world

1/6 hearings fuel the question: Did Trump commit a crime?

84 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


84 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Well, it’s ‘today’.

Where’s Mr Engels? Any discrepancy with his previous testimony will be closely examined. As will his bank account.

Until then there is no reason to call Ms. Hutchinson a liar.

5 ( +16 / -11 )

Trump supporters would rather believe there is a massive conspiracy by multiple high ranking life-long Republicans in a coordinated collusion to bring down Trump, all lying under oath, than believe Trump may actually be as unhinged as everything has shown him to be over his entire life.

And they wonder why we look down them as being of particularly low intelligence.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

It's not "did Trump commit a crime?" It's "how many and will he be held to account?"

The evidence of his guilt in multiple felonies is overwhelming. (Um, no "But he BELIEVED the election was stolen!" is not a valid defense. This isn't Seinfeld. he isn't George Costanza.)

Election interference (That one is on tape!). Obstruction of a government function. Obstruction of justice. Intimidation of a government official (that one is on tape too!) Seditious insurrection. And that is just off the top of my head.

Even his closest allies were stupified into silence at yesterday's bombshell revelations.

Indictment or not (and I think that the DOJ will eventually have no choice but to at min. launch a formal criminal investigation very likely resulting in multiple indictements) Don is as burnt as one of his over-cooked steaks. His allies say so (privately) GQP congressmen say so (privately - real profiles in courage, these guys) and the conservative press is starting to say so. The Washington Examiner the Conserviative paper of record in DC says so in no uncertain terms: Trump is unfit for office and should engender significant support of any kind ever again.

As to why the DOJ is not moving on him, I cannot say. The best I can surmise is one of the following:

1) They are. We just don't know it yet because DOJ keeps it's work secret. (Possible. That is their modus operandi)

2) They are exhibiting maximum caution due to the political position that the orange blob used to hold. (Sadly possible. I am beginning to think that Merrick Garland would be a better Justice than AG. The AG's job is to make cases, not to look at all sides of a case. Let Trump's defense attorneys - God save them... - make that case.)

3) The DOJ is scared to make a case. (I think this is the least likely. It is possible at the political level there might be a hesitancy to "go there". I would be willing to bet some amount of money - and I am no a betting person, that the line prosecutors have seen the wanton corruption and utter criminality of the Trump "regime" and would slither over razor-blades for the opportunity to take a crack at him. He is the political equivalent of a mob boss and we all saw what taking down a mob boss did for Ruddy's career.)

But "did he?" is no longer a question that any sentient being asks. It's "How many?" and "Will the DOJ file on it?"

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

Did Trump commit A crime? More like "CRIMES".....

Conspiracy to defraud the government: He knew he lost, yet conspired with a band of kooks to overturn an election using phony electors and fake certification lists. Moreover, he pressured numerous government officials to "find" votes that did not exist.

Seditious Conspiracy: Everyone in the White House KNEW there would be violence on Jan 6th - AND they knew the mob would be armed - they were warning people to stay away, they were worried about the legal consequences, so they must have been involved in the planning with violent domestic terrorist groups; the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.

Dereliction of Duty: He incited the crowd to violence, then went back to the West Wing and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as the violence escalated. The timeline provided by Trump's OWN STAFF shows he was aware of the violence AND THAT THEY WERE ARMED yet didn't instruct either the Justice Dept or Pentagon to send police and National Guard. Everyone, to include Sean Hannity, were pleading to Meadows to get Trump to act - he didn't. And its clear he thought Mike Pence "deserved" to be hanged...

Wire Fraud: Trump raised over $250 million over the past year by conning his supporters to contribute to the "Defend the Election" fund - who's stated purpose was a lie - Trump KNEW he lost, yet continued with the scam .

Witness Tampering: The most serious. Cheney stated they have texts and emails showing attempts to intimidate witnesses. That's mob-level crime.

Is it any wonder that everyone in the WH was begging to be put on the pardon list?

4 ( +17 / -13 )

But "did he?" is no longer a question that any sentient being asks.

Only the flat-earthers of politics are still trying to argue Trump isn't guilty of sedition.

5 ( +20 / -15 )

As to Hutchison's assertions: She was under oath with no reason to lie. And this is splitting hairs a bit, but she was very clear that she did not witness this, but that Ornata told her that is what happened.

I think this may come down to a he-said/she-said issue and people are left to decide who is more credible. With that in mind, the guy who told her was at the time no longer a government employee and had become a Trump poltiical appointee (He has since gone back to government service I believe.) The head of the detail was known to be very close to Trump and in fact several members of the detail were assigned to other duties after the admin changed because it was felt that they were personally too close to Trump to carry out their duties effectively.

There is also the hesitancy of the Secret Service to testify as that would make their protectees more hesitant to trust them.

So what we may have here is a situation where they say "I wouldn't characterize it as an assault as such." or "I wouldn't say he 'lunged'....

But there is nothing in his personality that is out of sync with her story. Trump is a violent, unhinged bully with no emotional control. This is entirely "on brand" for him.

I

get the feeling that the agents were mad at him for putting his hands on them; blurted out what happened in a moment of frustration, and now think the better of it and are trying to clean up without committing perjury.

And what REALLY scares Trumps ra-ra boys is that Hutchinson's most damning testimony is completely un-countered. Trump knew there were a lot of weapons in the crowd. He knew that they were not there for him and demanded that armed protesters be allowed into the rally. He wanted them to go from the Elipse to the Captial. He incited the crowd to violence knowing that the PB and OK were planning on going anyway with violent intent. And when informed of the violence, he conciously did nothing.

She is tying him directly to multiple crimes and it scares the bejesus out of his cult. When the panel on Faux "news" is stunned into silence, they have trouble.

So look for increased witness intimidation, denial, deflection, whataboutism, character assasination and the like because the facts are not on Don's side. The law is not on Don's side. The polls say that the people are not on Don's side.

As she said, "This was all predicated on a lie." There is no getting around that.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Her courage should be applauded.

So many so-called GOP leaders have displayed their cowardice in the face of a threat to democracy. Shame on them. It took a young staffer to tell the truth.

I wish Trump did participate in the riot.

At least his arrest, trial and detention would have happened a lot sooner.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

ignore her lies, the "characterization" of what she said is true.

She said "Beast" (the limo), she meant the SUV, of course.

The people involved denied it, but they didnt deny ALL of it, so it was a somewhat "limited" denial.

She testified under oath she wrote something on a notecard. Someone else already testified previously that THEY wrote it.

Ah its doesnt matter who really wrote it, just the contents of what was written matter.

thats the latest from the media.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

thats the latest from the media.

Putting the cart before the horse as usual. I think you should wait a bit. Hear a little more.

This isn’t a trial, it’s a hearing. Hear what everyone has to say under oath, then you can start calling people liars.

Even better, wait for a trial.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

She was under oath with no reason to lie.

I wonder why no one else gets this assertion.

You dont need a reason to lie, if you are a liar by personality type.

And if its not a lie, you still have people who exaggerate and use hyperbole.

he grabbed at the wheel! he assaulted an agent!

Oh wait that didnt happen....well. he was still angry. you know? same thing!

NO, its not.

Her entire testimony was based on what others supposedly told her. So she will just claim she was told incorrect information that didnt happen and its not her fault.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

The Donald Trump that supposedly cant sip water or walk down a slippery incline?

can now reach the drivers seat with his 10 foot long arms (attached to small hands, of course), punch through the bulletproof glass, grab the steering wheel to force the limo to go somewhere else and then choke out a Secret Service agent who tried to stop him.

Man, he is a badass, whoi knew?

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Some weed might do you some good, black.

You might actually exist in this reality again for a while.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

He was in the SUV. There is no partition between the back and the front. Any idiot could reach over the seat and it seems this idiot did.

The fact that this particular idiot was the protectee saved him from the beating of a lifetime.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

 Mr. Trump was not in the armored limousine known as “the Beast,” as Ms. Hutchinson implied, but in an S.U.V. that presidents sometimes ride in.

see the media?

As she "implied".

No she testified using the words the "Beast", several times- she didnt imply anything.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

All readers, please do not bicker as you did on this topic yesterday, or you will be suspended for 24 hours. Best to make your point once and then move on to other topics.

She called it "the beast" and that is it? That is your basis?

Wow, even for you, that is weak.

Whatever armored vehicle Cheeto Jesus is throwing a fit in is routinely called "the beast" to designate it as the vehicle POTUS is in. It's like saying AF-1. It's not the 747. If POTUS was in a Cessna 150 on a joy ride, that would be AF-1.

Everyone but you seems to get this.

Why can't you?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Mr Engel has already testified that 45 insisted on being driven to the Capitol and that they had a disagreement.

His previous and upcoming(?) testimony will need to corroborate further.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

her testimony:

"I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information."

She knows so little that she doesnt even know what car he was in.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

“Your honor I ask this case be dismissed. The witness stated the murderer was wearing a blue tie but as the evidence shows he was clearly wearing a purple tie.”

11 ( +12 / -1 )

As I mentioned, the ABSOLUTE freak out to discredit Ms. Hutchison because her testimony is so damning.

So clutch as one would the the rock on the end of a 400 ft. cliff to any percieved misstatement or incongurity. Because that is all that they have.

She accurately references his state of mind, his intent, and his actions. In other words: she is tying him directly to multiple crimes and there is not mischaracterizing that.

What the rubes trying to take her down fail to see is that she is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence that has and will come out directly connecting Trump to multiple felonies.

Anyone wonder why Mark Medows was calling into the Willard Hotel on Jan 5th? I bet the DOJ wonders. I bet they have the call logs.

Why he closed the door to Hutchison while he was talking on the phone. Twice? (Trump was still speaking so we know it wasn't him.) He never did that before or after.

Why it was the DOJ IG that served a subpenoa on Eastman? The DOJ IC only deals with DOJ officials (Clark) UNLESS THERE IS A CROSS-OVER.

No, Hutchison is the tide going out suddenly before the tsunami comes crashing ashore.

And a lot of people are going to look (more) foolish, which is a pretty hard bar to clear.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Some weed might do you some good, black. 

Weed is another reason why the cities in blue States are going under.

You might actually exist in this reality again for a while.

Now the left think that heresay is reality…

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

She accurately references his state of mind, his intent, and his actions.

how? she wasnt there.

how can anyone know someone else's state of mind and intent? they can only speculate, maybe. IF there were there at the time something happened. She was not.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

He was in the SUV. There is no partition between the back and the front. Any idiot could reach over the seat and it seems this idiot did. 

Hmmm…the Secret Service is now publicly and privately denying that. This is what happens when you have a one-sided partisan committee that refuses to allow any cross-examination.

The fact that this particular idiot was the protectee saved him from the beating of a lifetime.

Which to your point makes it seem all so unbelievable that these allegations even took place. Even Hutchison was careful in her language testifying, now why is that? Maybe because the Dems know that congressional hearings are coming their way once the GOP takes over and Schiff is definitely going to be it’s coming attraction.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

anyway, enjoy your narrative until it completely falls apart then move on to the next fake thing.

Do you think she should ask for a pardon now or is it too soon?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Notice how the right are hanging onto the whole "she was lying about the Beast", ignoring how she corroborated everyone elses stories that Trump knew he lost and was trying to overthrow the election anyways? The whole part about Trump grabbing the wheel just showed how much of a whiney little temper tantrum baby he is. It wasn't actually the damning point of the day.

The real damning point was Trump's team's attempt at witness tampering. How many people are going to jail for that one I wonder...

7 ( +9 / -2 )

We'll have to see what the DOJ decides to do after they conclude their own investigation.

I'm satisfied with the work the Senators are doing, exposing just how dangerously close we were to losing democracy. It really was just a handful of people who made the difference.

That, they've made clear.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

She accurately references his state of mind, his intent, and his actions.

how? she wasnt there.

how can anyone know someone else's state of mind and intent? they can only speculate, maybe. IF there were there at the time something happened. She was not.

She was. There are pictures of her in the tent with him just before he walked out to incite the riot, er.... "encourage his supporters."

Funny how NONE of the media pundits ANYWHERE seems to agree with you. Not the WSJ. Not the Washington Examiner, even the bubble-heads on Faux were temporarily struck dumb (to be fair, they didn't need striking hard. They were most of the way there already.)

It seems that the considered legal, political and media opinion by folks both left and right is that it was a smoking gun and that Don is as burnt as one of his over-cooked steaks.

Funny, that.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Hmmm…the Secret Service is now publicly and privately denying that. This is what happens when you have a one-sided partisan committee that refuses to allow any cross-examination.

You’re confusing Hearing and Trial. Mr Engel will testify again, right? Right?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I'm satisfied with the work the Senators are doing, exposing just how dangerously close we were to losing democracy. It really was just a handful of people who made the difference.

One of the problems with the extreme polarization of politics in the US, and with such a fast moving cycle, is that it's instinctual to want to punch back as hard as low as you've been punched. This is why you see the rise of antifa in response to the far-right extremism that is flourishing in American society.

But these hearings show that due process is necessary, and that trying to take over the country will only have you exposed for the snake oil salesman you are.

These hearings will not win the Democrats the next election. But Trump will never be president again, if he even maintains his freeom, and that's an important lesson and message for the next traitor who wants to try to overthrow the nation.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Strangerland: One of the problems with the extreme polarization of politics in the US

We should keep in mind that the people who stopped him were Republicans, many appointed by Trump. All hope is not lost.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Funny how NONE of the media pundits ANYWHERE seems to agree with you. Not the WSJ. Not the Washington Examiner, even the bubble-heads on Faux were temporarily struck dumb (to be fair, they didn't need striking hard. They were most of the way there already.)

It seems that the considered legal, political and media opinion by folks both left and right is that it was a smoking gun and that Don is as burnt as one of his over-cooked steaks. 

Here is the thing that boggles my mind, even if the SS debunks the limo allegations more reports coming out that Hutchison had credibility problems with her story, this committee never even thought or considered to question her and take on these allegations. So it would seem that the only thing that mattered was just to give the impression out there for public consumption and fodder for the haters and to challenge her allegations, not a word.

This entire assault on Trump is slowly falling apart, the Dems know it and they’re still pushing all of this and they are making themselves look like desperate charlatans. And still more bad news for the left…

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cleared-of-contempt-new-york-fraud-investigation/

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Seems our Trump supporting friends only want to focus on one line from her testimony....

I imagine that's good therapy to sooth their cognitive dissonance. One did stumble on to the truth with one comment though...

You dont need a reason to lie, if you are a liar by personality type.

BINGO! The whole Jan 6th debacle, summed up in one phrase.... Trump KNEW he lost in Nov, yet continued with the Big Lie in an attempt to overthrow the election AND fleece his supporters.

Keep arguing whether it was the Beast or a SUV - everyone else is focusing on the bombshell that Trump KNEW the mob was ARMED when he urged them to "fight like hell", then planned to go to the Capitol WITH THE ARMED MOB.

That was something Trump's own WH lawyer, Pat Cipilone, acknowledged “we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable”....

DeSantis just opened a champagne bottle...

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Trump KNEW he lost in Nov, yet continued with the Big Lie in an attempt to overthrow the election AND fleece his supporters.

Keep arguing whether it was the Beast or a SUV - everyone else is focusing on the bombshell that Trump KNEW the mob was ARMED when he urged them to "fight like hell", then planned to go to the Capitol WITH THE ARMED MOB.

whats the evidence he KNEW all this?

dont tell me. its the testimony.......from the person..... who lied at least 4 times?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cleared-of-contempt-new-york-fraud-investigation/

Means he is no longer acting contemptuously. It does not mean he was cleared. And more importantly, he is still facing the case in question. So. Not really cleared at all.

If by "The case against Trump is falling apart" you meant "picking up steam towards a probable indictment" then yes, I suppose it is "falling apart."

Perhaps you too might benefit from some of strangerland's fathers medical herbs.....

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Another one, confirmed as false by the Washington Post:

On March 7, 2022, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to @January6thCmte

that former senior Justice Department official Jeff Clark strategized at White House with Giuliani and Trump campaign to object to election.

100% false.

They've never met or communicated.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Breaking: The Committee just dropped a Subpenoa on Cipollone.

He MIGHT be able to duck this one, but definately would not be able to duck on from the DOJ were it to come in the future.

Probably the Committee issued is so that he cannot say later "I would have come if they had Subpenoaed me" as did Yosimite Sam.

Pat better become a bit more familiar with the nuts and bolts of the Crime-Fraud exception. And of course, being associated with Trump in any way shape or form necessitates the retention of a "really effing good" criminal defense attorney.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Means he is no longer acting contemptuously. It does not mean he was cleared. And more importantly, he is still facing the case in question. So. Not really cleared at all.

What it basically means is that the former President is cleared and this is the 4th time that NYC tried to go after this guy and failed and the Dems know or at least we hope that they will now realize once and for all that no matter what they want, or wish it all means nothing to the average American and just like with this committee the Democrats actually think that Garland is going to charge Trump and Garland knows it will not happen and the Dems know it, but we get why they do this.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

I've never supported the death penalty, but I might consider it for Trump. As for his supporters... they can't even look in a mirror these days, even they know how ashamed of themselves they are.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

To even think that Trump would come close to being arrested let alone get the death penalty (for exactly what?) is just so far from the reaches of reality, it’s comical.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Yep, the walls are closing in. The latest bombshell testimony will finally, finally be the last nail in the coffin...

...or words to that effect.

Not to besmirch the young lady, but she wasnt there. She can't remember what she overheard. She was never a party to any direct conversations. And now it seems that the people actually involved- the driver, Secret Service agent, are contradicting her story. Good luck getting to the bottom of anything.

I would call this a kangaroo court but that would be an insult to both kangaroos and courts.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Um, no. that isn't "basically" what it means AT ALL. Either you are being intentionally deceptive or you are not, um what's the diplomatic term???? "Adept" at the English language.

Here you go in plain English:

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron said he reviewed additional documents Trump submitted and the attorney general's office agreed that the conditions to purge his contempt had been met. Trump had previously met other conditions needed to lift the order, including paying a fine and sworn statements describing the Trump Organization's document retention and destruction policy, as well as a review of five boxes tied to Trump that were located in an off-site storage facility.

Let me translate this in a manner more, um.... "suitable" to your level of cognition.

Trump WAS behaving in a contemptuous manner.

He got fined.

He didn't like being fined so he did what he was asked to do in the first place.

The court lifted the contempt order.

The suit itself is still on-going.

Long story short: Don got spanked by the court for being a naughty little boy until he decided to play nice. The court won. Don lost.

And the court filing continues.

If this constitutes winning, you might like my hometown Royals. They have a record that is right in line with yours for predictions.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Blacklabel: "dont tell me. its the testimony.......from the person..... who lied at least 4 times?"

As opposed to Trump's more than 40,000 times? or is it just 30,000?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

It’s comical

It is but not at the level of believing the 2020 election was stolen in n the first place.

Imagine saying it in a job interview.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Not to besmirch the young lady, but she wasnt there. She can't remember what she overheard. She was never a party to any direct conversations. And now it seems that the people actually involved- the driver, Secret Service agent, are contradicting her story. Good luck getting to the bottom of anything.

Oh but you are. And incorrectly so. She was in every meeting. Medows had a reputation for that.

Not being able to recollect ever word of every meeting does not affect credibility. Nobody remembers everything. Taken in totality, given how her story fits with the broader picture, she seems quite credible to me and to a great many others that actually exist in this reality.

They have a different take. We will see. She is on record under oath. They have yet to do so. As I pointed out earlier, she is stating what she was told, not what she saw. I am inclined to believe her as are most of her former co-workers who have stated as much.

But of course, we don't want to besmirch her.... No, Trump world would NEVER stoop so low....

6 ( +6 / -0 )

its irrelevant. You feel for a "steering wheel hoax" which is Jussie Smollett level of hilarious as an obvious lie.

*Trump**:  And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.*

*Bush**: Whatever you want.*

*Trump**: Grab ’em by the steering wheel. You can do anything.*

But but, its not about the steering wheel! What was the headline of the Japan Today article just yesterday?

Thought so.

Plus the note card lie. How can she not know that isnt her own handwriting? its an intentional lie that she testified she wrote it. But but, maybe she just misremembered? Dont you know your own handwriting when you see it?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

And the sad irony of the whole fiasco is that there really is no way for the Democrats to win.

Scenario 1. Trump is politically damaged enough not to run in 2024. This is the stated goal of the Committee. So what does that do? It clears the field for younger, more charismatic, and more acceptable candidates who carry little/no political baggage. Congratulations, Democrats, you just elected Ron DiSantis.

Scenario 2. Trump emerges unscathed. He runs again. He possibly wins.

The blind hatred for the System is fascinating and horrifying to see. He upset their collective apple carts to such an extent that revenge clouds their every waking thought and pursues them at night in their sleep. Let it go, let him run again. He might be the only candidate that Biden/whoever has any chance of beating in the 2024 election.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Hmmm…the Secret Service is now publicly and privately denying that. This is what happens when you have a one-sided partisan committee that refuses to allow any cross-examination.

Correction. Someone in the Secret Service has told CNN that Ornato denies having told Hutchinson about the steering wheel incident. Unlike Hutchinson's testimony, however, Ornato's "hearsay" has not been made under oath.

Ornato and Engel, and the big feller himself, are all free to volunteer testimony to the commission and refute Hutchinson's account if they want. Under oath.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Nemo, the problem is that her testimony was unchallenged. Any semi competent lawyer would have had her squirming and stuttering. The constant repetition of "something to the effect of..." would never pass muster in any legitimate legal proceeding. She was in meetings but not in the conversations. Just overheard stuff. Sorry, but that is not good enough, not without strong corroboration.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Imagine saying you believe Trump’s stolen election claim on a first meeting with clients.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Weed is another reason why the cities in blue States are going under.

Republican administrations are why red states are having opioid and health care breakdowns.

And it all comes back to the neo-liberal policies of the Dems which Trump followed, betraying his followers.

No health care, more Wall Street gifts and corporate welfare under Donald than ever before.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Imagine saying you believe Trump’s stolen election claim on a first meeting with clients.

One imagines that they would get as many 2nd meetings as they get 2nd dates. Hard to believe so many of them are single, divorced or separated, eh?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Imagine saying you believe Trump’s stolen election claim at an interview to enter a good university.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Just overheard stuff. Sorry, but that is not good enough, not without strong corroboration.

There is an easy way to fix that. Seems rather a lot of these people that know better are dead set on not testifying. Mark, Pat, Ginni, and a host of other luminaries in Don's dungeon. One wonders why that would be?

If the DOJ comes knocking, their options will be rather more limited.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I don't think that anything in her testimony is alone sufficient to prove guilt. And a key witness to this has pleaded the fifth, so we won't get anything from him, despite his de facto acceptance of guilt.

The thing that could get him is the Eastman "Greenbay sweep', the fake elector scheme which is totally traceable. This was a well organized attempt to overthrow the election via pseudo legal schemes. I think that everything else is supportive evidence of an attempt to overthrow the election, but nothing on its own that will be prosecutable.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Did Trump commit a crime?!

Are you kidding?! Leading an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol which resulted in death and injury of people….. Someday when Trump dies of old age, as a former president, his coffin will be on public display there. That’s ironic, isn’t it? The guy who defaced the Capitol and tried to overthrow will be respected by it. When that time comes, it shouldn’t happen.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Nemo, the problem is that her testimony was unchallenged. Any semi competent lawyer would have had her squirming and stuttering. 

Lawyer?

It seems a lot of people are confused regarding the difference between a hearing and a trial.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Case in point, if this so-called hearing wants to get to the truth why do they not push on, but they want to take a recess and now why is that?

What’s the rush?

Wouldn’t you agree it’s better to do these kind of things methodically and carefully?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What’s the rush?

Wouldn’t you agree it’s better to do these kind of things methodically and carefully?

Yes, and the Dems had over 6 years time to build over dozen cases times 3 and still nothing and the Dems still are trying. Hey, go for it, because maybe THIS TIME around it will be different from the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Words have meaning and none of the words you pasted mean anything remotely close to what you thought they mean. 

Hmm..I’m not the problem nor the person on trial. When you have Jake Tapper and Bill Maher questioning the word of this woman and when you connect the dots and realize that the Dems aren’t even listening to the people against this (the secret service) and claiming that none of these allegations occurred and the left refuses to take the words of the very people that were there, then you need to take a pause and really look at what is taking place. If you have even Trump haters questioning this woman’s credibility, you have a serious problem.

So on that basis, and the history you have of being so consistently and utterly wrong,

No, not really. There is a red wave coming and all Biden had to do to knock the GOP back was to not let things get out of control, I predicted he would and now we see it happening in real time.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Back on the main topic of criminality. There was this gem from yesterday that kind of fell through the cracks. Liz is deposing Mike Flynn, a 3-star general, former head of Joint Special Ops Command, a blink and you'll miss-him national security advisor fired for lying to the FBI. He later plead guilty and was pardoned by (you guessed it) Trump.

*Cheney**: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified morally?*

*Flynn**: Take the Fifth.*

*Cheney**: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified legally?*

*Flynn**: Fifth*

*Cheney**: Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?*

*Flynn**: The Fifth*

So, just to be crystal clear, Flynn cited his right not to incriminate himself when asked directly whether he believes in the peaceful transition of power. He refused to answer whether he believes in a principle that sits, literally, at the heart of American democracy.

The "paragon of patriots" in Trump world took the 5th when asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power.

Just let that one sink in a moment.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Hmm..I’m not the problem nor the person on trial. When you have Jake Tapper and Bill Maher questioning the word of this woman and when you connect the dots and realize that the Dems aren’t even listening to the people against this (the secret service) and claiming that none of these allegations occurred and the left refuses to take the words of the very people that were there, then you need to take a pause and really look at what is taking place. If you have even Trump haters questioning this woman’s credibility, you have a serious problem.

See, now you are attempting to conflate what you actually said "Trump has been cleared by a NY court" and a completely different issue - namely whether to believe sworn testimony or not.

Thank you for making my point(s) for me. I think "we" have all benefited from your "clarifications".

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Yes, and the Dems had over 6 years time to build over dozen cases times 3 and still nothing and the Dems still are trying. Hey, go for it, because maybe THIS TIME around it will be different from the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that.

You understand how time works, right? That movie with the delorean wasn’t real.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Hmm..I’m not the problem nor the person on trial. 

It isn’t a trial.

realize that the Dems aren’t even listening to the people against this (the secret service) and claiming that none of these allegations occurred and the left refuses to take the words of the very people that were there

Nobody is listening to them because they haven’t given sworn testimony. Have you spoken to them?

More hearing, less gossip.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

**Cheney**: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified morally?**

**Flynn**: Take the Fifth.**

**Cheney**: Do you believe the violence on January 6 was justified legally?**

**Flynn**: Fifth**

**Cheney**: Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?**

**Flynn**: The Fifth**

Yes, back on the topic of criminality and let’s be honestly fair here..

Eric Holder pleaded the Fifth and obstructed Congress and so did Lois Lerner. Hillary lied under oath about her server, now my argument is, these people light under earth, should these people have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? If you don’t think so then why should Flynn or anyone else on the right be prosecuted if they did the same thing, so if you want to prosecute someone for cleaning the fifth or lying then be consistent, but if liberals just go after the right and press them hard for pleading the fifth or because he liked to Congress and at the same time allow the left to get away with doing the same thing, doesn’t give a lot of confidence to the average American about their political leaders going after one party, that’s the problem we don’t have fairness and we have a two-tier justice system. And it doesn’t matter how many times liberals in Congress were in radio or elsewhere tell conservatives to be quiet, we’re not until there is absolute political fairness, if you want to go after someone and you have evidence that supports your allegation go for it, but don’t look at the other side that you favor and give them a pass if they are charged with the same allegation, this is the reason why more and more people are not trusting the democratic parties and are switching the affiliations because they see there is nothing to gain by this one sided political favoritism.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

They said they ready to testify.

the committee immediately subpoenaed…..someone else.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

She testified under oath she wrote something on a notecard. Someone else already testified previously that THEY wrote it.

so all those that says shes lying under oath are the same people that can say whatever they want on social media news etc, if theyre so convinced shes lying then they should testify under oath as well.

lying under oath has ramifications, saying what you want in public , doesnt

4 ( +4 / -0 )

There should have been another live TV “surprise” event already.

They have already shown it’s a less than 24 hour setup needed.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Scenario 1. Trump is politically damaged enough not to run in 2024. This is the stated goal of the Committee.

No it isn’t.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Well, our Trump supporting friends have shown us again that there is one thing they are consistent on...insulting their own MAGA-members....

Hutchinson was a loyal member of the MAGA-cabal - served in the WH and was a lose aide to Mark Meadows....you can't get much closer to the center of MAGA-world than that...

And before she testified, she was defended as a true patriot, a freedom-fighter, a hero....

Then once she sat down and testified under oath, she immediately turned in to scum...

It's hilarious watching the cultists turn on their own....Barr, Miller, Stepien, even Ivanka - are now "lying traitors"....

ROFL.....

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Yes, and the Dems had over 6 years time to build over dozen cases times 3 and still nothing and the Dems still are trying.

republican's spent 2.5 yrs investigating Bengazi, closed it down through lack of evidence.

Jan 6 hearing have shown far more evidence, by republican's than anything the GOP could of dreamed up.

these are only the hearings the trials come later, even FOX is getting twitchy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELAxdaripE

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Funny how none of this nit-picking over details fails to deflect from the overwhelming evidence of his state of mind (I mean she was there. She saw him.) Intent (as evidenced by what Cippiloni and Medows said in front of her. As for the hearsay argument, be patient sweethearts, their turn in the barrel will come. If not here, then from DOJ.) and an overt act. In this case knowing that supporters were armed, insisting they be let in, not warning or ordering any kind of preventive measures and when informed that the Capital had been breached, doing zip for hours.

State of mind. Intent. Actions

Smoke? Meet Gun. Gun? This is Smoke. You guys were made for each other.

Thank goodness we have our resident fact checker to parse every word and keep us from seeing the forrest for the trees.

Somewhere a position on the "Truth" social moderation board awaits them.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Cassidy Hutchinson also tested that Trump lunged for a Big Mac which was later revealed as a lie.

This is a farce!

Welcome to the Big Top.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

the committee immediately subpoenaed…..someone else.

I told you yesterday you would claim a cover up today.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

She testified under oath she wrote something on a notecard. Someone else already testified previously that THEY wrote it.

so all those that says shes lying under oath are the same people that can say whatever they want on social media news etc, if theyre so convinced shes lying then they should testify under oath as well.

I think everyone whether they be on the right or the left should be held to the same standard and if you take an oath and if you lie under oath, you should be prosecuted.

lying under oath has ramifications,

Well, it should for everyone, but it doesn’t and that needs to change and change fast?

Never fear! Captain Whatabout is here! 

Not Captain….whatever, either hold all to the same standard or don’t, this is not a difficult thing to ask for as an American.

With his moral equivalence and ability to make connections where there are none,

No, a lot and that’s why we have videos and audio files to prove and in the history archives that we do indeed have It just a system that is carved out for conservatives and for liberals And that is indisputable and irrefutable fact.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Two-thirds of Americans say they think that former President Trump should be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new poll. A Politico-Morning Consult poll released on Wednesday asked respondents if they believed Trump’s efforts to overturn the last presidential election’s results was a crime and that he should face prosecution. Sixty-six percent of respondents said that they thought it was a crime and should be prosecuted, while 19 percent said it was not a crime and 18 percent said they thought it was a crime but Trump should not be prosecuted.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-thirds-back-prosecuting-trump-124621282.html

More champagne corks going off at the DeSantis mansion....and at the Pence's, Cruz's, Pompeo's, Graham's, Hawley's, Haley's.....LOL...

That might even make Mitch McConnell smile...

5 ( +7 / -2 )

now we find Cipollone wasn’t in the WH at the say and time she claimed she saw him and had a “conversation”.

I couldn’t find this anywhere

Anyway, Cipollone has been subpoenaed, so he is free to counter Hutchinson’s account if it’s inaccurate or false. Under oath.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

wo-thirds of Americans say they think that former President Trump should be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new poll. A Politico-Morning Consult poll released on Wednesday asked respondents if they believed Trump’s efforts to overturn the last presidential election’s results was a crime and that he should face prosecution. Sixty-six percent of respondents said that they thought it was a crime and should be prosecuted, while 19 percent said it was not a crime and 18 percent said they thought it was a crime but Trump should not be prosecuted.

Lincoln,

We are only allowed to talk about popularity when it relates directly to Faux news viewer numbers. Otherwise, equating popularity and credibility is strictly forbidden.

I didn't send you the TPS report on that one? I can get you a copy...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Imagine you're involved in a kooky conspiracy to overthrow an election, and to fleece your supporters out of millions of dollars....and your WH counsel - your personal lawyer - the guy you pay to keep you out of legal trouble....says; “we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable” ....

Yea, you might be in a bit of trouble....

Trump is toast...

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Imagine you're involved in a kooky conspiracy to overthrow an election...

... and you manage to prevent its investigation and discussion...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The idea that one piece of testimony being contested factually (and not yet contested) equals that all testimony is therefore discounted and thrown out is as logically silly as being incorrect about the type of 1 tree in a vast forest and having the very existence of the forest called into question.

It was an analogy and an apt one if I say so myself.

Allow me to remain rigourously "on-topic."

There are "some" who would parse every word looking for any possible inconsistency no matter how small or implausible to call into question the credibility of the witness who has just provided in the words of several legal specialists "the smoking gun" of a crime for which Trump can be held accountable.

By parsing words and causing doubt where there really isn't any, they seek to undercut the overwhelming amount (would could equate it to a forest perhaps) of evidence of his guilt.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The chances of Trump going to prison is equal to the chance of Kamala Harris becoming President

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Indeed, Pat Cipollone has been subpoenaed...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-trump-white-house-counsel-pat-cipollone-subpoenaed-by-jan-6-committee/ar-AAZ0Ioc?cvid=f7551c03d3374938976dce0b3b106ca0

Curious what our Trump supporters say about him - is he a "MAGA-hero" or a "lying traitor"? Or can't they decide yet?

Whichever, he has the opportunity to do what another WH Counsel did - John Dean - someone with the courage to tell the truth under oath about the crimes he saw directly being committed by a President...

The Nixon-Trump parallels just keep increasing...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

hese liberal demonrats are totally given over to a depraved mind. Their obsession with the 45th is unparalleled. They should be tackling more pressing matters

You mean more important than a violent attempt to overthrow democracy and let a sociopath become a king? More important than that?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

These liberal democrats

Maybe you are not watching, but almost every witness has been a Republican? Most of them from inside the Trump admin?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites