Why do they need to convict on it?
The committee's job also isn't to gather evidence for the DOJ.
The DOJ has to do its own work.
Someone more cynical would say the goalposts are being moved.They don't. It's just today's whiny deflection.
Why do they need to convict on it?
The committee's job also isn't to gather evidence for the DOJ.
The DOJ has to do its own work.
Someone more cynical would say the goalposts are being moved.They don't. It's just today's whiny deflection.
That's because WWE and NASCAR are primarily night and weekend viewing.Because most of his potential voters apparently switch off Fox and watch cooking shows and baseball whenever the Jan 6 stuff comes on, I guess.
Because he said the war in Iraq was a mistake. He was a wild card. They preferred the stability of a Bush or a Clinton.Why would he be dangerous to the Military Contractors?
Trump explained repeatedly he wanted a bigger, stronger military and that it should be free to commit more war crimes.
Unless you think a specific current contractor thought Trump was going to switch to a different war contractor because he was willing to be bribed more openly or something?
She doesn't.
She told the committee what Ornato told her.
And "Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was upset when they wouldn't let him" isn't being denied by the people involved. The denial (such as it is) was that he lunged for the steering wheel or attacked anyone.
How is this even a plausible story? Everybody seem to ignore the fact that the secret service driver will take the president where he demands to be taken. I believe a Secret Service spokesman said exactly that yesterday.It's more of an intellectual challenge to figure out if that ridiculously obese old man could fit over the seats and effectively grab. You know what??... I'd like to see a forensic recreation of that. Actually bring The Beast around and have an equally fat and ungainly old man actually wriggle over the seat and lunge for the wheel. I think that's the only way we can satisfy ourselves that it occurred. Personally, I think he got across the seat-back, but then became wedged on his fat gut and couldn't generate any leverage. But I'm just guessing on that.
Valcazar is correct and I should correct my statementFrank this is what you posted: "Only the story told to her by Ornato about rump grabbing the wheel of the Beast was hearsay.
The rest is first hand, eye witness testimony she directly witnessed."
Everything that Ornato told her that happened and what was said in the car is hearsay. That's the legal concept of hearsay.
Perhaps you got lost in this thread as to who has posted what. I did not call her a liar. I've been saying all along the Committee should not ask her about things where she wasn't physically present.
Someone more wise would admit that the commission never had the power to convict anyone.Someone more cynical would say the goalposts are being moved.
I believe they get an over-ride if it's a matter of direct personal safety and security.How is this even a plausible story? Everybody seem to ignore the fact that the secret service driver will take the president where he demands to be taken. I believe a Secret Service spokesman said exactly that yesterday.
They may tell the president that it is unwise, or that they cannot guarantee his safety, but come on. The guy who has the code to order us all to be fried, can order his driver to drive where he wants to driven.
Seriously?Because he said the war in Iraq was a mistake. He was a wild card. They preferred the stability of a Bush or a Clinton.
Why would I answer the questions from your post?
Epps is your obsession, not mine.
Neither the committee (full of lawyers) nor her even bothered to check the story which would have only required a phone call. This is same old, same old- toss shit at the wall and see how much will stick.I think all I've really committed myself to is that she wasn't in the car. Which still perplexes me why a Congressional committee would want her testimony on that situation.
Is it alright to be perplexed about this? Yeah, I think it's alright.
Please stop spouting off facts! It doesn't bode well in the Republican, Right-wing world. You must be a lying cunt if you are going to be taken seriously!You mean "entirely within her powers and privileges to invite anyone to the committee she wants"?
She tried accepting three other people McCarthy suggested, but he refused.
Why bother?Neither the committee (full of lawyers) nor her even bothered to check the story which would have only required a phone call. This is same old, same old- toss shit at the wall and see how much will stick.
Secret Service says January 6 Committee didn't reach out before Hutchinson testimony on Trump lunging at agent
The U.S. Secret Service said the January 6 Committee did not check an allegation against former President Trump with witnessing agents before a hearing.www.foxnews.com
Nope, strike one.Next!
J6 Claims About Trump And Secret Service Collapses Hours After Hearing
Blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson collapsed hours after Tuesday's show trial hearing.thefederalist.com
The Federalist, huh?Next!
J6 Claims About Trump And Secret Service Collapses Hours After Hearing
Blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson collapsed hours after Tuesday's show trial hearing.thefederalist.com
Would they risk testifying under oath that Hutchinson and Secret Service Engel are lying?The Federalist, huh?
We'll see if those rebuttal witnesses actually come forward, what they say and how well they hold up.....
There's a rule here. A person who testifies under oath is worth more than an infinite number of anonymous sources who told a PoS like Jack Posobiec that the witness was lying.Was there anything that she testified to under oath true?
Until they testify under oath, everything she said is true.
Was there anything that she testified to under oath true?
LOL! EVERYONE signs in and out of the White House- all is easily verifiable. The "committee " in their rush to get Trump "forgot" to do simplest due diligence. I'm glad that you and Franky still have faith. Faith is very important. Stick with it- it will provide me with more hilarity- something I crave above all.There's a rule here. A person who testifies under oath is worth more than an infinite number of anonymous sources who told a PoS like Jack Posobiec that the witness was lying.
That's why we have a concept called a 'trial'. We line people up one by one, have them swear to tell the truth and then a judge decides who is to be believed.
We don't decide things based on what overpaid mouth-whores like Posobiec say on Twitter.
C'mon, JC. You're a smart guy. At least make this interesting.