How can there be any less credibility than there was from the beginning? Everyone but the media and the smoothest of brains sees this as merely a political stunt.4th and Inches said:
It's impossible to overstate the damage that Hutchinson's testimony is doing to the legitimacy of the Jan 6th Committee
Tracking the commentary. Early Tuesday afternoon: Trump limo incident most explosive of J6 committee revelations. Tuesday night: Don't be distracted by limo incident. Other stuff more important.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 29, 2022
Suddenly this one seems so relevant...Cobretti said:Tracking the commentary. Early Tuesday afternoon: Trump limo incident most explosive of J6 committee revelations. Tuesday night: Don't be distracted by limo incident. Other stuff more important.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 29, 2022
It's amazing ... yesterday the media and Democrats were calling for anyone who worked for Trump to be barred from any corporate or public job ... today she's magically a credible national hero. The hypocrisy is strong.4th and Inches said:
The national news media has taken and run with a thus-far uncorroborated testimony from an unknown aide with a thin resume who offered mostly secondhand accounts of conversations and incidents and reported it as fact without any attempt to verify what she said. It would have been easy to at least confirm claims about rifles or dispute her description of what happened in the president's vehicle.
These serious national media reporters have access to all sorts of records and sources that could (and are) contradict(ing) her testimonythey did none of this which is the basic JOB of a journalist. Also, the investigators on the Jan 6th committee suck since the testimony has all kinds of holes in it less than 12 hours after broadcast.
Which is why McCarthy didn't put anyone on the committee. He doesn't want you assessing breadth, intent, or severity.ATL Bear said:I have no idea. Without cross examination it's hard to assess breadth, intent, and severity.Osodecentx said:You think all of these conservative Republicans are lying?ATL Bear said:
No one who testified in this hearing is at risk of a perjury charge, so you can be as fast and loose with the truth as you'd like to be.
Very little that Cobretti posts is relevant. I highly recommend the ignore option.Wangchung said:Suddenly this one seems so relevant...Cobretti said:Tracking the commentary. Early Tuesday afternoon: Trump limo incident most explosive of J6 committee revelations. Tuesday night: Don't be distracted by limo incident. Other stuff more important.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 29, 2022
you skipped parts.. she lied about writing a note. She lied about the assaulting a SS agent. She lied about a conversation. She lied about the plate throwing. She is an unreliable witness. Her story is falling apart, not just one thing.. we are only a few hours post testimony. Lets see what happens. Her testimony is opposing video evidence of Trump himself telling the crowd to peacefully demonstrate.Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
CNN’s @jaketapper asks @RepRaskin about corroborating the shocking story, told by ex-aide of Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, about Trump’s physical attack on Secret Service detail to drive to the US Capitol on January 6. pic.twitter.com/z2ul9WvFcc
— CNN (@CNN) June 28, 2022
highly informative postSam Lowry said:Very little that Cobretti posts is relevant. I highly recommend the ignore option.Wangchung said:Suddenly this one seems so relevant...Cobretti said:Tracking the commentary. Early Tuesday afternoon: Trump limo incident most explosive of J6 committee revelations. Tuesday night: Don't be distracted by limo incident. Other stuff more important.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 29, 2022
Sam Lowry said:Very little that Cobretti posts is relevant. I highly recommend the ignore option.Wangchung said:Suddenly this one seems so relevant...Cobretti said:Tracking the commentary. Early Tuesday afternoon: Trump limo incident most explosive of J6 committee revelations. Tuesday night: Don't be distracted by limo incident. Other stuff more important.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 29, 2022
It certainly wouldn't be any worse than the one sided affair we have today, We've gone so far down the subjective inference rabbit hole, I'm shocked we haven't pinned the death of Ginsburg on Trump.Sam Lowry said:Which is why McCarthy didn't put anyone on the committee. He doesn't want you assessing breadth, intent, or severity.ATL Bear said:I have no idea. Without cross examination it's hard to assess breadth, intent, and severity.Osodecentx said:You think all of these conservative Republicans are lying?ATL Bear said:
No one who testified in this hearing is at risk of a perjury charge, so you can be as fast and loose with the truth as you'd like to be.
Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
Sam Lowry said:
I'm talking about the assault on the SS agent. Don't know about the other stuff. It would be nice if Trump could be vindicated just because he used the word "peacefully" in one sentence, but that's now how it works.
Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
Sam Lowry said:
I'm talking about the assault on the SS agent. Don't know about the other stuff. It would be nice if Trump could be vindicated just because he used the word "peacefully" in one sentence, but that's now how it works.
Where to start with the truth 🤔
— JAribica 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@Aribica2022) June 29, 2022
The Federalist: January 6 Committee Caught Lying About Ken Klukowski https://t.co/6LCHpeFndghttps://t.co/t7Pv7dr9ba pic.twitter.com/C965eWIXpI
Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
Sam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning.
Sad, sad.
The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings.Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Confused how you view pointing out the contradictions (people saying publicly what was testified never happened) and impossibility (literally cannot get from the passenger cabin of the presidential limo to the driver seat) of certain testimony is desperation.Sam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Geez, Sam. Have you ever seen an article McCarthy wrote that didn't say Trump was committing a crime? Wanting something to happen and having evidence is two different things. You keep throwing out this biased, circumstantial information as if it is proof. If there was evidence, it would have been found by now 16 months later.Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
By Andrew C. McCarthy
June 28, 2022 10:33 PM
Things will not be the same after this.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, provided compelling testimony Tuesday that former president Donald Trump is singularly culpable for the Capitol riot.
Legal analysts, myself included, while not defending the speech -- which is indefensible -- have pointed out that it does not meet the demanding legal test for incitement. Trump makes grudging references to protesting "peacefully" -- and Cheney continues to damage her credibility by eliding mention of that (and it's gratuitous self-damage because, the more the evidence mounts, the more apparent it is that it's just a couple of throwaway lines -- which doesn't justify omitting it as if it didn't happen). Well, Trump's words may not have been incitement as a matter of law, but that doesn't mean they are not evidence of other potential crimes -- especially once you are informed about how fully aware the president was about the mob being lethally armed. It is a crime, to take just one example, to aid and abet the forcible intimidation of government officials, including the vice president and members of Congress.
We should understand, in any event, that what Cheney did with Hutchinson Tuesday is what prosecutors do with witnesses in grand juries every day: drawing out the witness's testimony with no obligation to provide the defense perspective. To be sure, no one gets convicted at the grand-jury stage, but an awful lot of people get indicted this way, and on far less evidence than the country heard today.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-against-trump-is-devastating
No, I'm not. Are you really going to argue that he's innocent just because he used the word "peacefully?"RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument?Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
Yeah, pretty much on a weekly basis throughout the Russia investigation.RMF5630 said:Geez, Sam. Have you ever seen an article McCarthy wrote that didn't say Trump was committing a crime?Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
By Andrew C. McCarthy
June 28, 2022 10:33 PM
Things will not be the same after this.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, provided compelling testimony Tuesday that former president Donald Trump is singularly culpable for the Capitol riot.
Legal analysts, myself included, while not defending the speech -- which is indefensible -- have pointed out that it does not meet the demanding legal test for incitement. Trump makes grudging references to protesting "peacefully" -- and Cheney continues to damage her credibility by eliding mention of that (and it's gratuitous self-damage because, the more the evidence mounts, the more apparent it is that it's just a couple of throwaway lines -- which doesn't justify omitting it as if it didn't happen). Well, Trump's words may not have been incitement as a matter of law, but that doesn't mean they are not evidence of other potential crimes -- especially once you are informed about how fully aware the president was about the mob being lethally armed. It is a crime, to take just one example, to aid and abet the forcible intimidation of government officials, including the vice president and members of Congress.
We should understand, in any event, that what Cheney did with Hutchinson Tuesday is what prosecutors do with witnesses in grand juries every day: drawing out the witness's testimony with no obligation to provide the defense perspective. To be sure, no one gets convicted at the grand-jury stage, but an awful lot of people get indicted this way, and on far less evidence than the country heard today.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-against-trump-is-devastating
A real lawyer would know that's not how this works, Sam.Sam Lowry said:No, I'm not. Are you really going to argue that he's innocent just because he used the word "peacefully?"RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument?Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
I'm just making the point that all his words and actions need to be taken in context.303Bear said:The very definition of "fight" means this is not at all a "case closed" situation. Not to mention the colloquial use of "fight" in many contexts not connected to physical violence. Such conclusory language is unbecoming someone who used to be a reasonable poster (and still is generally when it does not come to trump).RMF5630 said:You really are going to make that argument? That using the word "fight" incites violence? I think I could show that "fight" has many meanings. If that is what you are hanging your hat on, settle Counselor...Sam Lowry said:If it's trial by proof-text, Trump loses. He even told people to be violent:Osodecentx said:The rioter needed their guns in order to march peacefullySam Lowry said:
The reek of desperation is overpowering this morning. No matter how much evidence piles up, all anyone can say is "but but peacefully march!"
Sad, sad.
"We're going to have to fight much harder."
"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."
Case closed.
It's not my idea of proof. It's yours.Oldbear83 said:
Much more like mind closed if that is your idea of "proof".
Insurrection, I say!Sam Lowry said:
Anyone else noticed how the entire conversation on this thread is now about the one contested allegation that Trump tried to grab a steering wheel, which may be the least interesting part of the testimony, instead of the more damning and so far undisputed evidence that he incited violence and tried to obstruct justice?
