RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.

---

Magnetometers. He wanted them to stop confiscating the weapons.

---

What I don't see is how his asking to remove the mags is illegal. The jump from he wants a bigger crowd for his ego becomes a coup to overthrow the Govt.

---

Well, it was that and then also the fact there was this coup a little while later. Tends to raise suspicions.

---

Coup? And just how were they going to take control of the Government? How were they going to do anything more than frighten Congress? Seriously, how was this a coup? You really think anything beyond the initial hour was going to hold or change?

---

They thought it. That's how it was a coup, albeit unsuccessful.

---

How many were arrested? 700+? So where is the problem? Oh, that Trump was behind it? That he acted to noncommittal that Congress had to hide?

I am still struggling with the criminal issues for the Trump Administration. Pence certified, right? No one was pardoned, right? Trump left, right? Where is the act that is warranting this sideshow? Italian food may have a case...

---

The problem is that Trump acted in a way that foreseeably led to violence. How does Pence certifying make that okay?

---

This is about Trumps attempted coup and attack on American Deocracy. Yet, his Administration did everything required at the time it was required. Every thing went forward on time.

Pence was Trump's VP. The Trump Adiministration is a reflection on Trump, for BETTER and worse. You can't just say his Admin did something bad, it was Trump. Than when they do what they are supposed to say Trump.gets no credit. Regardless of what Trump said or how many spaghetti lunches he threw, his Admin met their Constitutional responsibilities on schedule. You totally disregard what they actually did in favor of rhetoric!

---

What does that have to do with anything? You do realize Trump and Pence weren't exactly on the same page.

---

Pence answers to Trump. Remember, "The Buck Stops Here"? No matter how much they disagreed, what did Trump's VP do as President of Senate?

Chalk it up to Pence saving Trump from a bad decision. Chalk it up to there are alot of bad ideas that never are implemented. Maybe, it was theater to protect Trumps base. Who knows. It does not matter. They met their Constitutional responsibility and power changed hands. There can be no coup led by Trump because his Admin did what they were supposed to on schedule. Biden is President. There was no coup, just a bunch of whack jobs that went too far demonstrating and they were arrested.

I can even make a strong argument based on Trumps handling of 2020 riots and messages that if he were allowed to go to Congress he would have de-escalated the situation. Probably the only one that could.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Interesting that we have exactly one first-hand account of the matter, and it's the only one that most of you refuse to even consider. That says a lot about the seriousness of your "hearsay" objections.

---

Disappointing, that we have a dubious account which has already been disputed by credible witnesses, yet Sam abandons standard court rules in order to smear the accused.

And yes, Sam, we know this is not a real court case, ironically because in a real court case the accused would the right to defend himself, which this committee has worked hard to prevent.

---

In a real court case, you wouldn't hear second-hand accounts from witnesses who were "prepared to testify" but didn't. That's the standard rule you're abandoning.

---

You're the one applying courtroom rules to what you have already admitted is not a courtroom, Sam.

Kangaroos are usually cute. This one is fuggly.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I suggest you get acquainted with all the facts before you dismiss the things you with which you disagree.

---

Vice versa, pal. There is not a single major poll which puts this Kangaroo Court in the top 6 issues for voters.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Interesting that we have exactly one first-hand account of the matter, and it's the only one that most of you refuse to even consider. That says a lot about the seriousness of your "hearsay" objections.

---

Disappointing, that we have a dubious account which has already been disputed by credible witnesses, yet Sam abandons standard court rules in order to smear the accused.

And yes, Sam, we know this is not a real court case, ironically because in a real court case the accused would the right to defend himself, which this committee has worked hard to prevent.

---

In a real court case, you wouldn't hear second-hand accounts from witnesses who were "prepared to testify" but didn't. That's the standard rule you're abandoning.

---

You're the one applying courtroom rules to what you have already admitted is not a courtroom, Sam.

Kangaroos are usually cute. This one is fuggly.

---

Try to keep up with your own arguments and then comment on mine.

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I suggest you get acquainted with all the facts before you dismiss the things you with which you disagree.

---

Vice versa, pal. There is not a single major poll which puts this Kangaroo Court in the top 6 issues for voters.

---

I was not referring to polls. I was referring to the facts and evidence of what transpired in the White House the days leading up and including Jan 6th. The collection of evidence does show an attempt to throw out the election results so that Trump could remain in office. The fact that Pence did the right thing in spite of this attempt does not absolve Trump from the actions that he did.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Interesting that we have exactly one first-hand account of the matter, and it's the only one that most of you refuse to even consider. That says a lot about the seriousness of your "hearsay" objections.

---

Disappointing, that we have a dubious account which has already been disputed by credible witnesses, yet Sam abandons standard court rules in order to smear the accused.

And yes, Sam, we know this is not a real court case, ironically because in a real court case the accused would the right to defend himself, which this committee has worked hard to prevent.

---

In a real court case, you wouldn't hear second-hand accounts from witnesses who were "prepared to testify" but didn't. That's the standard rule you're abandoning.

---

You're the one applying courtroom rules to what you have already admitted is not a courtroom, Sam.

Kangaroos are usually cute. This one is fuggly.

---

Try to keep up with your own arguments and then comment on mine.

---

Your ad hominem is noted.

Sam used to be above that sort of thing.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I suggest you get acquainted with all the facts before you dismiss the things you with which you disagree.

---

Vice versa, pal. There is not a single major poll which puts this Kangaroo Court in the top 6 issues for voters.

---

I was not referring to polls. I was referring to the facts and evidence of what transpired in the White House the days leading up and including Jan 6th. The collection of evidence does show an attempt to throw out the election results so that Trump could remain in office. The fact that Pence did the right thing in spite of this attempt does not absolve Trump from the actions that he did.

---

You assume Trump did what his enemies accuse.

So far there is no evidence Trump broke the law, or even acted worse than many 'honorable' politicians have done in their careers.


Your hate blinds you.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I suggest you get acquainted with all the facts before you dismiss the things you with which you disagree.

---

Vice versa, pal. There is not a single major poll which puts this Kangaroo Court in the top 6 issues for voters.

---

I was not referring to polls. I was referring to the facts and evidence of what transpired in the White House the days leading up and including Jan 6th. The collection of evidence does show an attempt to throw out the election results so that Trump could remain in office. The fact that Pence did the right thing in spite of this attempt does not absolve Trump from the actions that he did.

---

You assume Trump did what his enemies accuse.

So far there is no evidence Trump broke the law, or even acted worse than many 'honorable' politicians have done in their careers.


Your hate blinds you.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp

I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.

---

I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.

---

If they've already testified, then it's definitely not hearsay.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Why do you think the Committee won't let the agents testify. Your links say they will.

What am I ignoring?

---

They volunteered to testify. The committee. which denied evidence which defends Trump, which altered statements by Trump to exclude context, will certainly not allow their story to be challenged by credible witnesses who were actually there.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.

---

I'm well aware you're a trial lawyer because you always make a point of it. It's what lawyers do when they're losing an argument on the internet.

---

What argument? You withdrew your point to another poster. It wasn't hearsay. You knew it when you posted the ridiculous position but posted it anyway. You lost. Write the check.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp

I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.

---

I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.

---

they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.

Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.

---

I'm well aware you're a trial lawyer because you always make a point of it. It's what lawyers do when they're losing an argument on the internet.

---

What argument? You withdrew your point to another poster. It wasn't hearsay. You knew it when you posted the ridiculous position but posted it anyway. You lost. Write the check.

---

Great, more backtracking. I didn't withdraw any points.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Didn't Trump tell the SS to confiscate weapons before letting them in and he wasn't concerned for his safety? Where is the illegal part? Telling them to get rid of the mags is illegal how? I am missing the point of this blockbuster testimony. Where does he say take away the mags so the weapons will be used to storm Congress and overthrow the Govt?? I am missing that. It was his rally.

If they wanted to arrest people with weapons why didn't law enforcement. What are the gun laws in DC? Did they have conceal & carry licenses. Still not seeing the conspiracy to overthrow the Govt.

---

Magnetometers. He wanted them to stop confiscating the weapons.

---

What I don't see is how his asking to remove the mags is illegal. The jump from he wants a bigger crowd for his ego becomes a coup to overthrow the Govt.

---

Well, it was that and then also the fact there was this coup a little while later. Tends to raise suspicions.

---

Coup? And just how were they going to take control of the Government? How were they going to do anything more than frighten Congress? Seriously, how was this a coup? You really think anything beyond the initial hour was going to hold or change?

---

They thought it. That's how it was a coup, albeit unsuccessful.

---

How many were arrested? 700+? So where is the problem? Oh, that Trump was behind it? That he acted to noncommittal that Congress had to hide?

I am still struggling with the criminal issues for the Trump Administration. Pence certified, right? No one was pardoned, right? Trump left, right? Where is the act that is warranting this sideshow? Italian food may have a case...

---

The problem is that Trump acted in a way that foreseeably led to violence. How does Pence certifying make that okay?

---

This is about Trumps attempted coup and attack on American Deocracy. Yet, his Administration did everything required at the time it was required. Every thing went forward on time.

Pence was Trump's VP. The Trump Adiministration is a reflection on Trump, for BETTER and worse. You can't just say his Admin did something bad, it was Trump. Than when they do what they are supposed to say Trump.gets no credit. Regardless of what Trump said or how many spaghetti lunches he threw, his Admin met their Constitutional responsibilities on schedule. You totally disregard what they actually did in favor of rhetoric!

---

What does that have to do with anything? You do realize Trump and Pence weren't exactly on the same page.

---

Pence answers to Trump. Remember, "The Buck Stops Here"? No matter how much they disagreed, what did Trump's VP do as President of Senate?

Chalk it up to Pence saving Trump from a bad decision. Chalk it up to there are alot of bad ideas that never are implemented. Maybe, it was theater to protect Trumps base. Who knows. It does not matter. They met their Constitutional responsibility and power changed hands. There can be no coup led by Trump because his Admin did what they were supposed to on schedule. Biden is President. There was no coup, just a bunch of whack jobs that went too far demonstrating and they were arrested.

I can even make a strong argument based on Trumps handling of 2020 riots and messages that if he were allowed to go to Congress he would have de-escalated the situation. Probably the only one that could.

---

You're taking the idea of a coup attempt and defining it out of existence -- if it fails, it never happened.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Why do you think the Committee won't let the agents testify. Your links say they will.

What am I ignoring?

---

They volunteered to testify. The committee. which denied evidence which defends Trump, which altered statements by Trump to exclude context, will certainly not allow their story to be challenged by credible witnesses who were actually there.

---

So, the agents who are prepared to testify (and will dispute Hutchinson't testimony) won't be allowed to testify by the committee?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp

I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.

---

I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.

---

they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.

Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont

---

Oldbear says the agents won't testify. If they don't testify, Hutchinson't testimony is undisputed (even though it is hearsay).

In their earlier testimony they weren't asked about whether Trump made an attempt to grab the wheel. Therefore, there is no evidence that Trump did not grab the wheel. There won't be until one or both agents testify.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

---

I still don't see there be anything they can prosecute even if all her testimony is accurate. The worst is asking the mag machines removed to increase his turnout, which did not end up happening. Request denied. Asking to turn off mag machines is a felony? He can ask all he wants. If he physically went over and turned them off, then you would have something.

---

I still don't see how they can prosecute anyone for bank robbery. All a person does is get in their car (totally legal), drive to the bank (with a license), walk inside (not a felony), point a gun (2nd Amendment right), and say "I need to make a withdrawal" (1st Amendment right). Which part of that is such a terrible crime?

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Why do you think the Committee won't let the agents testify. Your links say they will.

What am I ignoring?

---

They volunteered to testify. The committee. which denied evidence which defends Trump, which altered statements by Trump to exclude context, will certainly not allow their story to be challenged by credible witnesses who were actually there.

---

So, the agents who are prepared to testify (and will dispute Hutchinson't testimony) won't be allowed to testify by the committee?

---

I would not be surprised if the Secret Service strongly recommends that they not testify. My reasoning: the event in the SUV (not the beast) cuts into the very heart of the Services purpose, to protect the President. The incident shows a situation where agents acted in defiance apparently of the President's wishes, and the President's displeasure is in evidence. If the service does not remain confidential in this matter, it raises the question of why they continue to use the word "secret" in their agency name?

---

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.

The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022

---

Yeah, with exception, hearsay is not admitted in Court because it is unreliable and cannot be cross-examined.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.

---

Are you saying media accounts of what the agents will say is not hearsay? In your civil or criminal law experience can you admit as evidence what a newspaper says to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.

---

Like this?

🚨 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.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

---

No, that's hearsay.

---

Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

---

The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheel

---

You don't do much trial work, do you?

---

Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.

---

Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.

---

I'm well aware you're a trial lawyer because you always make a point of it. It's what lawyers do when they're losing an argument on the internet.

---

What argument? You withdrew your point to another poster. It wasn't hearsay. You knew it when you posted the ridiculous position but posted it anyway. You lost. Write the check.

---

Great, more backtracking. I didn't withdraw any points.

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Has anyone stopped to consider how difficult it would be for the President, sitting in the back of the 18-foot limousine, to even reach the steering wheel if he tried?

But sure, go with the unsupported, outrageous story if it fits your assumptions.

That is why this committee will not accomplish what they imagine they will accomplish.

---

I think they were in an SUV.

---

Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.

---

Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.

---

Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.

And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.

---

You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.

---

"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"

https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot

Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.

You can always obsess about mean tweets.

---

These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.

I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.

---

Since such testimony would debunk their story, zero chance the committee allows their testimony, just as they have filtered out all evidence in Trump's defense.

It can be fun playing lawyer, but dishonest to ignore things which warn you should check your assumptions.

---

Why do you think the Committee won't let the agents testify. Your links say they will.

What am I ignoring?

---

They volunteered to testify. The committee. which denied evidence which defends Trump, which altered statements by Trump to exclude context, will certainly not allow their story to be challenged by credible witnesses who were actually there.

---

So, the agents who are prepared to testify (and will dispute Hutchinson't testimony) won't be allowed to testify by the committee?

---

I would not be surprised if the Secret Service strongly recommends that they not testify. My reasoning: the event in the SUV (not the beast) cuts into the very heart of the Services purpose, to protect the President. The incident shows a situation where agents acted in defiance apparently of the President's wishes, and the President's displeasure is in evidence. If the service does not remain confidential in this matter, it raises the question of why they continue to use the word "secret" in their agency name?

---