International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Jan 6 Investigation (2) (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359948)

The Great Zaganza 29th June 2022 02:58 AM

The Jan 6 Investigation (2)
 
Trump freaking out when his last, best chance to stay President was snatched away from him, when his underlings refuse to obey his orders?
That's not a stretch.

Upchurch 29th June 2022 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13843913)
I cannot think of anything more disgustng then using Ketchup on a really good steak.

I mean, a sitting President wanting to personally join an armed coup and expressly being okay if his VP becomes a casualty might top that…

Crazy Chainsaw 29th June 2022 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13844211)
I mean, a sitting President wanting to personally join an armed coup and expressly being okay if his VP becomes a casualty might top that…

The original plan, was to have a Riot in Washington between Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, VS BLM, Antifa, but BLM listened to reason and didn't show, that ClusterFed Trump's plans, and that's clear from the fact that his people didn't tip off the FBI days ahead of the 6th!
There were no Heroes in that White House only Prople Trying to save their own Butts.

varwoche 29th June 2022 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13843694)
Why let those crooks off when as it turns out there are probably lots of 'staffers' who were witness to the debacle?

I didn't say they should be let off. John Dean was indicted, he flipped, and he went to jail.

Regnad Kcin 29th June 2022 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13844157)
Peter Alexander Chief White House Correspondent for NBC tweeted
Quote:

@PeterAlexander
A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.

If they can credibly counter any one of her statements, everything will be in doubt.

The Great Zaganza 29th June 2022 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 13844234)
If they can credibly counter any one of her statements, everything will be in doubt.

It's incredibly unlikely that any SS agents will testify - which what the Trumpers are counting on.

Crossbow 29th June 2022 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike! (Post 13844020)
Pity SNL is on summer break. A cold open and Weekend Update would have a Field Day with this stuff.

Thanks much!

I was thinking about the same thing myself.

For example, does anyone else recall the skits involving 'Toonces. The cat who can drive a car (just not very well)'?

Just think of the comedy involving Toonces driving around a freaked-out Trump around in the Presidential limousine during the January 6 insurrection.

:biggrin:

Skeptic Ginger 29th June 2022 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13844111)
Brett Baer on Faux News last night
[snipped for space]
Even Faux News is having trouble handwaving all this away!

Baer has been more truthful for quite a while. The usual suspects are still blathering on. Hannity, Pirro, and Bartiloma were on a panel just yesterday downplaying the cred of Hutchinson. I only watched a minute or so of it.

Athyrio 29th June 2022 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13844249)
It's incredibly unlikely that any SS agents will testify - which what the Trumpers are counting on.


Reportedly, Anthony Ornato has already testified before the committee. I would really like to hear what he has had to say.

Donal 29th June 2022 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 13844234)
If they can credibly counter any one of her statements, everything will be in doubt.

They've already given video depositions. I would like to think that a team of lawyers wouldn't bring up that anecdote if the people directly involved were all going to deny it under oath.

Athyrio 29th June 2022 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donal (Post 13844294)
They've already given video depositions. I would like to think that a team of lawyers wouldn't bring up that anecdote if the people directly involved were all going to deny it under oath.


But, did the commission know about Hutchinson's comments re: the antics she was told about happened in the vehicle beforehand in order to ask the SS questions about it?

I don't care about Trump's backseat driving behaviour or that he assaulted a wall with his lunch plate. He's not going to be prosecuted for that. I want to hear from anybody else that was involved in or within earshot to the conversation re: weapons being toted to the Capitol and being ok'd by Trump. Hutchinson seems to have a good memory. Maybe she can suggest some names of others who were also present at that and perhaps they can be subpoenaed or be willing to testify as to such.

crescent 29th June 2022 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13844166)
I don't think Trump would have lunged for anything. I doubt he is even aware of how a car works, having been driven around for most of his life. Is there an pic of him behind thee wheel of anything other than a golf cart?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13844175)
Trump freaking out when his last, best chance to stay President was snatched away from him, when his underlings refuse to obey his orders?
That's not a stretch.

It's not clear if the vehicle was moving yet. Was just grabbing the wheel to try to prevent them from getting going?

I could see that, the sort of arrogant boss thing: Grab the wheel. "We'll move when I say we'll move!"

Although that might be unusual. I have the impression is that when the President is in a vehicle, it moves. In most videos I have seen, the door opens almost as soon as the car stops and the President hops out. When the President gets in, the vehicle is moving almost as soon as the door is shut.

shemp 29th June 2022 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 13844265)
Thanks much!

I was thinking about the same thing myself.

For example, does anyone else recall the skits involving 'Toonces. The cat who can drive a car (just not very well)'?

Just think of the comedy involving Toonces driving around a freaked-out Trump around in the Presidential limousine during the January 6 insurrection.

:biggrin:

But only if it ends the way that all Toonces skits did, with Toonces driving off a cliff.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

sarge 29th June 2022 08:09 AM

The Jan 6 Investigation (2)
 
Mod InfoThread continued from here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=353105


Posted By:sarge

Crossbow 29th June 2022 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13844335)
But only if it ends the way that all Toonces skits did, with Toonces driving off a cliff.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Well, ...

One can hope for such an ending.

;)

Bob001 29th June 2022 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 13844234)
If they can credibly counter any one of her statements, everything will be in doubt.

Not necessarily. She has testified about what she personally experienced and observed, and also about what others told her. If somebody told her something that turned out to be untrue, her account of the conversation could still be correct. And I think if the SS testify, they're going to be doing some fine parsing: "He may have gestured toward the front of the vehicle to indicate which way he wanted to go, but I don't recall him touching the wheel." "Yes, he did put his hand on my chest, but I thought he was just straightening my tie." Etc.

Captain_Swoop 29th June 2022 10:28 AM

Can the SS be trusted though?

They knew people were armed and just let them march to the Capitol, they didn't inform the Capitol Police, FBI, Homeland Security or the DC Police.
They didn’t take Trump away to a secure location, they knew there was no threat to him.

Pence refused to get in their car, he knew part of the SS was in on it and didn't trust them.
It looks like the SS picked a side that day and Pence was on the wrong one.

Biden replaced some assigned to him with the guys from his old SS detail that he knew he could trust.

slyjoe 29th June 2022 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athyrio (Post 13844274)
Reportedly, Anthony Ornato has already testified before the committee. I would really like to hear what he has had to say.

From what I understand, he was not working as a SS agent, nor employed by them. Trump liked him; he was officially some Asst Deputy something.

Athyrio 29th June 2022 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13844429)
From what I understand, he was not working as a SS agent, nor employed by them. Trump liked him; he was officially some Asst Deputy something.

I have a different understanding from reading his bio. He is currently the Assistant Director of the United States Secret Service Office of Training. The bio goes on to say that he had recently been “detailed” to the White House as an Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

Doesn’t sound to me like his SS employment had ever terminated but regardless, I want to hear what he or any SS agent has said already or what they are about to say. I have serious doubts that any SS agent is going to spill the beans on a President’s inappropriate behaviour if they desire for their position to last longer than a presidential term.

The Great Zaganza 29th June 2022 11:32 AM

Since Clinton, SS agents do have to testify about a President’s inappropriate behaviour, if called upon.

Athyrio 29th June 2022 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13844460)
Since Clinton, SS agents do have to testify about a President’s inappropriate behaviour, if called upon.

Testify - yes.

Tell the truth ……?

dudalb 29th June 2022 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13844211)
I mean, a sitting President wanting to personally join an armed coup and expressly being okay if his VP becomes a casualty might top that…

It's called humor, guy. A lot of people in this thread seem to be deficient in that.

stanfr 29th June 2022 01:06 PM

As powerful and damning as Hutchinson's testimony was, much of it was hearsay and it would be relatively harmless in a criminal case. That concerns me, they really need someone like Cipollone to come to the plate.

For example (one of many) CNN and other MM outlets are headlining things like "Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

Very outrageous and incriminating, if it were true. Of course, it is patently false.
Hutchinson testified that Cippolone said "He thinks Mike deserves it"
Not only is this classic hearsay (inadmissible evidence) but it is not even Trump saying "Pence deserves to be hung" it is simply Cipollone's *interpretation* of what Trump *thinks*
Not at all what was reported by CNN and others.
Useless evidence.
And a lot of the other testimony was hearsay too, that was just the best example of it.

They need a Meadows or Eastman or someone closer to turn.

slyjoe 29th June 2022 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanfr (Post 13844513)
As powerful and damning as Hutchinson's testimony was, much of it was hearsay and it would be relatively harmless in a criminal case. That concerns me, they really need someone like Cipollone to come to the plate.

For example (one of many) CNN and other MM outlets are headlining things like "Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

Very outrageous and incriminating, if it were true. Of course, it is patently false.
Hutchinson testified that Cippolone said "He thinks Mike deserves it"
Not only is this classic hearsay (inadmissible evidence) but it is not even Trump saying "Pence deserves to be hung" it is simply Cipollone's *interpretation* of what Trump *thinks*
Not at all what was reported by CNN and others.
Useless evidence.
And a lot of the other testimony was hearsay too, that was just the best example of it.

They need a Meadows or Eastman or someone closer to turn.

Jim Jordan's talking points - it was hearsay. Jordan got schooled on Twitter about what is and isn't hearsay by Popehat.

Skeptic Ginger 29th June 2022 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 13844329)
It's not clear if the vehicle was moving yet. Was just grabbing the wheel to try to prevent them from getting going?

I could see that, the sort of arrogant boss thing: Grab the wheel. "We'll move when I say we'll move!"

Although that might be unusual. I have the impression is that when the President is in a vehicle, it moves. In most videos I have seen, the door opens almost as soon as the car stops and the President hops out. When the President gets in, the vehicle is moving almost as soon as the door is shut.

Sounds more likely to me. I don't think it was implied Drumpf planned to steer from the back seat. He was having a little tantrum because he had no way to get his way. It reminds me of a kid saying they were going to hold their breath until they die if they don't get their way.

Also if it hasn't been posted already: It was the Suburban SUV not the "Beast" limo.

Skeptic Ginger 29th June 2022 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13844414)
Not necessarily. She has testified about what she personally experienced and observed, and also about what others told her. If somebody told her something that turned out to be untrue, her account of the conversation could still be correct. And I think if the SS testify, they're going to be doing some fine parsing: "He may have gestured toward the front of the vehicle to indicate which way he wanted to go, but I don't recall him touching the wheel." "Yes, he did put his hand on my chest, but I thought he was just straightening my tie." Etc.

Some testimony may be discounted but we don't know if it was corroborated. But a lot of the testimony if countered then becomes he said/she said and she was bigly credible, probably the most credible ever in history. ;)


eta: In all the reports I've read about the SS denying the tantrum in the vehicle, it's all hearsay. I didn't see anything that purported to be the SS person talking to the media. Oh the irony!

smartcooky 29th June 2022 02:36 PM

Quote:

@PeterAlexander
A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So Peter Alexander is saying that an anonymous person told him that some other other person has told them something.

There is a term we use to describe such a statement. I wonder what that could be? ;)

shemp 29th June 2022 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13844564)
So Peter Alexander is saying that an anonymous person told him that some other other person has told them something.

There is a term we use to describe such a statement. I wonder what that could be? ;)

The term is "********."

mgidm86 29th June 2022 02:49 PM

The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.

Stacyhs 29th June 2022 02:54 PM

I do wish people would stop using "hung" when they mean "hanged". A picture is/was hung on a wall but a person is/was hanged. It's really not that difficult.

eerok 29th June 2022 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13844592)
I do wish people would stop using "hung" when they mean "hanged". A picture is/was hung on a wall but a person is/was hanged. It's really not that difficult.

For example, Trump might one day be well-hanged.

smartcooky 29th June 2022 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13844579)
The term is "********."


Nope, I've looked up "********" in Westlaw... it's not there! :D

acbytesla 29th June 2022 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13844584)
The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.

It's not like the limo thing refutes that the Trump administration didn't do everything in its power to overthrow an election. It's not that Trump not only encouraged the rioters to go to the Capitol to "stop the steal" and fight. It's not that Trump for hours and hours did nothing to discourage the rioters.

smartcooky 29th June 2022 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13844602)
For example, Trump might one day be well-hanged.

Testiculos habet, et est bene suspendum

Stacyhs 29th June 2022 03:32 PM

Well...it's not like this wasn't predicted:

Quote:

“I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,” Trump posted.

“Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news!” Trump added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ing-testimony/

Trump also claimed that Hutchinson changed lawyers a few days ago and then "her entire story changed".

Skeptic Ginger 29th June 2022 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13844617)
... Trump also claimed that Hutchinson changed lawyers a few days ago and then "her entire story changed".

That is now being reported as why the latest public hearing was held as opposed to Hutchinson being threatened. The threats have still happened.

The threats were stated as Hutchinson being told they knew she would do the right thing with the implication being the right thing was to lie for Drumpf.

dudalb 29th June 2022 03:38 PM

The attempts of the Trumpistas to attack Hutchinson have been pretty lame so far.

stanfr 29th June 2022 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13844534)
Jim Jordan's talking points - it was hearsay. Jordan got schooled on Twitter about what is and isn't hearsay by Popehat.

I don't know (or care) what Jordan said. What I quoted was definitely hearsay, as was quite a bit of her testimony. Some of it was not (her direct testimony about what T said)

smartcooky 29th June 2022 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanfr (Post 13844644)
I don't know (or care) what Jordan said. What I quoted was definitely hearsay, as was quite a bit of her testimony. Some of it was not (her direct testimony about what T said)

Not quite right. A person testifying to what someone told them is not always hearsay.

"Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

This IS hearsay if an attempt was made to use this is evidence against The Fat Orange Turd, but it is NOT hearsay if it were to be used against Mark Meadows.

There are also other hearsay exceptions in Section 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that may apply to some of what Ms Hutchinson said
Present Sense Impression.
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

Excited Utterance.

A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

Recorded Recollection. A record that:
- is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
- was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
- accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion if:
- the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
- the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
- making the record was a regular practice of that activity.

Reputation Concerning Character.

A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

dudalb 29th June 2022 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13844584)
The Right are just using the limo thing as a distraction, as we all know. Seriously...this is what they are going to defend after that testimony? Let them. It isn't worth discussing.

Baiscaly, calling the Hutchnson a liar, and the usual "We have evidence that will prove that...coming out any day now".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.