I dont get how villains keep popping up out of nowhere. Before today likely no one reading the news knew of this guy.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
January 6th Committee Public Hearings
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
How would this discredit everything? She specifically said that was a second-hand account. She didn't say it did happen, she said she was told this happened and neither party had yet disputed it. But she clearly qualified that she didn't observe this behavior first hand. If the SS agents wants to testify under oath the story had been exaggerated, they're welcome to do that.
As I said earlier, "Grabbing the wheel" certainly makes a salacious headline but it isn't the most damning or consequential thing we learned. Trump's apparent pre-knowledge of violent people with weapons and armor and wanting them to head to the capitol because they weren't going to hurt him and wanting the MAGS removed is the most damning thing we learned today and hasn't been disputed yet. And even with the SUV ride, no one is disputing that Trump was upset and wanted to goto the capitol, which is the important part. The supposed physical altercation just adds color to the situation but it's not exonerating if it turns out there wasn't a physical altercation.
But most importantly we've moved past the point where "media narratives" even matter. That's what conservatives don't understand now. They can try to grasp at certain straws to try to keep the wool over their followers eyes, but things are REAL now where the DoJ is investigating the main players. So just because Jim Jordan or Sean Hannity says it's a "nothing burger" that's not going to stop the DoJ from going into Mark Meadow's shit. These hearings and especially today has established legitimate pretext for EVERYONE in the President's circle to be under a criminal investigation by the DoJ. And the DoJ's case wouldn't hinge on whether Trump grabbed a steering wheel or not.
High turnover and a toxic work environment leads to staffing issues.
So does "ketchup on the wall" and no one's disputing that story.
Last edited:
it's the GOP's MO- distract from actual totally confirmed crimes by latching on to something that has the slightest chance of being not true, and then call in the usual suspects to blow it up so that's the thing that dominates the cycle
I think they've 100% vetted her information. We know that this hearing was unscheduled and was pushed forward due to security concerns about the witness. The committee also shared that they've been dealing with similar cases of witness tampering. So clearly there was a deadline with receiving this public testimony.
Normally when the committee has presented testimony in hearings, they have also presented additional evidence to corroborate that testimony. We've seen instances where there are interviews with other corroborating witnesses, text message exchanges, surveillance footage, and even the witnesses own words from private depositions.
The committee did present footage from Hutchinson's private depositions, and there was at least one instance of contemporaneous notes, but other types of corroborating evidence seemed to be lacking in this session. For example, you might expect an incident report from the SUV event. Or perhaps deposition footage from Ornato or Engel.
I think it's important to remember that the committee is interviewing witnesses with different levels of participation and constraints. Some witnesses are volunteering, some are being compelled by subpoenas, some have challenged their subpoenas and have been charged with contempt, others have been exempt from contempt charges due to executive privilege or client-attorney privilege. I don't know if Engel or Ornato were compelled to testify, but I think it's normal for SS to be covered by executive privilege. It could be that they had conditions on their testimony.
A lot of the topics that were covered today invovle witnesses that are have very little collaboration with the committee, including Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows. I believe they both provided testimony off the record, and Meadows provided documents with conditions.
It could be that some witness testimony or evidence cannot be released publicly because it is being used in active investigations by the DOJ or state attorneys. We know that the DOJ has been reaching out to open an information channel with the House committee, and since this testimony was unplanned there might be evidence they can no longer share publicly.
We know that this hearing was spurred by new evidence. It could be that there was supporting evidence that still needs to run through legal channels to be shared publicly, but the constraints of the witness testimony might have pressured them to move forward without being able to present that evidence. And remember, they aren't just trying to keep Hutchinson testifying publicly, they want to get to Meadows and Cipollone while the fire is hot. And maybe there's some internal politics with that.
I know that's a lot, but I hope it explains what I was thinking.
It does explain your thinking and I appreciate the reply. I hope you don't think I was trolling you or anything, just a difference of opinion on things is all.
Everything presented in this hearing has evidentiary value, and the chairpeople have said from the beginning they won't discuss details that interfere with ongoing criminal investigations.
I read up on her already. All this USSS stuff is just noise.
Trump and company denied knowing the crowd was armed until today so I guess this steering wheel tidbit is all they have.
The witness tampering isn't surprising since Trump and company did it during the Ukraine scandal and impeachment.. Hope there are some consequences this time.
To be fair, that's what I did too, and I also had a fantastic view of the Capitol from my old apartment in Navy Yard that day.
I never thought I'd have something in common with Mark Meadows. I feel gross now.
The USSS is explicitly saying that not only is the story she recounted inaccurate, but that Ornato never told her that story. If he and the driver actually testify under oath and say as much (even though we on this board know Ornato is a jackhole) it creates a credibility issue for her as a witness. It puts the public and any potential jury/grand jury down the road in a position where they have to choose who to believe. Anyone that chooses the Secret Service account is unlikely to believe any of her testimony.
It absolutely is.
If absolutely is. I think we're saying the same thing here.
I rest assured that the committee isn't allowing our asking anything they don't have receipts about.
Unless something changed just recently I'm not aware of, we only have an 'unnamed source 'close to' the secret service saying this' - in fact, the only thing it DOES say is that it's NOT yet been denied by Secret Service.
Decent-to-good (if not great) odds it's just FUD being spread from someone in the Trump camp going 'off the record', and even then they're hyper-focusing on the 'choking/grabbing the wheel' to try and tie the (potential) inaccuracy of the specifics of that statement and try to smear the whole other aspect of the testimony - that being that Trump knew there were weapons, didn't care, and wanted to go join the insurrectionists.
Yeah they've been so sharp so far I doubt they'd slip up on something like this. Heck why allow a second hand statement without purpose. They must have something to back it up. Feels like bait too. Perhaps they're after Ornato too, and are setting up a trap for him.
This hasn't changed. It may change, sure... but it absolutely hasn't yet. So until then, it should be treated as hearsay especially in comparison to someone who testified under oath.
The USSS's statement is really vague on purpose. Saying it's explicit is... a choice.
CNN's Ryan Nobles just led off Don Lemon's show by reporting, and I quote:
"The Secret Service is taking issue with at least one aspect of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony and that's that story she told about the former president lashing out inside the presidential limo on January 6th. They say their agents are willing to testify to the committee under oath about what they experienced that day. They say it's different than what Hutchinson said. They also said those agents never told her that story."
He didn't say anything about an anonymous source and that seems pretty explicit to me, unless I just don't know what "explicit" means.
Also- regarding the above official statement, I don't find it vague at all. The use of the term "allegations" as a descriptor for her testimony makes it clear they view it in an adversarial light.
The other thing you guys have to understand is Ornato is a Trump guy. He's been described as wanting to "please" the president rather than focus on what his job is. There were dudes on the USSS that were down with the insurrection. Carol Lennig reported on this in her latest book. Keep that in mind when you're hearing these reports as well. The focus really needs to be that Trump knew his supporters had weapons and he amped them up and sent them to the capital anyway.
they found one little possible inconsistency and now their narrative is going to be "liberal witch hunt we can't believe anything out of this false hearing so we're gonna run this into the ground until all the actual shit we did goes away."
Ryan Nobles' twitter has nothing. I can't find a single story written about this. Not on NY Times, Washington Post, hell, recent twitter tweets about USSS. Thanks for the air-tight testimony though.
Things still exist outside the Twittersphere, believe it or not. I provided a word-for-word quote that appeared on air less than two hours ago. If there's inaccuracy there, it's on him/CNN, not me.
Okeydoke. Looking at the frontpage of CNN.com and... nuffink. Thanks for your unerring service!
I mean, I'm sure correspondents say stuff on-air all the time that don't magically appear instantly on the website. The reason I provided his exact quote is because I have it on DVR. About 7 minutes into the 2nd hour of Don Lemon Tonight. Will re-air in a few hours if you're just infernally curious about it.
Not at all, thanks. If it is ever germane, or anyone breaks anything serious about it, I'll think of you, though.
Confronted my family on this bombshell Trump stuff, and they've heard Nothing about it. Looking at FOX News now, and literally not a single thing on their page about it while every single other news outlet is covering it.
That fucking "news" station needs to go. They are a serious threat to democracy in this country.
That fucking "news" station needs to go. They are a serious threat to democracy in this country.
No way to do that if we want a free press, sadly. But I feel you. I've lost half my family to that evil empire as well.
For me it's really simple. Unless all other people involved in the wheel lunge story come and testify under oath and deny all that has been said, I'm believing the sole person that did testify under oath, putting herself and her family in harms way. All these tweets and stories about sources "close to" don't mean shit. Get these fuckers to raise their right hand and then we'll talk.
That bothered me throughout her whole testimony. I didn't understand what she meant. Was he just staring at headlines? Doing work on his phone? Communicating with people? In a fucking daze?
She never claimed USSS told her that story and "different" could be about any part of the story. It's a nothing statement dressed up to sound like a big deal without revealing anything specific. And the fact they add how they didn't tell her the story when she explicitly said they weren't the ones that told her the story just that they didn't dispute it when it was told to her should make you suspicious.
Maybe I haven't done a good job of making this clear: I'm plenty suspicious about the USSS in this scenario. I was just providing context for why I said they're explicitly refuting her testimony: it was due to what I had literally just heard a CNN correspondent say on-air. That doesn't mean I believe what the USSS is claiming. I don't.
Given that more evidence and people are coming forward as the House Committee hearings have been going on. I'm curious if her testimony today will encourage more to come forward with evidence and testimonies. Given her proximity to the events that occurred that day and level of clearance she had. I have to imagine others may consider loosening their lips.
My point is that quote is not actually an explicit refutation of any important detail in her testimony.
Don't freak out about something she said she was told being denied by Trumpworld. If you freak out and going all "oh no, Fox has their gotcha now" you have been successfully conditioned. And I am sorry. I have a similar experience myself right now. Not a national scale, but court proceedings that I won, that the appellate court rejected on a technicality and told the first judge to redo it - the outcome should be the same, I know that intellectually, but I'm hugely distrustful of the court, everyone involved, my family and my whole future now (doesn't help that my Ex now thinks she can just deny me all visitations after the judge and CPS basically told her to STFU and do what I want initially).
So I get it. In the US of A powerful people and politicians never really faced consequences before unlike many other Western nations, so it feels like the smallest thing might throw this off. In truth, I'm unsure if your system will be strong enough to punish Trump and the other coup members. But it won't be this steering wheel story that makes or breaks the case. Especially not because someone told journalists "nuh-uh" outside any legal framework.
So I get it. In the US of A powerful people and politicians never really faced consequences before unlike many other Western nations, so it feels like the smallest thing might throw this off. In truth, I'm unsure if your system will be strong enough to punish Trump and the other coup members. But it won't be this steering wheel story that makes or breaks the case. Especially not because someone told journalists "nuh-uh" outside any legal framework.
Also pay attention to this repeated pattern by Trump loyalist.
*Some scandal or mini-controversy breaks out*
Trumper: "That's not true! I will gladly testify under oath".
*Waits for news cycle to move on*
Trumper: "Actually I won't be testifying..."
Ginny Thomas literally just did this today. After claiming she would gladly testify, once the spotlight left, she quietly backtracks from testifying. It's the same old pattern. I'm sure Trump World was freaking out and had "anonymous" sources calling reporters to refute the story and then even saying they'll testify under oath, simply to dampen the impact of the negative headline.
So until all the main principles are testifying under oath, I'm not reading too much into the media spin game. Also wheel-gate is probably one of the least important revelations today. The only real relevant thing about that situation was that Trump still wanted to go to the capitol after knowing people in the crowd had assault rifles and body armor. As long as that can still be corroborated then wheel-gate doesn't matter.
*Some scandal or mini-controversy breaks out*
Trumper: "That's not true! I will gladly testify under oath".
*Waits for news cycle to move on*
Trumper: "Actually I won't be testifying..."
Ginny Thomas literally just did this today. After claiming she would gladly testify, once the spotlight left, she quietly backtracks from testifying. It's the same old pattern. I'm sure Trump World was freaking out and had "anonymous" sources calling reporters to refute the story and then even saying they'll testify under oath, simply to dampen the impact of the negative headline.
So until all the main principles are testifying under oath, I'm not reading too much into the media spin game. Also wheel-gate is probably one of the least important revelations today. The only real relevant thing about that situation was that Trump still wanted to go to the capitol after knowing people in the crowd had assault rifles and body armor. As long as that can still be corroborated then wheel-gate doesn't matter.
And that was something she heard first hand, not something someone told her later, which gives it more credence for sure.
It absolutely wasn't, but that's the only thing our media is focusing on because they are a collective abject failure at their profession.
Which Cheney followed up by specifically asking who she heard it from (Ornato) and if Engel was present when Ornato told her the story (which she said he was), and if he refuted any part of Ornato's recounting of the events (she said he didn't).
The narrative news media is gobbling up now is a standard Trump/GOP tactic of attacking small secondary parts of a credible witness to their crimes, but the questioning Cheney followed up with indicates that the purpose of bringing it up was more to establish the places/roles of Ornato and Engel in Trump's attempt to go to the Capitol than to specifically dwell on the events in the SUV.
Regarding the CNN reporter, it's much more likely that he was referring to the known story and simply misspoke as to the source - wrongly attributing it to the secret service themselves. The alternative is that the secret service called him personally, and only him, to confirm the anonymously-sourced story, and that he didn't think their official confirmation was worth passing on to anyone else at CNN, and no other outlet or journalist thought that new information was worth reporting.
I've actually been pleasantly surprised by the headlines I've seen. Even top Reddit headlines seemed focused on multiple shocks from the testimony and not just the lunging part.
That's not really a Trump/GOP tactic specifically but one that has been used forever by everyone as means to spread their propaganda/rhetoric.
OP
OP
Hey this is good news. This means the Trump cult is watching the hearings.
Hate-watching, but watching nonetheless
Oh he was absolutely watching. Someone posted his comments on his truth social platform where he was losing his shit over them.
That's what I'm thinking as well. Pretty unprofessional stuff as there is a big difference between, "The Secret Service is saying" and "an anonymous source close to the Secret Service is saying" and that's a distinction that should be made 100% of the time on-air or in print by any media company.
You know for someone who claimed to only hire "the best people" , he sure fired a lot and then bashed them for being horrible.
Must not have been the "best people"