RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

And yet I think he really does

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx 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.

---

And yet I think he really does

---

1) there are truths in his post and 2) there is definitely some sarcasm yall clearly missed in his post..

Carry on!

---

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.

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

Are you asking or telling?

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS

---

Guns? Nope.

Some "insurrection."

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

Guy Noir said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

These guys were charged:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/559115-capitol-riot-defendant-becomes-first-to-face-firearms-charge-under/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-firearm-capitol-riot-523178

---

Guy Noir said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.

---

No charges?

---

These guys were charged:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/559115-capitol-riot-defendant-becomes-first-to-face-firearms-charge-under/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-capitol-riot-firearm-guy-reffitt/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/22/man-charged-loaded-firearm-capitol-riot-523178

---

Guy Noir said:

---

1 and 2 was duplicate. They are just different news sources.

There were definitely multiple firearms charges.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

This is largely where I shake out. After the Russia Hoax plus four-years of straight TDS disinformation plus the clear Stalin Show Trial attributes of this confederacy of dunces, pardon me if I do not put a lot of stake in the theatrics.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

1 and 2 was duplicate. They are just different news sources.

There were definitely multiple firearms charges.

---

yeah.. 2 of them.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

This is largely where I shake out. After the Russia Hoax plus four-years of straight TDS disinformation plus the clear Stalin Show Trial attributes of this confederacy of dunces, pardon me if I do not put a lot of stake in the theatrics.

---

Russia hoax was a hoax. Massive media 4 year fail.

But that doesn't give Trump carte blanche for anything he does afterwards.

---

Quote:

---

There is a big difference between (a) observing that a fact-finding process is deeply flawed and (b) concluding that it should be ignored. I addressed this point in the column:

Now, it is all well and good to remind everyone, again, that the January 6 committee has foolishly undermined its credibility by failing to provide a fair process. No, there was no cross-examination of Hutchinson. Maybe it will turn out that -- as Trump's characteristically indecorous social-media outbursts during the testimony suggested -- Hutchinson is a "total phony," a "leaker" and "bad news" . . . although she has worked for many top Republicans, is well-liked by many more, and appears to have continued getting promoted over the years because she does a good job.

We should understand, in any event, that what Cheney did with Hutchinson Tuesday is what prosecutors do with witnesses in grand juries every day: drawing out the witness's testimony with no obligation to provide the defense perspective. To be sure, no one gets convicted at the grand-jury stage, but an awful lot of people get indicted this way, and on far less evidence than the country heard today.

Moreover, when we say the committee lacks due-process legitimacy, that means it lacks legitimacy as an ultimate finder of fact. It does not mean that we can blithely dismiss any evidence the committee discloses. It does not mean that, because we'd prefer that the evidence not be true, we can dismiss it out of hand because we don't like the Democrats or the committee process. These witnesses are testifying under oath. There is significant risk to them if they are found to have committed perjury.

For now, all we can responsibly do is ask ourselves whether the evidence presented under these deficient procedures seems coherent and credible. Whether it will ultimately hold up when finally challenged -- as it very well may be in, say, an eventual criminal trial is another story. I'll just say this: When I was a prosecutor, I obtained very good information from sources that were a lot more suspect than the January 6 committee -- terrorists, hitmen, fraudsters. Yes, I still had to prove it in court, in the crucible of adversarial challenge and cross-examination. On the other hand, I wouldn't have elicited it in court unless I had first been convinced that it was true.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/weighing-hutchinsons-testimony-in-light-of-the-january-6-committees-flaws/

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

And how many Republicans have testified?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

And how many Republicans have testified?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

And how many Republicans have testified?

---

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

And how many Republicans have testified?

---

By proper definition, zero,

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Summary of these "hearings"

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not keeping track...how many Democrats have testified so far?

---

100% by my count. Of course, I judge by the content produced by the committee.

---