she convince the DC police to lie and alert people about three guys walking down the street with AR-15s?
And you skipped these
Plenty of people are backing up her credibility . . . anybody backing up Ornato?


When are you going to comment on Trump knowing there were armed people in the crowd and still went on stage? I haven't seen that yet. Lots of deflection with penny ante bullshit, though.

Before Trump, has a President ever been told "Mr President, there are people here that are armed and will not surrender their weapons" and he still went on stage? 

No comment on how Trump knew the crowd was armed and sent them down to the Capitol?

Divert away.

[Lucidus]

Jamie Raskin has now stated that anyone wishing to refute Ms. Hutchinson will be free to do so under oath.

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2022, 07:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Jamie Raskin has now stated that anyone wishing to refute Ms. Hutchinson will be free to do so under oath.

Oh man, I bet Trump puts down his phone and puts his hand on that there Bibble.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 07:28 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Wow, you're delusional. Why quote everything when you're going to ignore most of it? What are you afraid of?

Did she convince the DC police to lie about "an elevated threat in the trees" about a guy in the trees with a gun?
Did she convince the DC police to lie and alert people about three guys walking down the street with AR-15s?
And you skipped these
Plenty of people are backing up her credibility . . . anybody backing up Ornato?


When are you going to comment on Trump knowing there were armed people in the crowd and still went on stage? I haven't seen that yet. Lots of deflection with penny ante bullshit, though.

Before Trump, has a President ever been told "Mr President, there are people here that are armed and will not surrender their weapons" and he still went on stage? 

No comment on how Trump knew the crowd was armed and sent them down to the Capitol?

Divert away.

Dude, you're so highly partisan any deviation from what you believe to be an acceptable response to these hearings is labeled extremist.  But since you're so anxious, kindly point me in the direction of these stories so I can get up to speed 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-30-2022, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, you're so highly partisan any deviation from what you believe to be an acceptable response to these hearings is labeled extremist.  But since you're so anxious, kindly point me in the direction of these stories so I can get up to speed 

Like I said . . . delusional.

You accuse me of being partisan yet you have no idea of the armed Trumpists?

Wow.

[Bengalzona]

(06-30-2022, 08:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh man, I bet Trump puts down his phone and puts his hand on that there Bibble.

Why? To wipe the ketchup off?

[Bengalzona]

(06-30-2022, 07:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Jamie Raskin has now stated that anyone wishing to refute Ms. Hutchinson will be free to do so under oath.

Yeah. Well, apparently most of the people who are critical have some sort of strange aversion to swearing on the Bible, taking the stand, and setting the record straight.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 10:15 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Like I said . . . delusional.

You accuse me of being partisan yet you have no idea of the armed Trumpists?

Wow.

I asked you to direct me to sources confirming a "person in a tree with a gun" and "three men walking down the street open carrying AR15's."  Can you not do so?  Are you not trying to inform others on this issue?  Or is your entire scheme to post inane babble on an internet message board so you can go to bed feeling good about yourself for a change?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-01-2022, 02:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I asked you to direct me to sources confirming a "person in a tree with a gun" and "three men walking down the street open carrying AR15's."  Can you not do so?  Are you not trying to inform others on this issue?  Or is your entire scheme to post inane babble on an internet message board so you can go to bed feeling good about yourself for a change?

Really? It bothers you when you ask someone a question and they don't answer them? 

What does that say about your posting style? Hate hypocrites, huh?

If you bothered to watch the hearing, instead of spending so much time trying to muddy the waters, you wouldn't come across as so clueless on this topic and probably wouldn't have posted so much bullshit.

The police audio starts around 1:06:30 but listen to the lead up from the time stamp, which should be around the 1:01:00 mark. Most of the relevant testimony is before the 1:15:00 mark but there is still so much for you to learn after that, so, you're welcome for that.





Now, you can go back answer my questions or are you not able to do so?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2022, 03:29 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Really? It bothers you when you ask someone a question and they don't answer them?

It would if it was intentional and repeated.  I already explained why I didn't answer.  Plus I find you to be one of our less reputable posters, so I'm generally not interested in conversing with you much on any subject. 

Quote:What does that say about your posting style? Hate hypocrites, huh?

I love that you think you're setting some clever logic trap here.

Quote:If you bothered to watch the hearing, instead of spending so much time trying to muddy the waters, you wouldn't come across as so clueless on this topic and probably wouldn't have posted so much bullshit.

I honestly have zero interest in this other than any concrete conclusions that it arrives at.  I also find it to be deliberate political theatre.  If it arrives at said conclusion based on solid evidence then I'm absolutely game to hear it.

Quote:The police audio starts around 1:06:30 but listen to the lead up from the time stamp, which should be around the 1:01:00 mark. Most of the relevant testimony is before the 1:15:00 mark but there is still so much for you to learn after that, so, you're welcome for that.

I'll start off by saying it's interesting how your side's opinions on law enforcement change completely depending on the situation.  In this instance, for you, they're unimpeachable experts.  Another incident and they're jack booted thugs who exist to hurt and kill minorities.  That being said, I listened to that section for you.

Quote:Now, you can go back answer my questions or are you not able to do so?

Which specific ones?  You've been frothing at the mouth about a lot of different things, so you'll have to be specific.  Feel free to make it easy on yourself and just CTRL-C / CTRL-V.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-01-2022, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would if it was intentional and repeated.  I already explained why I didn't answer.  Plus I find you to be one of our less reputable posters, so I'm generally not interested in conversing with you much on any subject. 

LOL

If only I could live up to your fake persona. I love how you paint yourself as this 'hero of the forum'. Looked around, saw that there weren't enough conservative voices in a forum of a team that you claim to not root for, so you coupled that with getting butthurt by Democrats decisions and you decided to convert to the other side, just for conversation purposes only of course, to keep the forum . .  balanced or some kind of bullshit like that.

Quote:I love that you think you're setting some clever logic trap here.

I'm not the first person in this forum in the last month to call you a hypocrite. Just sayin'.

Quote:I honestly have zero interest in this other than any concrete conclusions that it arrives at.  I also find it to be deliberate political theatre.  If it arrives at said conclusion based on solid evidence then I'm absolutely game to hear it.

You didn't need solid evidence in a rush to attempt to dismiss her credibility, did you? You leapt at the first bit you could find. Can you begin to see why people call you a hypocrite?

Quote:I'll start off by saying it's interesting how your side's opinions on law enforcement change completely depending on the situation. 

And you'll start off by wrongly accusing me of being a Democrat.

Again.

I'm an Independent. I disliked both sides equally until about 20 years ago when the Republicans became more and more fascist. It bothers me to say good things about Democrats but they're the only ones fashioning Democracy right now, unless of course, you can prove otherwise. I started a thread after Jan 6th where I stated I would vote for Larry Hogan over Biden and I don't think Biden had even been sworn in yet. Hardly a partisan position in this climate.

I don't recall you mentioning any Democrats that you would vote for, in fact, you've proven to be quite adamantly against that, so don't be so quick to assign someone a side when you want to paint yourself as non-partial because you are much further from center than I am. And most of my posts in here are after Jan 6th. I don't know of many good Republican deeds in the last year to sway me back in their favor so, yeah. My posts in the last 18 months will favor the party that pushes Democracy. 

Quote: In this instance, for you, they're unimpeachable experts.  

No, in this instance, I was pointing out that the police knew, and the Secret Service knew that rally goers were armed. It's hard to spoon feed someone that insists on sticking their head in the sand.

Quote:Another incident and they're jack booted thugs who exist to hurt and kill minorities.  That being said, I listened to that section for you.

*sigh*
See above.

Quote:Which specific ones?  You've been frothing at the mouth about a lot of different things, so you'll have to be specific.  Feel free to make it easy on yourself and just CTRL-C / CTRL-V.

Nah, I've done enough of your legwork for you. You're a big boy. Scroll up six or seven posts and show off your clip and paste skills.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2022, 01:32 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: LOL

If only I could live up to your fake persona. I love how you paint yourself as this 'hero of the forum'. Looked around, saw that there weren't enough conservative voices in a forum of a team that you claim to not root for, so you coupled that with getting butthurt by Democrats decisions and you decided to convert to the other side, just for conversation purposes only of course, to keep the forum . .  balanced or some kind of bullshit like that.

A highly disingenuous framing of what I said in that regard, which is typical of you.  I gave my personal opinion of you as a poster; that you are hyperbolic, hyper-partisan, prone to hysteria and you do not debate in good faith.  I can't help that you're projecting your own inadequacies unto me.

Quote:I'm not the first person in this forum in the last month to call you a hypocrite. Just sayin'.

Indeed?  Do tell who are these "others?"  I'm sure, if they exist at all, they'll be highly worthy members of our community.

Quote:You didn't need solid evidence in a rush to attempt to dismiss her credibility, did you? You leapt at the first bit you could find. Can you begin to see why people call you a hypocrite?

No, because your example does not lend itself to that conclusion.  I posted a source that contradicted her testimony, nothing more.  I also raised concerns about what these contradictions, if true, meant for this entire hearing.  Again, I can't help your projections and inability to comprehend a nuanced argument.  No one else seems to be experiencing the same disconnect as yourself.

Quote:And you'll start off by wrongly accusing me of being a Democrat.

Again.

Did I say Democrat?  I likely said leftist.  Regardless, that's my opinion.  I don't know you, nor would I ever care to.  But I'll take you at your word in this regard.

Quote:I'm an Independent. I disliked both sides equally until about 20 years ago when the Republicans became more and more fascist. It bothers me to say good things about Democrats but they're the only ones fashioning Democracy right now, unless of course, you can prove otherwise. I started a thread after Jan 6th where I stated I would vote for Larry Hogan over Biden and I don't think Biden had even been sworn in yet. Hardly a partisan position in this climate.

LOL, fascist.  The word has been so overused it's literally lost all meaning aside from "anyone the left disagrees with."  It doesn't shock me that you'd use it so glibly.

Quote:I don't recall you mentioning any Democrats that you would vote for, in fact, you've proven to be quite adamantly against that, so don't be so quick to assign someone a side when you want to paint yourself as non-partial because you are much further from center than I am. And most of my posts in here are after Jan 6th. I don't know of many good Republican deeds in the last year to sway me back in their favor so, yeah. My posts in the last 18 months will favor the party that pushes Democracy. 

Well, I voted for Clinton in '96, Gore in '00, Kerry in '04, Obama in '08, and Obama in '12.  In local races I have voted for numerous Democrats, although that has, admittedly largely tapered off in the past six years or so as the party in CA becomes ever more extreme.  Did you mean aside from those myriad instances?

Quote:No, in this instance, I was pointing out that the police knew, and the Secret Service knew that rally goers were armed. It's hard to spoon feed someone that insists on sticking their head in the sand.
*sigh*
See above.

You're actually reporting what the police reported.  If you'd paid attention some of those instances were BOLO's given out based on civilian reports.  Regardless, I've addressed that.

Quote:Nah, I've done enough of your legwork for you. You're a big boy. Scroll up six or seven posts and show off your clip and paste skills.

So you don't want me to answer your questions?  As I've said, you've posted numerous rambling diatribes in this thread.  I'm not sure which pile of garbage you want me to poke through.  Unless you're interested in posting your specific questions I think we're done here.  But, in my line of work I'm used to certain types of people needing to have the last word, so please feel free.  

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-01-2022, 01:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A highly disingenuous framing of what I said in that regard, which is typical of you.  I gave my personal opinion of you as a poster; that you are hyperbolic, hyper-partisan, prone to hysteria and you do not debate in good faith.  I can't help that you're projecting your own inadequacies unto me.

Hilarious. 

I had a boss explain this to a co-worker that complained about how I spoke to her in an argument. "I've worked with him for 12 years. He's like a mirror. He just reflects what he's given. If you're cool with him, he's going to be cool with you, even if you disagree. If you walk away from a conversation with him thinking 'That guy's a snarky asshole', I've got some news for you . . ."

Quote: Indeed?  Do tell who are these "others?"  I'm sure, if they exist at all, they'll be highly worthy members of our community.

I'm not digging through a month of your interactions to find a couple of lines of what I read

Quote:Did I say Democrat?  I likely said leftist.  Regardless, that's my opinion.  I don't know you, nor would I ever care to.  But I'll take you at your word in this regard.

You said your side. Then went on attacking a stereotype I've never shown, here or in real life. And what a coincidence, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to know you either.

Quote:LOL, fascist.  The word has been so overused it's literally lost all meaning aside from "anyone the left disagrees with."  It doesn't shock me that you'd use it so glibly.

Well, where there's smoke . . . and again, I'm in the middle observing the left moving further left and the right moving waaay further right. Which side tends to favor fascism again? Is it the right or left? When the Patriot Act made it possible for cops to pull people over for no reason other than looking suspicious, I looked at Republicans quite differently after that.

Quote:Well, I voted for Clinton in '96, Gore in '00, Kerry in '04, Obama in '08, and Obama in '12.  In local races I have voted for numerous Democrats, although that has, admittedly largely tapered off in the past six years or so as the party in CA becomes ever more extreme.  Did you mean aside from those myriad instances?

Wow.


You've voted Democrat far more than I have. I'd be offended is something called me that much of a Democrat.


I've been voting less Republican because of maga era rhetoric. Like I said, if Hogan wins the Republican primary . . .

Quote:You're actually reporting what the police reported.  If you'd paid attention some of those instances were BOLO's given out based on civilian reports.  Regardless, I've addressed that.

This is exactly the deflecting posting style of yours that is so ***** frustrating.


You go out of your way to point out that SOME of these are merely civilian reports, you even pointed out that you addressed it, so we are to just move on with the discredit


WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING THE ONES THAT WEREN'T


And just an FYI, DC is not an open-carry district.

Quote:So you don't want me to answer your questions? 

Plenty of people are backing up her credibility . . . anybody backing up Ornato?


When are you going to comment on Trump knowing there were armed people in the crowd and still went on stage? I haven't seen that yet. Lots of deflection with penny ante bullshit, though.

Before Trump, has a President ever been told "Mr President, there are people here that are armed and will not surrender their weapons" and he still went on stage? 

No comment on how Trump knew the crowd was armed and sent them down to the Capitol?




You are so quick to help spread info and discuss what the Trump side is denying, on a topic that you supposedly don't care about, yet won't acknowledge all of the detailed stuff she said under oath that they are not disputing. Is that good faith debating?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-29-2022, 09:35 AM)Sled21 Wrote: HA!!!! Boy this post didn't age well. The Secret Service agents announced they are willing to testify she is completely lying. You think they will be called to testify????? What a side show....

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/secret-service-sources-reportedly-bolster-hutchinsons-testimony-rcna36405


The former president has subsequently insisted that there was no such skirmish, but CNN’s sources said stories about incident — including the details Hutchinson described in her sworn testimony — circulated among Secret Service agents early last year. From the network’s report:

Quote:While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson’s testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony. Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as “demanding” and that the former President said something similar to: “I’m the f**king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.” The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.

CNN’s report added that the same unnamed source said he’d heard about the incident multiple times as far back as February 2021 from other agents, including some who were part of the presidential protective detail during that time period but none of whom were involved in the incident.

It would appear that the right’s desperate efforts to undermine Hutchinson’s credibility have just suffered another blow.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-secret-service-hutchinson-testimony-b2114153.html



Investigative reporter Hunter Walker, who was covering the White House for Yahoo! News during the January 6 attack, took to Twitter to report that another source, this one with the DC Metropolitan Police Department, had told him a similar story to what Ms Hutchinson said.


“Back in April, a law enforcement source told me that they heard DC Metropolitan Police officers affiliated with the presidential motorcade share a story of Trump demanding to be drive to the Capitol and getting into an altercation with Secret Service on January 6,” he wrote. “I heard this story months before Cassidy Hutchinson went public with these allegations. I believed the story to be credible at the time because of the source”.

[Belsnickel]

Hutchinson's testimony was problematic for both sides of this conversation. It detailed events in a way that could make Trump's words/actions on January 6th open to incitement charges. It's not likely, but the evidence could be there. It is, however, problematic for those looking to prosecute Trump because of some of the counter claims as well as her constant use of "to the effect of." These things do open up doubt.

However, they could be enough for a grand jury investigation if the DoJ had the willpower to do it. Such an investigation could result in subpoenas of folks that would have more teeth to them, would be done in private, and would be more likely to get at the facts of the events. I don't foresee this happening, but this is what the political theater we are seeing unfold is aiming for.

Now, the motorcade thing may be inaccurate, I don't know. I honestly don't care at all about it. She was retelling something that was told to her, which in a court could be considered hearsay and inadmissible. That story wasn't the one that was really an issue for me, though. The conversation about the metal detectors was the thing that really jumped out to me. That Trump knew, and possibly encouraged people in the crowd to be armed, then sent them to the Capitol could absolutely be evidence for incitement of violence that would make even political speech become unprotected. Hutchinson's testimony on this was based on her first hand knowledge, i.e. not hearsay.

[samhain]

Not totally relevant, but stemming directly from this subject: how absolutely stupid was Donald Trump as a president and human being?

I get that he was under the impression that the armed protestors were all "his people" and that they weren't there to cause him harm, but how the hell could he be sure enough of that to take the risk of letting them past security?

The MAGA movement had no way of knowing who everyone was in the throng of protestors, and it would be far from impossible for a person who hated the president (and there was no shortage of people that hated him), to dress the part, get a weapon, and work their way into the crowd and get a shot off. Yes, it would be suicide, but the political climate was hostile enough to produce the kind of person that would commit to that sort of action.

This was not an intelligent or rational president.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2022, 11:45 AM)samhain Wrote: This was not an intelligent or rational president.

The rational part is the biggest issue with him. He is not a rational actor a lot of the time. This was what threw our alliances into turmoil.

[GMDino]

Gosh darn it, the SS just forgot to back up the texts from just those two days, Jan 5-6, when they reset their phones.

I mean, what a weird coincidence?!?! Right?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/19/secret-service-one-text-message-january-6-committee

But don't fear!  They are investigating themselves!  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2022, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Gosh darn it, the SS just forgot to back up the texts from just those two days, Jan 5-6, when they reset their phones.

I mean, what a weird coincidence?!?! Right?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/19/secret-service-one-text-message-january-6-committee

But don't fear!  They are investigating themselves!  

Is deleted shit suspicious now?