Key Witnesses Challenge Bombshell Allegations of Key Witness Before the 1/6 Committee

There is an old expression in the media that some facts are just too good to check. It is a recognition that journalists can sometimes be reluctant to endanger a good story by confirming an essential fact. The Select Committee on the Jan. 6th riot is facing a similar accusation this week after critical witnesses not contradicted some of the most explosive assertions of last week’s witness, Cassidy Hutchinson. Specifically, critical witnesses said that no one on the Committee reached out to confirm her account of former President Donald Trump lunging for the wheel in “the Beast” in a physical altercation with his security team on that day.  The controversy highlights the failure of the Committee to offer a balanced investigation.

Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.

Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence has been both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.

We have been discussing the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses are primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony is shown and they are given narrow follow up questions. They at times seem more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It has the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.

That framing has led to glaring omissions. The Committee has routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.

What is striking is that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process.  Indeed, much of this evidence would have been hard to refute like the deposition of former Attorney General Bill Barr on the election fraud allegations.

It would also have protected the Democrats from what occurred last week. A former top aide to Mark Meadows, Hutchinson shocked the world with her second-hand account of an unhinged and violent president trying to force the security team to drive him to the Capitol. (There has not been a contradiction of the underlying account that Trump was prevented from going to the Capitol — an allegation that raises some serious legal questions, as discussed in yesterday’s column).

The allegation that Trump physically tried to stop or direct the car suggested that he was not just angry but out-of-control in that critical moment. The Committee combined that account with later testimony of how some were considering removing him from office under the 25th Amendment.

If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, such testimony could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world. A Republican-appointed member would have likely sought confirmation from the obvious witnesses or the Secret Service.  After all, the Secret Service was cooperating with the Select Committee and had already offered information on that day.

Hutchinson recounted a story that she insists was given to her by Tony Ornato, the former deputy chief of staff for operations. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that.

In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her.

However, Fox News is reporting that Ornato was “shocked” by the testimony. He and Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Secret Service detail, both testified previously and this is a hardly a detail that they would omit from their accounts.

What is even more notable is the alleged failure of the Committee to reach out to them or the Secret Service to confirm that account before making it the highlight of a national hearing. Indeed, the hearing was suddenly called with little prior warning to highlight the new and explosive allegations.

This is the peril of an investigation that occurs in an echo chamber. Such “gotcha” moments are powerful in the moment but can also be equally damaging if later challenged.

This is the type of problem that arises when the focus of a hearing is persuasive rather than investigative. The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.

320 thoughts on “Key Witnesses Challenge Bombshell Allegations of Key Witness Before the 1/6 Committee”

  1. “If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, such testimony could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world.” Well, DUH! Keeping dissent and skepticism off the committee was, like, the whole point of Pelosi’s little power play. From the start this was not meant to be an honest, truth-seeking body — it was always meant to be a kangaroo court. This was a “get-Trump” hoax, just like Russiagate and two baseless impeachments. That’s the only play the Democrats know.

  2. Jeff, I will wait until the Secret Service agents testify to determine whether the claims are false. And if the Commission does not call on them to testify PUBLICLY, their credibility will be destroyed. I know that this is not a court proceeding . So, the admission of hearsay is ” admissible”. And if Trump did anything illegal, I want him prosecuted. From a selfish standpoint, if information comes out that sufficiently damages him to the point of not being able to run again, I will be elated. He is unelectable.
    I do question the zealousness to put on a “witness” that outside of having first hand knowledge of Trump being ok with armed supporters being admitted, which is horrible, gave testimony that is precarious at best. And after riding in limousines and SUV’s many times in my life, the claims of grabbing the wheel seem to be physically implausible.
    There is no cross. Why not just let her testify to what she witnessed? And the hug from Liz hardly lends itself to impartiality. If the Secret Service testifying refutes her claims, will they get a hug also?
    And throwing a plate against the wall is hardly a ” threat to democracy”.

    1. Paul,

      The Secret Service agents have already confirmed that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol with his supporters and was irate that they wouldn’t let him.

      “if the Commission does not call on them to testify PUBLICLY, their credibility will be destroyed”

      Why?

      As Turley said: “In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her.” All she did was testify what she was told about it.

      “the admission of hearsay is ” admissible””

      Yes. People can report hearsay in hearings; this isn’t a trial, and the description only goes to Trump’s state of mind.

      “if Trump did anything illegal, I want him prosecuted.”

      Me too! Glad we agree.

      “I do question the zealousness to put on a “witness” that outside of having first hand knowledge of Trump being ok with armed supporters being admitted, which is horrible, gave testimony that is precarious at best.”

      Why? The vast majority of her testimony was as a first person witness to statements by Meadows, by Trump, and others.

      She said plenty of other things that are concerning, including Trump’s lack of concern about Pence, even when he heard that some of his supporters were chanting “hand Mike Pence,” and Pat Cipollone’s concerns:

      Hutchinson: “I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”
      Cheney: “And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?”
      Hutchinson: “In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about obstructing justice of defrauding the electoral count. … Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice, or obstructing the electoral college count. I apologize for probably not being very firm with my legal terms here.”

      1. Anon,
        Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
        I have not heard of any statements on the record from Secret Service agents. But I will take your word for it. Assuming that is true, Trump being irate and potentially putting lives in danger by grabbing the wheel are two entirely different levels of malfeasance. Maybe being irate goes to state of mind. But even if true, so what? I have been irate many times in my life. You?
        As far as giving testimony publicly, isn’t that what this whole thing is about? Educating the American people on what happened on Jan 6. In its entirety. There has already been pushback on NBC, CBS and Cnn. Not exactly right wing media. Don’t you think that more credibility would be given to the ” Trump is at fault” premise if those who actually have first hand knowledge were allowed to testify in the same manner as the Hutchinson?
        As far as Turley’s statement, the key phrase here is “if that is what Ornato told her”. That has yet to be determined.
        Yes, the ” vast majority” of her testimony was first person. That is exactly my point. Why dilute first hand knowledge with ” I heard”? You notice I never said that what she said was not true. Hearsay regardless of in which format it is used is always somewhat less than convincing. I stated that I acknowledge that this is not a trial.
        I guess time will tell. But would you agree that if those who have first hand knowledge of what happened in the car are not called to affirm or contradict her testimony, a huge conundrum is present?

  3. Turley wrote, “Such “gotcha” moments are powerful in the moment but can also be equally damaging if later challenged.”, “This is the type of problem that arises when the focus of a hearing is persuasive rather than investigative. The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.”

    If they had something concrete to criminally charge Donald Trump with they would have already sent it to the DOJ it long ago, they haven’t, so short of the constant implications of Trump’s criminal activity with no supporting evidence then multiple “gotchas” is exactly what this witch hunt is going for and with the vast majority of the media solidly behind the Democrats they’ve presented a spectacular made for prime time political propaganda hit job. The ignorant court of public opinion will hear and see the multiple “gotchas” repeated ad nauseum and anything that contradicts the “gotchas” will intentionally get limited exposure or outright suppressed thus enforcing the “gotchas” to the court of public opinion.

    This witch hunt is pure unadulterated political propaganda, a political hit job, presented to the public to intentionally manipulate the court of public opinion prior to the next elections. The Democrats are using millions of federal government taxpayer dollars, elected officials, federal employees and the full power of the House of Representatives to destroy their political opposition in the eyes of the voter. The short term riot on January 6th was really ethically, morally, and politically bad and never should have happened but this made for TV pure biased propaganda political witch hunt is much, much worse for the country as a whole. Short of the two unconstitutional impeachments by unethical Democrats, this is probably one of the worst pure abuses of power that we’ll ever see from the House of Representatives.

    If the United States of America ends up surviving the onslaught of political and cultural absurdities that have been unleashed in the 21st century, these Democrat’s are not going to fare well in the truthful history books.

    1. Witherspoon says:

      “This witch hunt is pure unadulterated political propaganda, a political hit job, presented to the public to intentionally manipulate the court of public opinion prior to the next elections.”

      Turley disagrees:

      “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

      Witherspoon is the 10th Trumpist to reject Turley’s support of this Jan.6 committee in spite of its obvious shortcomings.

      1. jeffsilberman wrote, “Witherspoon is the 10th Trumpist to reject Turley’s support of this Jan.6 committee in spite of its obvious shortcomings.”

        False on multiple accounts, but hey, that’s what we’ve come to expect in Turley’s comment threads from the jeffsilberman moronic troll.

        1. I’m not a Trump supporter and I never have been, period. Your claim is categorically false and verifiably so.

        2. I have not rejected Turley’s support of the January 6th Committee in any way, shape or form, I’ve simply offered my differing opinion about the committee and its purpose and the comment you replied to proves that fact; on this point you’re literally a liar which is a big, big surprise coming from the likes of you.

        3. Your logic is a failure. Just because Turley and some others support the perceived transparencies offered by the committee doesn’t actually contradict the opinion that it’s a witch hunt; in fact, the purely biased propaganda and the fact that the committee has completely eliminated effective cross examination thus eliminating opposing viewpoints from this propaganda and thus proves to me that this is and has been a witch hunt that’s being presented to the court of public opinion to manipulate the upcoming elections. What the committee is doing is pure unadulterated abuse of power, pure persecution.

        1. Turley disagrees with your opinion of the committee. That much is abundantly clear.

          1. jeffsilberman wrote, “Turley disagrees with your opinion of the committee. That much is abundantly clear.”

            You’re making assumptions about Truley and I won’t engage those kind of assumptions. If Turley actually tells me that he disagrees with my opinion of the committee then I’ll believe that your assumption is accurate, otherwise it’s just your opinion and not necessarily fact.

          2. That is the first time Jeff has written something without the word “Trumpist”. Is he having a lucid interval? Has he shaken off TDS? We shall see.

    2. We already know that the DOJ is investigating multiple people, including Jeffrey Clark. Typical investigations work their way up from the bottom. We will find out in time whether Trump is charged. Patience.

      “This witch hunt is pure unadulterated political propaganda”

      It’s neither a “witch hunt” nor “unadulterated political propaganda”

      “two unconstitutional impeachments”

      Neither was unconstitutional.

      You believe an awful lot of things that are false.

    3. If they had something concrete to criminally charge Donald Trump with they would have already sent it to the DOJ it long ago, they haven’t, so short of the constant implications of Trump’s criminal activity with no supporting evidence then multiple “gotchas” is exactly what this witch hunt is going for

      Reporting from the NYT tells of DoJ prosecutors watching the testimony, aghast at the hearsay testimony, but having seen none of the information before. Wondering why they have seen almost no evidence from the committee, yet hearing the committee complain about the DoJ moving slow.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/us/politics/jan-6-committee-justice-department-trump.html?smid=url-share

      My guess, there is no evidence to forward.

      1. iowan2 wrote, “My guess, there is no evidence to forward.”

        You’re welcome to make those kind of assumptions, I won’t do that.

        The fact remains that when the committee finds evidence of criminal activity they have forwarded it to the DOJ to further investigate and prosecute when possible and to date they haven’t forwarded anything we know about regarding Donald Trump to the DOJ. I don’t know if Donald Trump engaged in any criminal activity or not, if he has then they should throw the damn book at him; what I do know is innuendo and implications of President Trump criminal activity are not prosecutable evidence and that’s all I’ve ever seen from the Democrats since before the 2016 election.

        I have said this before and I’ll say it again…

        “The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times over the last 6+ years that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?”

        As we can see routinely right here in these threads, there are still ignorant fools out there that completely ignore what’s actually in the Constitution regarding impeachment and they continue to ignore constitutional scholars and chose to continue to believe the false narrative that the two impeachments were not unconstitutional when in fact they were both based on accusations of offenses that were NOT impeachable offences. Just because the House of Representatives could abuse their power and impeach President Trump doesn’t mean that the impeachments were Constitutional, what the Democrats did was literally a bonified b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-s-a-t-i-o-n of the Constitution in this regard, what they did was unconstitutional. If President Trump had actually committed an impeachable offense I would have fully supported impeachment, I do not and will not support unconstitutional impeachments of any president.

        Based on the recent history of the DC Democrats, skepticism of the Democrat’s narratives and motives is fully warranted and I think anyone that’s not actively skeptical of Democrat’s narratives is a damn fool and quite likely a political sheeple.

  4. The minute Adam Schiff and Raskin were placed on the select “Very” select committee you knew exactly where this was headed.

    As for Adam Hunzinger, you’ve certainly tarnished your military honor by sitting within this nest of serpents. If you were in the Japanese military there would always be Seppuku.

  5. The only testimony I believe, is that of the Penguin. Indeed the Penguin hijacks & controls the Batmobile.

  6. Turley says:

    “The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.”

    You mean like Fox News parading all the Trump election voter fraud conspiracy theorists on its airwaves WITHOUT doing its due diligence to confirm these statements were remotely true? Its failure to do so subjecting Fox to 2 separate billion dollar defamation lawsuits.

    The Big Lie was simply too good to check, wasn’t it Turley?

    1. Jeff: There’s a significant difference between a news media and a congressional committee. We expect and accept that news outlets from the left and right will promote their own “narratives” but we do not expect, accept, or want that sort of motivated behavior by members of congress – of any party. It’s important to have an honest government. There is no moral equivalency here between what an opinion talkshow host might say on CNN or FNC and what members of congress are saying. One has a fiduciary obligation to the public to tell the truth, the other doesn’t have such an obligation.

      1. John,

        Journalists have an ethical duty according to their profession, and Congressmen have a sworn duty to the Constitution. We should expect honesty from both media and Congress.

        Personally, I am not in favor of the public testimony of this Congressional hearing. It’s depositions should be turned over to the DOJ in secret. I want these matters litigated in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion where rules of evidence are not observed and the right of cross examination is not afforded.

        1. Journalists have an ethical duty according to their profession,

          J School Deans, adamantly disagree with you. Young journalists are educated to advance the leftist narrative…by any means

        2. We would expect ethical and honest behavior from both journalists and congress.

          But we do not get what we expect.

          You can try to smear on all the lipstick you want – but the media was never objective, honest and truthful. That said today it is partisan hacks.

          Congress has always been political – but it was more inclined to follow the law and its own rules in the past.

          You claim to demand fealty to the constitution and the rule of law – and yet quite obviously you do not.

          We can debate specific recent Supreme court decisions – but there is zero doubt that the government was now have is not even close to constitutional. Our founders created a federal government that was to operate in a specific domain – everyuthing having to do with foreign nations,
          Trade both foreign and domestic – but with the expectation that the constiotution disempowered states regarding trade – not actually empowering the federal government. Our founders did not conceive of and wrote a constitution specifically to prevent both the federal and state government that we have.

          You are free to beleive that our founders were wrong – we are NOT bound by their view of government. But we are bound to substitute our will in the same way they imposed theirs – by amending the constitution when we wish to change the scope of government.

          I would note that everyone in federal and state government – not just congressmen swears not merely to uphold the constitution – but the law.

          Again not the law as they wish it was, but the law as it is.

          We have immigration laws in this country – if you do not like them change them – but no president is entitled to pretend they do not exist or to unilateral dictate that the government n o longer follow the laws we have. Congress authorized the construction of a southern wall in the 80’s as part of a bipartisan compromise. Democrats got the amnesty they wanted – yet there still is no wall. And you wonder why people do not trust democrats ?

          No one trusts those who do not do what they commit to.

          We have prosecutors all over the country – taking lead from President Obama and now President Biden and ignoring laws they do not like.

          In some instances I do not like the same laws and beleive we should change them.

          But we are not free to ignore the laws we do not like. Everyone in government swore to uphold the law – the law that exists, not the law the wish existed. That requires enforcing laws that you do not like – if you can not do that – do not swear to do so. Work to change the laws you do not like.
          But you are required to enforce them or leave government. If you can not do that – you are dishonest, you are immoral.

          And people who support those who will not enforce laws that they do not like – are immoral too.

          If you want honesty in government – start by expecting that EVERYONE in government take the oath to uphold the constitution and the law seriously.

          1. John B. Say,

            There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. Just like police officers can choose whether to give you you a ticket or not.

            1. Prosecutorial discretion is a creation of the courts. Just like qualified immunity.

              There is a real necescity for prosecutorial discretion – but what you describe is NOT discretion it is corruption.

              Law Enforcement is free to excercise discretion where enforcement is difficult to impossible. We do not require the police or DA’s to charge and prosecute crimes they do no have sufficient evidence to win. That is legitimate.

              Picking and chosing who to charge and who not to charge is CORRUPTION.

              Picking and chosing what laws to enforce and which not to is LAWLESS.

              This is true whether those benefiting are republicans or democrats. Rich or poor. Black or White.

              We are ALL entitled to the equal protection of the law. That requires that law enforcement may NOT exercise discretion based on any attributes of the victims or the perpitrators.

              Anything less and you do not have the rule of law.

              That should be obvious to you.

            2. I am surprised that you want to argue in favor of broad discretion.

              Can the police refuse to prosecute blacks ?
              The rich ?
              Can they refuse to prosecute Republicans ?
              Can they refuse to prosecute friends ?
              Members of the same church ?

              You are litterally arguing FOR immorality and lawlessness

        3. Congress does not exist to function as a grand jury – which is what you wish.

          The specific arrangement you seek is blatantly unconstitutional.

          If you want a secret investigation and secret testimony – then leave this to Garland and DOJ.

          Congress is does not exist to do criminal investigations.

          All you are doing with your wishes is shining a spotlight on the illegitimacy of the J6 committee.

      2. This is a infomercial for the democratic party. The two useful idiots posing as republicans were chosen by Pelosi . No credibility from the start.

      3. Once upon a time we expected the news media to be divorced from partisan agendas. While they never were – in the past they tried.

        There is a difference between news and editorials – or once there was. Now there is not.

        We expect congressmen to advance parttisan agenda’s. which is why committee representation is proportionate and why each part gets to pick its own committee members, and that each party has the oportunity to call witnesses. That assures a quasi adversarial process – what we use in courts to help us get to the truth.

        We have not had that since Democrats took charge of the house. Bujt the J6 committee is a reflection of the worst that congress can be.

        1. Republicans had multiple opportunities to be a part of the committee. Two were rejected because they were more interested in obstruction than honest inquiry. McCarthy had ample opportunity to choose republican that were not going to be just obfuscating and essentially throwing a wrench into the process and just be partisan.

          Republicans refused and now they are complaining about being left out of the committee. It’s their own fault. There are still two republicans on the committee and nearly all every witness and evidence has been from republican. Turley chooses to ignore these pertinent points in his criticism.

          1. “Two were rejected because they were more interested in obstruction than honest inquiry.”

            That is not for you to say. It is up to the opposing party to put in Congressmen that can adequately cross-examine the witnesses. If the entire panel is of the same mindset intent on an outcome then it is nothing more than a kangaroo committee. That is what Jan6 is. You will deny it and waste people’s time intentionally.

            http://wondermark.com/1k62/

          2. Irrelevant. The house has rules – it is usually the first order of business for each legislative session to adopt those rules.

            This congress adopted virtually the same rules as those of preceeding congresses for abotu 100 years.
            Those rules specific that the representation on committees is proportionate to the makeup of congress AND that each party selects its own members.

            When the majority party violates its own rules – that is lawless.

            It is near certain that in 2023 Republicans will control the house.

            Should republicans choose what democrats get to sit on various committees ?

            It is irrelevant whether democrats provided republicans oportunities to participate on the J6 committee. What is relevant is whether they followed the Rules of the House of Representatives – they did not.

            Further Pelosi has admitted this is all political.

            This is much like Obama’s nonsense that elections have consequences – they do – but those consequences are not the destruction of the rule of law,

            But if you think that the conduct of democrats is acceptable – then no one wants to here you screaming foul when Republicans do some small portion of the nonsense that democrats have done.

            I would further note that independent of the issue of the rules, Democrats are running afoul of the criteria necescary for finding the truth.

            “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

            ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

            We have an adversarial process, we allow each party to select the members best able to make the arguments that party wishes to put forth,
            because it is only when the strongest counter to whatever you seek has been presented in its strongest terms and found wanting that you actually know that you are likely correct.

            When you do not have an adversarial hearing, it is unlikely that you get to the truth. At best you are able to persaude those who already beleive.

            Are you after he truth ?

            It certainly does not look that way

  7. For the testimony of Ms. Hutchinson to be true, a few simple, objective elements must also be true.
    If the president of the United States sitting in the rear seat of the presidential limo he would have had to crawl on his hands and knees to reach the seats that were behind the drivers cabin.

    The two seats behind the driver’s cabin face rearward and are very close to each other. In other words it would be almost impossible for someone to reach between those seats and extend their arm far enough forward into the driver’s cabin to have any effect on the operation vehicle.

    The two agents, or even some other occupants, seeing the president of the United States crawling on his hands and knees on the floor of the vehicle would have one, attended to him as if he were having physical trouble like a heart attack. Two, even if his crawl towards the front had not been interrupted he most certainly would have been stopped by the occupants of the two rearward facing seats.

    Three, had he even managed to get to those rearward facing seats the occupants of said seats would not have allowed him to extend his arm let alone half of his body into the driver’s cabin to effectuate any vehicle operation.

    The American press corps needs a remedial class on the meaning and definition of Occam’s razor.

    1. They weren’t using the limo that day. They were using the SUV — as has been shown on TV multiple times. Apparently they refer to both the fortified limo and the fortified SUV as “the beast.”

      Feel free to update your comment now that you know it was the SUV.

    2. He wasn’t in the limo. He was in one of the armored SUV’s. In those he sits directly behind the driver. They are either suburbans or Ford Expeditions. Both have seats that are directly behind the front seats. In the “beast” there’s two opposing seats in front of the rear seats.

  8. Indeed, the hearing was suddenly called with little prior warning to highlight the new and explosive allegations rewritten script.

    Second hand recollections from 18 months ago.

    A cross examination would have asked to see her extemporaneous notes of Jan 6.

    1. Most of her testimony was eye witness testimony.

      And if you object to what people recall from 18 months ago, you must be even more concerned about what people recall from 5 years ago — as was the basis of the suit against Sussmann.

      Learn the difference between “contemporaneous” and “extemporaneous.”

      1. The difference of course is an actual trial adheres to rules of evidence. Documents to support memories. The committee not only does not require supporting facts, but when available they refuse to exercise due diligence.

        Yes contemporaneous. That what I get from using spellcheck without glasses.
        We still need to see her original testimony before the DNC attorney assigned to her started to draft her script.

        1. They presented other evidence — such as police radio transmissions and text messages — confirming other things she said.

          Nothing is stopping you from filing a FOIA for the rest of her testimony if you want it.

  9. She also lied about the hand written note. Claimed she wrote when she was asked to take noted during a conversation. Except a white house lawyer had already testified he was the author, and the handwriting is his. The committee knew this, but added it to Hutchingson’s script she was handed to read.

    1. It seems they are so desperate, they will throw anything out there, even knowing it can be easily refuted, even by previous testimony like the hand written note.
      How did they think this would give them some kind of credibility? It does not. Her testimony further discredits this committee, if that is possible.

      There is a second possibility, this committee is grossly incompetent, disorganized, they cannot be bothered to conduct a proper hearing.
      Would explain their need to bring in a Hollywood producer.

      1. UpstateFarmer is the 9th of the Trumpists who I predicted would disagree with Turley’s statement:

        “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

        1. JeffS,
          As I have commented in the past on more than a few occasions, I did not vote for Trump. I am a registered Independent. I donated money to the Tulsi Gabbard campaign, twice. And would of a third time had she not dropped out.
          If she runs in 2024, I would donate money to her again.

          My observation as a Independent is this is a mockery of a an investigation.
          You predicted nothing.

          1. I apologize for presuming you a Trumpist. They are the vast majority here.

            Tulsi Gabbard? She is a Putin apologist. Not insinuating that she is in Putin’s pocket, but admittedly she is one of the most outspoken politicians calling for America to cease supporting Ukraine and end the war with Russia without forcing Putin to relinquish his ill-gotten take over of the Donbas. That policy suits you?

            1. Yes, There is no reason to feel the need let alone, ruin our own economy to support a corrupt country like the Ukraine.

              “High-Ranking Ukrainian Officials Caught Splurging On Luxury Real Estate In Switzerland.”

          2. Same here, though I didn’t donate to Tulsi. The sky is blue regardless of one’s political views, and no one but modern Democrats treat their narrative and ideology like a sacrosanct religion that reserves the right to call it green if it suits them, and expect you to fall in line and accept it. I am a great admirer of the Professor, but this article still smacks a bit of loyalist denial. To each their own.

            The dems have gone beyond redemption in their current form, at least for me; I’m never voting dem again because I can’t stomach the *institution as a whole*, not, as in the past, particular policies, and they are never getting me back. I doubt I’m the only one. I suspect they know this and it is why they triple down on authoritarianism each season.

            There will come a time, if unfettered, the dems may end up even worse than the fascist regimes of yore. They are getting close to equal. It is jaw-dropping that whereas the non-sympathetic German or Chinese people simply had a lot foisted upon them against their will, wokesters in the West are *begging* for these things to come to pass. Like, yesterday. And all from the greatest place of privilege the world has ever seen. It is nothing short of madness.

          3. Tulsi Gabbad was my choice as well due to her anti war position. However, she seems to have gone off the rails as a Putin ally. I do not understand this. Putin is attempting to outdo his prior czars in building an empire. To hell with peoples lives and borders, he wants more. It was a sad day to see Tulsi support Putin.

        1. You’re the one who made the claim and has the burden of proof for it.

          If you’re too lazy to provide the evidence, it’s just an allegation on your part.

          1. Refusing to plug in a few simple words to a search engine.

            Yep, like all leftist, will to go to any lengths.

            The top 6 returns are all about the note Hutchinson claims she wrote. Pick your source

            1. Jeez you’re lazy.

              It’s also striking that you insist that if there are conflicting claims — one made by Hutchinson under oath and another made by someone else not under oath — you insist that Hutchinson is “lying,” when it could just as easily be the case that the other person is wrong, and also can be the case that they’re mistaken rather than lying. But you do you.

              Here’s a statement from the Committee about it:
              “The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson’s account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building. The note memorialized this. But Mr. Trump did not take that action at the time.”

              1. Everyone testifying is under oath.
                The committee has no reason to discount the FIRST testimony of Henchman. A focused 4th grader could do a quick handwriting analysis.

                All these little things, inconsequential by themselves, proves the committee is willing to lie to advance a narrative, and ignore the truth in the process. The are no so much interested in telling America what happened, but rather tell them what to believe it means. Lots of arguing from a conclusion, not so much examination of facts.

                President Trump was made about not going to the Capital. So what? its a non event. So….dress up the hum drum with a violent attack on SS agents and wrenching the wheel of the Beast from the agent driving. Now THAT’S an action sequence film goers can focus on.

            2. BTW, the Committee has used multiple clips from Herschmann’s testimony to them under oath. Do you accept everything he said?

  10. In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her.

    It would be easy to prove. All the committee has to do is release the original testimony given by Hutchinson on previous interviews. We don’t know what she said. We do know it was nothing the committee could exploit on the next episode of telenovelas,

    It is easy to assume the most colorful parts of her television debut, slipped her mind in her original interviews.

      1. Mespo,

        Turley says:

        “The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.”

        Ouch!

              1. Mespo,

                I’m on the record stating that Turley will not delegitimize a “guilty verdict” if it ever comes to pass that Trump is prosecuted criminally. You and your lying Trumpists will never accept a guilty verdict. We shall see.

                1. You haven’t found a crime yet, but your already betting on guilty….of something.

                  The persecution of the last administration is ugly precedent. Careful for the things you wish for.

                  1. Iowan,

                    I agree with Turley that Trump is a “jerk,” but I confess that I don’t know whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime. That’s not my call. I’m just saying “if.”

                    All I know for sure is that you and your Trumpists will go to your graves believing Trump- if found guilty- was railroaded.

                    1. believing Trump- if found guilty- was railroaded.d

                      Only because the left has been Railroading Trump for 6 years. Lying, planting evidence, spying, phony investigations, fabricated testimony.
                      So yea, railroaded. Stop using low level grunts reading from a script to do your dirty work. Hutchingson has to feel like a cheap whore this morning. Sold her honor for a few pieces of silver, and promises of lofty titles.
                      If you want me to believe your narrative, stop lying and covering up

                    2. Iowan,

                      I stand with NeverTrumper Turley on his support of the greater transparency pursued by the Jan. 6th committee.

                      You, on the other hand, are a Trumpist.

                    3. Trump- if found guilty- was railroaded.

                      Talk to Sen. Ted Stevens. (That means you both have to be in the same place)
                      Call up Speaker Tom Delay
                      If you run into Kay Baily Hutchinson, she can inform your false choice.

                    4. Iowan,

                      I will await a final unappealable verdict. I’ll accept an acquittal or a reversal, but you will never accept a final unappealable guilty verdict.

              2. Do you believe the parts that were already confirmed by others, including Ornato, such as the fact that people in the crowd had weapons and Trump didn’t want them going through the mags to take the weapons away? You did see Ornato’s text about that and hear the police radio messages about that, right?

                  1. No, the Second Amendment does not prevent Secret Service from checking for and removing weapons before people enter restricted spaces, like a space where the President is talking. It’s routine.

      2. Gosh, why aren’t you demanding that Ornato and Engel do the same? Watch them squirm, right?

  11. I would be interested in hearing a true investigation into what happened J6–everything! 14K hours of video, what happened to 2 women killed by CH police, tourist wandering in the Capital taking pictures, doors being unlocked from inside. There is so much to learn and there is no value in presenting only what one side wants to present. I think the committee has no value at present. It is merely a repeat of Russia, Russia, Russia in 2017 and proving it was baseless years later.

    1. This is number 8 who disagrees with Turley that “In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her.”

      1. All of Jeff’s arguments are based on the word IF. “if the account” “if that is what”

        With the IF comes a statement of affinity or disparagement about Turley and some type of insult to Trump.

        Jeff is a headline gawker as he admits he doesn’t know much of anything. He also cannot be trusted when it comes to telling us what is underneath the headline.

        He did so with the anti-Trump article in National Review. He didn’t read it would be one’s best guess because there was a pay-wall to the article. One who knows nothing doesn’t read or pay for National Review, so he most likely never read the article.

        Jeff cannot control himself or his utterances.

    2. It looks like 4 might have been killed by police activities. 2 murdered and 2 from the weaponry indiscriminately shot at the crowd.

  12. “critical witnesses said that no one on the Committee reached out to confirm her account of former President Donald Trump lunging for the wheel in “the Beast” in a physical altercation with his security team on that day. ”

    Both Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel were already interviewed by the Committee. FWIW, others employed by the Trump Admin have accused Ornato of lying about other conversations he’s had, even when there are multiple witnesses. As Turley notes, “In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her.”

    “The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.”

    Blame the Republicans in the Senate, who filibustered the creation of a bicameral National Commission where they’d have chosen 1/2 the members, without any possibility of their choices being nixed by any Democrats. Blame Kevin McCarthy for pulling the rest of the Republican nominees when Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5. Even Trump blames McCarthy: “Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee — it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.” “In a way, the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.”

    More significantly, what Turley is focusing on is not the most significant part of Hutchinson’s testimony. What’s more damning — and what she was an eye witness to — is that Trump knew that people in the crowd had weapons when he sent them to the Capitol Complex and that he had no concern about rioters chanting “hang Mike Pence” / thought Pence deserved whatever was coming his way / subsequently condemned Pence in a tweet.

    Cheney also presented evidence of witness tampering.

    I wish that Hutchinson’s willingness to testify publicly and her testimony would prompt Cipollone and Pence to testify, but I’m not going to hold my breath. Cipollone has now been subpoenaed, but I bet he’s going to plead the 5th, or refuse to even show up. But I’d be happy to be wrong about that. If he wants to be on the right side of history, he should testify.

    1. How do you tamper with a person, who is only there to inform the committee about legislative direction?

      1. Hearing witnesses are witnesses presenting testimony, and if you’d watched the hearing, here are a couple of quotes from other witnesses about witness tampering:
        https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1541857797314383874

        Maybe you’re not familiar with the law on witness tampering, which isn’t limited to trials.

        You do know that the law refers to the “testimony of any person in an official proceeding,” right?
        You do understanding that a Congressional hearing is an official proceeding, right?

    2. Cheney also presented evidence of witness tampering.

      She presented NO EVIDENCE. Only supposition.

      1. Quotes of first person statements made under oath IS EVIDENCE “retard” (you’ve fond of using that word with others, so I’ll use it with you).

  13. My wife, who works in law department of a major US company says: “You can win EVERY argument when you tell half the facts.” Isn’t that right Ms Cheney, NBC, ABC, Hollywood?

    1. Who do you want to tell the other half?

      Nothing is stopping them from testifying under oath.

      I’d love for Trump, Pence, Cipollone, … to testify.

    2. And you can never lose an argument if you refuse to acknowledge any facts. Turley spent this whole article addressing one piece of something the witness heard from someone else and ignoring everything she personally attested to. That includes Trump knowing there were guns in the crowd and wanting to take down the magnetometers because they weren’t there to get him. Keep letting Hannity (a participant), Tucker, and Turley tell you what to believe.

      1. I agree. Turley never even mentioned the note she said she wrote that apparently she didn’t. This lady should be thrown in jail for lying under oath, correct?

  14. It appears even some prominent colleagues like Andrew McCarthy think this liars testimony was the end-all-be-all in hearsay testimony!!! What legal scholars??????

    1. It’s not a trial. Hearsay doesn’t apply.

      She was an eye witness to most of what she testified about.

  15. First.
    Understand the committee is in violation of their Constitutional powers. 99% of the committees actions do nothing to inform them in drafting legislation.

  16. Politicians selling lies to the public, professionally produced at tax payer expense. Nothing new…. just another attempt to deceive us.

  17. We can dance around it all day long but the Dim Select Committee is cynically and fraudulently “selecting” evidence they like including false evidence in a transparent, Keystone cops frame-up of Trump for sedition. Dims know their future political viability depends on keeping Trump out of the White House and are willing to lie, cheat and manufacture to do that. It’s the strategy they’ve employed since 2016 at the behest of their frustrated leader by default, Lady Hillary. It’s bound to backfire but like the power-mad addicts they are, they simply can’t help themselves. They would tear down every brick upon brick of every American institution just to get their way and exercise control over our lives. To that extent, they are every bit as dangerous as a foreign enemy who have exactly the same designs. We’ d better exorcise these political demons before they contaminate everything from our kids and schools to our economy and way of life. There’s no other word to describe them besides “evil” and “tyrannical.” Sic semper tyrannis

      1. “In case you missed the selected evidence Turley is ignoring.”
        ********************
        Oh my God!!!! Huff Post just broke the story that Americans have the right to keep and bare arms IN PUBLIC. Yes, in public. Even when they’re mad. Damning evidence if ever there was any. (PS: Ignore the fact none who “stormed” the Capitol were armed).

        Dims are such pussy cats — and bad at definitions of “material evidence,” too..

            1. The source you might have considered was the radio transmissions (included in the video) of people pointing out the armed people in the crowd. Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t you previously in the “there were no guns” group and now converted to the they were just exercising their constitutional right group (though they were almost certainly violating Washington DC laws). Then the fact Trump knew and wanted armed people to march to the Capitol. Didmiss it because it was THP when the same information is everywhere.

              1. Enigma, there were reports and videos of one of the main instigators promoting activities that lead to violence at the Capitol Building. He may have been carrying a gun. He is videod pushing people to enter the Capitol building and directing others to tear down a barricade.

                He was considered such a threat that the FBI placed him on a limited list of the ‘FBI most wanted’ because of his activities.

                His entry suddenly disappeared from the list. His name was Ray Epps, and he was coordinating with the FBI and other ‘so-called’ protestors. He was a plant.

                https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

                When videos around him were looked at and shown (see above), one could hear people yelling that he was a fed. We don’t know if he was carrying a gun, but if he were, someone might have said, he has gun, or the police might have reported that he has gun, which might be available on the videos.

                If his name wasn’t released and identified as a fed, one might hear a police broadcast noting a gun.

                In other words, we must listen carefully to the police broadcast as nothing from the committee is credible. If the police noted guns, they might be those of plain clothed law enforcement. We don’t know, but you draw conclusions, not on fact, rather on what you wish to hear.

                The AR15 doesn’t sound credible, or one would probably have seen it on a video. The police cannot see through clothing for an accurate assessment. We need to know what officers were there and what type of weapons they were carrying.

                None of these questions are asked by the committee because the committee is a sham existing for a singular purpose. It is not there to prove anything but to rile up people into believing things that never occurred.

                You are one of those people the committee is targetting. They are not targetting anyone, right or left, who actualy looks at the facts.

                  1. You make outlandish claims Enigma, but let us analyze this.

                    1 Nothing exists on radio transmissions that show Trump acting illegally.
                    2 You keep claiming I haven’t listened to the radio transmissions.
                    3 If you listened to the radio transmissions you would have quoted the criminal activity by Trump.
                    4 That leaves us with two things 1) you couldn’t find something illegal and 2 you never listened to the transmissions, for good reason.
                    5 You are blowing smoke again and have been caught with your pants down.

                    1. You are claiming things I never said. The existence of radio transmissions proving guns were on the scene doesn’t make Trump a criminal. Whether knowing the guns were there, trying to keep them from passing thru the magnetometers so they could march to the Capitol armed to halt the Constitutionally mandated counting of votes? That’s for someone else to decide if that in particular was a crime. Now you make idiotic claims that I never listened to the transmissions. Done with you again for a while.

                    2. “The existence of radio transmissions proving guns were on the scene doesn’t make Trump a criminal.”

                      Of course there were guns there. Secret service and other law enforcement carry guns. I am glad you admit that such a discussion was meaningless. What I wonder about is why a big thing was made about this and why you didn’t post the transmissions if you heard them.

                      If you haven’t already taken note look up Emmet Till.

                    3. You are humorous, it’s probably not nice to laugh at your short bus logic but I can’t help myself. Trying to defend the indefensible, without knowing what the details are. Poor Allan, your teachers passed you along to not have to teach you any longer.

                    4. Enigma, I don’t understand why you argue about silly points. Did you hear the transmissions? Are they available? If they are not available then that would be one reason you didn’t provide a link. If they were available you might never have heard them and relied on someone else.

                      I didn’t find them and it wasn’t important enough to do a better search. It was important to you so one has to wonder about the truthfulness of your words.

                      No matter what, if there was a transmission Anonymous the Stupid will want to prove how smart he is and find them to show me up. if he doesn’t do that we can assume you were blowing wind.

                  1. Olly says:

                    “If you didn’t see Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue, he goes through a list of people arrested by this DOJ for essentially being political dissidents.”

                    Goddamn, you are such a dullard if you fell for that Carlson monologue. If only Turley could be forced to comment on that monologue- it was so full of lies!

                    That is the problem. You can’t get Turley to react to what the Fox rage provocateurs push out day-to-day. Because much of it is indefensible, Turley ignores it. For the same reason, Turley has NEVER mentioned Mark Levin. Turley knows better than to evidence knowledge of Levin so that he can maintain his (im)plausible deniability that he is oblivious to his hate.

                    The day will come when Turley will be held to account publicly for his silence in the face of all this rage emanating from his Fox colleagues. I just hope you are still around here, so I can tell you, “I told you so.”

                    1. 🤣 If only Turley could be forced to comment on that monologue- it was so full of lies!

                      If you know it was full of lies, then why do you need Turley to comment? Just tell your daddy you want your oompa loompa now!

                    2. Because you won’t believe anything I say, but you will believe Turley if he says it.

                    3. Because you won’t believe anything I say, but you will believe Turley if he says it.

                      That’s an embarrassing projection on your part. That somewhat explains your desperate attempts to rehabilitate your lost credibility by invoking a fabricated alliance with Turley. To borrow from Lloyd Benson: you’re no Jonathan Turley.

                      I learned long ago not to take anyone’s word for anything. Some may earn a degree of trust, but I always seek to independently verify.

                    4. Olly,

                      You would do well to share Turley’s values and defend his opinions as I do. I have repeatedly stated that my critique of Turley is NOT with what he DOES say as much as what he doesn’t. To be sure, Turley is a flagrant hypocrite on account of his allegiance to Fox News, but a hypocrite can nonetheless make a good point despite his being inconsistent in applying it across the board.

                    5. You would do well to share Turley’s values and defend his opinions as I do.

                      I don’t need to share his values. I am an independent thinker with my own values. They may align with JT’s at times and other times they may not. As long as he remains firmly fixed in his originalist values, we’ll usually align. I would never be so arrogant as to believe JT needed me to defend his opinions. I’m on his blog for a reason and it’s not because he needs me.

                  2. Thanks Olly, I missed it. However, it isn’t shocking considering this administration’s despotic attitude. They want to arrest mothers for complaining when their children are abused by their teachers.

              2. The source you might have considered was the radio transmissions (included in the video) of people pointing out the armed people in the crowd.

                Of coarse there were guns in the crowd. Undercover government agents often carry guns.

        1. “none who “stormed” the Capitol were armed”

          You’re either ignorant or a liar. People have already been convicted of carrying firearms into the Capitol Complex on Jan 6. Guy Reffitt is an example.

          1. “You’re either ignorant or a liar.”
            **********************
            Let’s go with neither. “Storming” is the operative word but why point out operative language to you.

  18. The J6 Committee is not engaged in truth finding. It is as simple as that. If Mr. Trump violated any criminal law, and if there is evidence of such, then he should be indicted and tried. Stop the show trials – that’s what they used to do in the USSR

  19. Turley says:

    “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

    Sadly NONE- I repeat- NOT ONE- of you Trumpist followers, share your support, Turley, to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th. To a person, they believe Tucker Carlson who calls it a “show trial.”

    Prove me wrong, Trumpists.

    1. You’ve got advocates sitting as judges over doctored evidence and false witnesses. And it’s produced by a carney barker from abc. That’s the textbook definition of a show trial, Alice.

      1. Name a single witness who has testified under oath that there is “doctored evidence and false witnesses.”

        For that matter, name someone you believe is capable of testifying about that under oath and is willing to testify.

      2. Where is your evidence that the J6 committee is doctoring evidence? Do you think Ms Hutchinson lied? To you think videos were altered? I’ll wait for your answer.

        1. The Committee has doctored video of Trump so that he is not heard to say the protest should be peaceful. That is very clearly doctoring evidence (and perhaps Trump specifically included insruction for a peaceful protest becaus he knew there were some armed in attendance, which of itself is not illegal, nor is peaceful protest, as January 6 mostly was).

          Ms. Hutchinson may well have lied – both Secret Service agents who were in that car have said the incident ever happened and that they are willing to testify to that.

          And many protesters have been held illegal amounts of time under illegal conditions without charge, as opposed to BLM protesters who actually committed arson who receive downgraded charges, no bail, and a slap on the wrist.

          1. “The Committee has doctored video of Trump”

            It’s not “doctored.” It’s excerpted, something done all the time in hearings and on TV.

            “both Secret Service agents who were in that car have said the incident ever happened and that they are willing to testify to that.”

            Actually neither of them has said that.

            A third party has said that.

            “many protesters have been held illegal amounts of time under illegal conditions without charge,”

            Name someone you believe has “been held illegal amounts of time under illegal conditions without charge.” I dare you. I bet we’ll find out that the person was charged. I could be wrong, but the only way to find out is for you to name one.

            1. “It’s not “doctored.” It’s excerpted, something done all the time in hearings and on TV.”

              Ellen is absolutely correct while your interpretation is the leftist way of lying. The entire hearing has been doctored. Quotes are taken out of context or the most important portions are removed such as ‘march peacefully’. Worse yet is taking snippets of prior testimony that leave out other comments, and then asking the witness narrow questions afraid that anything more would contradict the context of the video. Your response demonstrates the lack of honor liars typically have.

              Hutchinson’s testimony wasn’t even second-hand. It was a repeat of a repeat, and possibly another repeat. There is zero credibility in such evidence and generally one would assume the evidence to be an intentional deception to hide the truth. The simple way of handling the Trump grabbing the wheel BS is to call the secret service and ask. They liked the testimony as is and the snippets as is so the committee didn’t bother with first-hand information. That essentially means they are lying.

              I previously named one whose case was thrown out. I named another who was even in solitary confinement and jail at least until recently. I named another and 15 others (as a group) not by name but those who could testify at the abuse by the police at the West Tunnel (jailed and in solitary). That is where Roseanne Boyland was likely murdered. Yes, I said likely murdered, and if not murdered, the death was expedited by the Capitol police.

              In the video at 10:30,

              https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html

              , one can see the death of Boyland with Capitol police pushing forward beating with batons and spraying tear gas causing the crowds to crush one another. One can see a Jan 6 prisoner, Jacob Lang who was arrested for defending himself around the time he was involved with trying to save Boyland’s life and is credited with saving two other lives, one named Anderson who provided written testimony to that fact and to what happened. See PJ Media for both a story and a video that was shut off mid-sentence by the officials.

              https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2022/01/10/watch-jan-6-prisoner-jacob-lang-solitary-confinement-is-the-state-of-medical-tyranny-in-america-n1548449

              Andrews thanks Jacob Lang for saving his life. Jacob Lang was arrested and spent much of his time in solitary. He was moved from jail to jail to prevent contact with his attorney. He has been treated illegally but with help and time finally got out the video (#1 above Rumble) that should be seen by everyone.

              Anonymous is known as ATS and Anonymous the Stupid because of comments and lies that he makes despite the facts being provided to him previously.

              The first video is sickening. I have been at protests in my youth, some that got out of hand. I never would have believed that American police would act in such a fashion. Saying that one has to recognize that I believe most of the police were honorable, but some were sadists and got their pleasure from beating people. Byrd shot Ashly Babbitt in cold blood. He is a murderer. Watching the video with Byrd’s outstretched hand waiting to fire and kill someone was very scary.

              We need to get rid of people like ATS (Anonymous the Stupid), for they will sit on their couches while incentivizing others to go out and kill or riot. They then can say they didn’t agree with the violence, but that is how many leftists think.

                1. Perhaps my comment is missing from your computer. I will repeat it so you can read it, respond to the points, and then insult.

                  Ellen is absolutely correct while your interpretation is the leftist way of lying. The entire hearing has been doctored. Quotes are taken out of context or the most important portions are removed such as ‘march peacefully’. Worse yet is taking snippets of prior testimony that leave out other comments, and then asking the witness narrow questions afraid that anything more would contradict the context of the video. Your response demonstrates the lack of honor liars typically have.

                  Hutchinson’s testimony wasn’t even second-hand. It was a repeat of a repeat, and possibly another repeat. There is zero credibility in such evidence and generally one would assume the evidence to be an intentional deception to hide the truth. The simple way of handling the Trump grabbing the wheel BS is to call the secret service and ask. They liked the testimony as is and the snippets as is so the committee didn’t bother with first-hand information. That essentially means they are lying.

                  I previously named one whose case was thrown out. I named another who was even in solitary confinement and jail at least until recently. I named another and 15 others (as a group) not by name but those who could testify at the abuse by the police at the West Tunnel (jailed and in solitary). That is where Roseanne Boyland was likely murdered. Yes, I said likely murdered, and if not murdered, the death was expedited by the Capitol police.

                  In the video at 10:30,

                  https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html

                  , one can see the death of Boyland with Capitol police pushing forward beating with batons and spraying tear gas causing the crowds to crush one another. One can see a Jan 6 prisoner, Jacob Lang who was arrested for defending himself around the time he was involved with trying to save Boyland’s life and is credited with saving two other lives, one named Anderson who provided written testimony to that fact and to what happened. See PJ Media for both a story and a video that was shut off mid-sentence by the officials.

                  https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2022/01/10/watch-jan-6-prisoner-jacob-lang-solitary-confinement-is-the-state-of-medical-tyranny-in-america-n1548449

                  Andrews thanks Jacob Lang for saving his life. Jacob Lang was arrested and spent much of his time in solitary. He was moved from jail to jail to prevent contact with his attorney. He has been treated illegally but with help and time finally got out the video (#1 above Rumble) that should be seen by everyone.

                  Anonymous is known as ATS and Anonymous the Stupid because of comments and lies that he makes despite the facts being provided to him previously.

                  The first video is sickening. I have been at protests in my youth, some that got out of hand. I never would have believed that American police would act in such a fashion. Saying that one has to recognize that I believe most of the police were honorable, but some were sadists and got their pleasure from beating people. Byrd shot Ashly Babbitt in cold blood. He is a murderer. Watching the video with Byrd’s outstretched hand waiting to fire and kill someone was very scary.

                  We need to get rid of people like ATS (Anonymous the Stupid), for they will sit on their couches while incentivizing others to go out and kill or riot. They then can say they didn’t agree with the violence, but that is how many leftists think.

            2. “It’s not “doctored.” It’s excerpted, something done all the time in hearings and on TV.”
              ******************************
              Like cutting out random alphabet letters from a magazine headline and then using them to spell out “We Got The Kid,” means the magazine was a kidnap letter. I guess you’d call that “excerpting,” too. I love that desperation coming from the Left. It’s almost as good as the tears after Dobbs. The more ridiculous you look, the better for November.

        2. Wally:

          I’m guessing you don’t follow abc, nbc and cbs. Maybe I’ll rent a carrier pigeon so you can be enlightened over what the folks in The Beast said both under oath in their depositions and immediately leaked to the Press. Spoiler alert: Cassidy is a liar writ large.

    2. The Watergate model was known, available. Appoint Democrats & Republicans, fund staff and legal counsel for the minority as well as majority. Require or at least strive for maximum transparency, full disclosure. Let the hearings move forward even if lines of questioning, etc., from minority members is not to the liking of the majority or the media. A deliberate choice was made NOT to follow this model which has resulted in a sloppy, boring, secretive and ineffective quasi-show trial devoid of credibility. It was all preventable and thus patently inexcusable. When Jordan and the Rep from Indiana were blocked from the committee it signaled the process being a countess Pelosi sham.

        1. Non responsive. The present committee as constituted would have credibility if Jordan & his colleague were not blocked from membership. What you cite is absolutely irrelevant re the underlying problem. The two Repubs who agreed to serve are a well-known intellectual inferior who knew Illinois was redistricting him out of office and an anti-abortion extremist & anti-Trump fanatic carefully planning her soft landing in a DC lobbying position.

          I wanted full disclosure on 6 Jan. Including the presence of informants, agent provocateurs & undercover law enforcement. And don’t forget those bombs allegedly planted. In addition I wanted a thorough, fair & sifting investigation concerning the actions of Trump.What has transpired is NONE of this. At least Stalin, et.al., knew how to effectively stage show trials.

          1. No, the Senate Republicans rejecting a National Commission is not irrelevant.

            And since the founding of the US, the Speaker has controlled the membership of all non-permanent Select Committees. I don’t see you complaining about the hundreds of years of history on this, including when there were Republican Speakers controlling the membership.

            Even Trump thinks that McCarthy screwed up by pulling the other Republicans from the Committee when Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5: “Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee — it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.” “In a way, the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.”

          2. And don’t forget those bombs allegedly planted.

            Thanks for reminding me. The mighty FBI having a tough time finding the culprits. I am reminded that the bomb found at the DNC office, was missed by the Secret Service Sweep, prior to VP Harris visit. The bomb was not well secreted, a couple of focused Boy Scouts would have found it in minutes with out much trouble. The circumstance would lead to the conclusion, that these were never bombs. But fakes to be found ,to sound alarms.

Leave a Reply to John B Say (@johnbsay) Cancel reply