I understand not taking Hutchinson's testimony very seriously, but the testimony of Bill Barr and the Acting AG and the Deputy AG and another high ranking person in the DOJ should not be dismissed so easily. It is clear to me that Trump was cooking something up on the days before Jan 6th

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

When you depend on the NY Times to make your argument, you might as well change your name to "Schiff".

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

whiterock said:

---

When your enemy is doing harm to himself, stay out of his way.

Most voters (63%) say Congress Should Focus on Inflation and Crime over Investigating Jan 6, Including 67% of Independents (Harvard/Harris)

Focus on: Jan 6 /Inflation and Crime
Dem: 63/37
GOP: 14/86
Indie: 33/67

June 28-29 / 1308 RVhttps://t.co/TWVTOKx1hE

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) July 3, 2022

---

That 63% Dems think they should focus on Jan 6th is crazy and quite telling. Completely out of touch with reality.

---

Let's focus on inflation and immigration.
I think we can also find out what happened on Jan 6

---

I'm talking about the 63% of dems that said focus on Jan 6 over inflation etc. if they had a choice, that is out of touch.

Of course both can be easily covered, but when asked about priority between the two, the answer 100% of the time should be the economically disastrous issues we are facing, not Jan. 6.

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Come on Oso, no need to switch the pitch, the new revelation that has been plastered on the Networks is about Trump attacking SS agents and going for the steering wheel.

That is the new salacious nugget of info being paraded as fact and it's complete hearsay at this point.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Come on Oso, no need to switch the pitch, the new revelation that has been plastered on the Networks is about Trump attacking SS agents and going for the steering wheel.

That is the new salacious nugget of info being paraded as fact and it's complete hearsay at this point.

---

Let's hear from the former agent. Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed by anyone under oath

Calling it 'Undisputed' simply because Democrats control who gets to testify is more than a little dishonest.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Calling it 'Undisputed' simply because Democrats control who gets to testify is more than a little dishonest.

---

nope.. its because nobody will go on the record with sworn testimony. They say they will but they wont.. of course Pelosi and her crew will let them testify rebuttal to Hutchinson but they wont..

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Come on Oso, no need to switch the pitch, the new revelation that has been plastered on the Networks is about Trump attacking SS agents and going for the steering wheel.

That is the new salacious nugget of info being paraded as fact and it's complete hearsay at this point.

---

Let's hear from the former agent. Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed by anyone under oath

---

Well of course. In a "show trial" there is never refuted evidence. Unless there is cross examination testimony is never disputed. Imagine a trail where only the prosecution gets a turn and no defense is given or allowed.

Your prosecution rate would be 100% and every witness testimony called would be taken as true.

We all know in the "real world" that isn't how it works. These hearings however are not operating within ""real world" parameters.

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Calling it 'Undisputed' simply because Democrats control who gets to testify is more than a little dishonest.

---

nope.. its because nobody will go on the record with sworn testimony. They say they will but they wont.. of course Pelosi and her crew will let them testify rebuttal to Hutchinson but they wont..

---

Oh, that's right, Pelosi is always about fairness and never biased. Thank you for showing me the light.

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

do they broadcast grand jury proceedings on national TV so as to bias the jury pool if it goes to Trial?

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

It's a show trial in a kangaroo court. Everyone knows that's the case. You even think Trump can somehow be proven 'innocent' in this show trial.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

do they broadcast grand jury proceedings on national TV so as to bias the jury pool if it goes to Trial?

---

No one's watching, remember?

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

do they broadcast grand jury proceedings on national TV so as to bias the jury pool if it goes to Trial?

---

No one's watching, remember?

---

is that gonna stop a defense lawyer from bringing it up if anything goes to trial?

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

do they broadcast grand jury proceedings on national TV so as to bias the jury pool if it goes to Trial?

---

No one's watching, remember?

---

is that gonna stop a defense lawyer from bringing it up if anything goes to trial?

---

Bringing what up? If a person gets indicted, the trial jury knows it. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.

Golem said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

It's a show trial in a kangaroo court. Everyone knows that's the case. You even think Trump can somehow be proven 'innocent' in this show trial.

---

The whole point of this is to make Trump a non-issue in 2022 and beyond. Why else this format during the summer before the midterms. Tbey have had 16 months to do this! Now it will end coming into September campaign season? Nothing being said even means anything. He was disappointed in Pence? Really, he said and posted that Jan 2020. He wanted more people at his rally and didn't care how, this is Trump we are talking about. He counted and compared numbers at everything. He told them to go to Congress? It was in his speech. Nothing new or usable.

RMF5630 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's useless to keep comparing this to a trial. It really is more like a grand jury proceeding. It doesn't have the same due process as a trial, nor does it have the same stakes.

---

It's a show trial in a kangaroo court. Everyone knows that's the case. You even think Trump can somehow be proven 'innocent' in this show trial.

---

The whole point of this is to make Trump a non-issue in 2022 and beyond. Why else this format during the summer before the midterms. Tbey have had 16 months to do this! Now it will end coming into September campaign season? Nothing being said even means anything. He was disappointed in Pence? Really, he said and posted that Jan 2020. He wanted more people at his rally and didn't care how, this is Trump we are talking about. He counted and compared numbers at everything. He told them to go to Congress? It was in his speech. Nothing new or usable.

---

Exactly. They are literally terrified of him. If he was such an electoral liability, as Canada and several others insist, then they wouldn't be doing this at all. They'd be helping the GOP nominate him.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

Oso's thinking is also clearly influenced by the double-standard of "repressive tolerance."
Left = good.
Right = bad.

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

But when a much larger crowd shows up in WDC to protest certification of what they believed to have been a stolen election, we do not see the same presumption of innocence. Why this could not have happened without conspiracy. And an all-knowing POTUS (otherwise usually called a dunce) organized it all. Why, he knew that the crowd would be large...gasp...he even WANTED it to be huge. He knew that some bad actors would come. He knew that a few dozen would even come armed. He knew that a few dozen would actually come to do battle. HE KNEW!!!! that's why he organized the whole thing. He wanted the demonstration to be so huuuge that it would spontaneously erupt into not a small riot that did about 4-digits worth of damage to the capitol building, but a full blown insurrection allowing him to rule America forever.

Such are the fantabulations of a child, yet full grown otherwise rational adults have fallen into it. But most American see such rot for what it is. That's why the polling shows what it shows. And those numbers are not going to turn around. They are going to bury those who foisted the charade.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

We all watched it happen, Sam.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

I do know here, they burned down several stores. I saw the remains of those buildings. I also know that the demonstrations were not very peaceful, my wife got caught in one on the way home from work. They started shaking her car and wouldn't let her pass. If local Police didn't clear the street, she was truly frightened. Those things happened and we were in a peaceful City where the Police kept control.

I also know that Kenosha was trashed because we used to live in Wisconsin and had friends there and Charleston's downtown because I got to go. The place was boarded up and graffitied, I saw that.

Not to mention the TV coverage where the guy said it was peaceful as fires raged behind him! Seattle where they took over a Police Station during the Summer of Love. Sort of hard to believe people deny that stuff happened.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

I do know here, they burned down several stores. I saw the remains of those buildings. I also know that the demonstrations were not very peaceful, my wife got caught in one on the way home from work. They started shaking her car and wouldn't let her pass. If local Police didn't clear the street, she was truly frightened. Those things happened and we were in a peaceful City where the Police kept control.

I also know that Kenosha was trashed because we used to live in Wisconsin and had friends there and Charleston's downtown because I got to go. The place was boarded up and graffitied, I saw that.

Not to mention the TV coverage where the guy said it was peaceful as fires raged behind him! Seattle where they took over a Police Station during the Summer of Love. Sort of hard to believe people deny that stuff happened.

---

That's the way it works with repressive tolerance.

Some conservatives think they can adopt those rules when it suits them, and get a pass at a later date. But it doesn't work that way.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

I do know here, they burned down several stores. I saw the remains of those buildings. I also know that the demonstrations were not very peaceful, my wife got caught in one on the way home from work. They started shaking her car and wouldn't let her pass. If local Police didn't clear the street, she was truly frightened. Those things happened and we were in a peaceful City where the Police kept control.

I also know that Kenosha was trashed because we used to live in Wisconsin and had friends there and Charleston's downtown because I got to go. The place was boarded up and graffitied, I saw that.

Not to mention the TV coverage where the guy said it was peaceful as fires raged behind him! Seattle where they took over a Police Station during the Summer of Love. Sort of hard to believe people deny that stuff happened.

---

Yet whiterock thinks there were no bad actors. It was all noble and fundamentally patriotic. Can you explain that?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5 said:

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Oso has fallen into a priori thinking. Once one defines J6 as an insurrection, then every single act gets perceived as part of a master plan.

Kinda like "systemic oppression." Once one accepts the premise of it, then every outcome serves the narrative.

---

Problem is there is no proof of a masterplan he or anyone in the Government were involved with developing, executing or even knowing about.

Let's look at him wanting to go to Congress, where Cassidy Hutchinson single handedly saved Democracy at the bequest of the WH Counsel. What are the reasons he could have gone?

1 - To lead a peaceful (as he is on tape instructing and confirmed with a Tweet later on), but loud demonstration to let Congress know he and his supporters did not agree with the 2020 election.

2 - To diffuse the attack on the Capital because any rational person knew nothing good was going to come from that.

3 - Lead the attack and go in Congress, which would have surely resulted in him being filmed breaking the law and lead to arrest.

4 - Leading a Coup of the US Government with 700 followers, limited weapons and no end game plan. If successful, do what? Forcefully tell Pence to not accept the electors? Which would have been accepted by the US Government, citizens and the world??? Best case, goes to Supreme Court and is found to be unlawful? What does the insurrection and coup accomplish?

Sorry, I just can't see a guy who has mastered CYA, according to many on here, to choose options 3 or 4 and end up in prison. His history does not support that type of behavior, right up to the edge, yes. Over the cliff, no.

If you this was a Clinton impeachment where Trump made an unwanted advance toward an aide, I would have an easier time with that, based on behavior, than this scenario.

---

So when a mob of thousands burns several square blocks of Washington DC near or adjacent to Congress and the WH, well it's just a peaceful demonstration that got a little heated. The crowd whipped itself up into a little too much of a frenzy. No bad actors there. No one who wouldn't liked to have burned down the whole city. No one who wouldn't have liked to have surged into the WH and carried out POTUS in pieces. Nope. Just noble citizens engaging in 1st Amendment freedoms. That property of innocents was destroyed is just the price of liberty. That it was mostly organized with monies raised on Democrat crowd-funding platforms is a detail never mentioned. That their protests were driven by the energy of ideological contrivances aim at delegitimizing the founding documents of the country is somehow fashionably noble rather than fundamentally insurrectionist.

---

Amazing that you or anyone could believe such stuff.

---

I do know here, they burned down several stores. I saw the remains of those buildings. I also know that the demonstrations were not very peaceful, my wife got caught in one on the way home from work. They started shaking her car and wouldn't let her pass. If local Police didn't clear the street, she was truly frightened. Those things happened and we were in a peaceful City where the Police kept control.

I also know that Kenosha was trashed because we used to live in Wisconsin and had friends there and Charleston's downtown because I got to go. The place was boarded up and graffitied, I saw that.

Not to mention the TV coverage where the guy said it was peaceful as fires raged behind him! Seattle where they took over a Police Station during the Summer of Love. Sort of hard to believe people deny that stuff happened.

---

Yet whiterock thinks there were no bad actors. It was all noble and fundamentally patriotic. Can you explain that?

---

Well, I don't know about White Rock. I can't go that far! They broke in and was a riot, no doubt there were bad actors and hopefully they were arrested. I do not deny that an appalling display occurred at Congress. The break-in was inexcusable and CANNOT be tolerated.

Where I diverge with many of the Democrats is that it was some Trump Administration/Associate inspired and controlled plot to overthrow the Government. I have not seen anything to support that narrative.

• I do believe Trump wanted to go to Congress with the crowd, but not to storm the building!
• I do believe if he saw them doing that he would have told them to stop, we are the party of law and order.
• I do believe he asked for the mag machines to be turned off for HIS rally, to get more numbers.
• I do believe he is disappointed in Pence not going with the alternate elector slates submitted.

I do not believe any of it is illegal and it is his prerogative to take those positions. I also believe he is political poison, if for no other reason that they will never stop coming after him.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Come on Oso, no need to switch the pitch, the new revelation that has been plastered on the Networks is about Trump attacking SS agents and going for the steering wheel.

That is the new salacious nugget of info being paraded as fact and it's complete hearsay at this point.

---

Let's hear from the former agent. Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed by anyone under oath

---

Well of course. In a "show trial" there is never refuted evidence. Unless there is cross examination testimony is never disputed. Imagine a trail where only the prosecution gets a turn and no defense is given or allowed.

Your prosecution rate would be 100% and every witness testimony called would be taken as true.

We all know in the "real world" that isn't how it works. These hearings however are not operating within ""real world" parameters.

---

McCarthy refused to let his members participate. McCarthy appointed 5 members, Pelosi approved 3, but McCarthy refused to let them participate (the 2 Pelosi did not approve will be witnesses).

Now you complain that the hearing in which you refuse to participate won't let you participate. You had the opportunity to cross examine and you declined to cross examine and now you complain.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.

---

Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.

---

Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts

---

Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.

---

Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.

---

Eye witness to what?

That Trump wanted more people at his rally? That he was not worried about them threatening him?

So once again, sort of a big leap to sedition. I am not seeing the bird crumbs leading toward coup.

---

Trump knew there were armed people in DC. He urged them to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson was an eyeball witness. Not hearsay.

---

He wanted more at his rally. That is really inconsistent with his past? The guy is anal about numbers. That is much more consistent than overthrowing the Government!

---

He wanted more armed people at his rally
He wanted them to March on the Capitol
He told them Mike Pence was a disappointment

NYT
He was not speaking metaphorically. It was not an offhand comment. President Donald J. Trump had every intention of joining a mob of supporters he knew to be armed and dangerous as it marched to the Capitol. And there had even been talk of marching into the House chamber himself to disrupt Congress from ratifying his election defeat.
For a year and a half, Mr. Trump has been shielded by obfuscations and mischaracterizations, benefiting from uncertainty about what he was thinking on Jan. 6, 2021. If he truly believed the election had been stolen, if he genuinely expected the gathering at the Capitol would be a peaceful protest, the argument went, then could he be held accountable, much less indicted, for the mayhem that ensued?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/new-insights-into-trumps-state-of-mind-on-jan-6-chip-away-at-doubts.html

---

Like I said, you are making jumps from his comments to he wanted to overthrow the Govt. Big leap from disappointed in Pence or let them in my rally to coup de tat with no direct evidence. Your speculation is not proof. Also, no one at the hearing us allowed to question or give opposing view.

---

Where have I posted that Trump wanted to overthrow the government?