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. Can we agree on anything?

    For 2 years trump has been yelling voter fraud. Is this correct?

    To date, no voter fraud on a scale to change votes in excess of 50 (I’m being generous here) either way in any given state have been found. Is this correct?

    So where is the fraud? All this BS with trump comes down to voter fraud and did he win the election. Can anybody show any evidence that there was voter fraud?

    1. “For 2 years trump has been yelling voter fraud. Is this correct?”

      https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

      The documentary, is based on excellent study technique and very cautious statistics, overwhelmingly shows that if they didn’t count illegal ballots, Biden would have lost.

      It is a check on illegal ballots in only a few states and a few areas within the states.

      The number of illegal ballots in this relatively small area provide significant evidence Biden lost.

      2 things.

      1) The ballot count and statistics used the lowest, not the highest multipliers. In other words they used very high standards that left out a lot of illegal ballots. That permitted Biden to have more votes than he should have. But even using these very conservative numbers, Biden lost.

      2) What would have happened if the calculations performed applied nationwide? Biden would have lost badly.

      You ask, “So where is the fraud?” Right in front of your nose.

        1. Dinesh D’Souza claimed it was good evidence that Biden’s victory was based on illegal ballots..

          According to him, the documentary shows that Biden doesn’t have proof he won and that the evidence points towards a Trump win instead.

  2. Turley Indirectly Referenced In “The New Yorker”

    On Tuesday morning, Hunter Biden started trending on social media—a surefire sign that the right was worried about the upcoming testimony of the former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, which was scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. Although the twenty-six-year-old Hutchinson, who worked for Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, wasn’t yet a public figure, it was known that she had spoken extensively to the January 6th committee—and there had even been stories suggesting she could turn out to be the John Dean of the Trump Administration.

    Edited From:

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-should-be-the-end-of-donald-trump

    ………………………………………………………………

    KEY PASSAGE FROM ABOVE:

    “On Tuesday morning, Hunter Biden started trending on social media—a surefire sign that the right was worried about the upcoming testimony of the former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson”.

    ***

    Why ‘yes’, Johnathan Turley did, indeed, run a column Tuesday morning concerning Hunter Biden. Said column was titled: “I Think You’re Clear”: New Audiotape is the Latest Contradiction of President Biden’s Denials of Knowledge of Hunter’s Foreign Dealings”.

    Coincidences like this make us wonder ‘who’ Turley coordinates with. Do text messages go out to rightwing influencers?

    One imagines such a text might read: “Bombshell expected at Jan 6 hearing. Run with Hunter Biden”.

    1. Well, obviously, if it were ever determined that Turley was involved in such a coordinated effort, his credibility would be shot. I don’t have the time nor the inclination, but I suppose someone could do an analysis of the timing of Turley’s articles to determine if there is a pattern. There does seem to be some correlation between the topics of his articles and his employer Fox News, but it could be mere coincidence.

      There are a lot of questions which Turley could be asked about his allegiance to Fox, e.g., his turning a blind eye to its advocacy journalism. Do you suppose Turley would have remained silent had an MSNBC anchor texted the chief of staff of Biden during a similar event on 1/6? Turley has sold-out to Fox. That’s a shame.

      1. Dear Jeffsilberman… the only thing ‘That’s a shame’ here is: that an Intelligent & Articulate man like you finds it necessary to frame his comments to twist the truth. Fox News is NOT Prof. Turley’s ‘Employer.’ MSNBC used to be a such a great forum years ago before it became an extreme left wing propaganda machine – case in point their star contribution to putting the Fake News Steele Dossier-Russiagate HOAX on the map. At least the NYTimes and WAPO apologizied for their parts in this mess created to unfairly, viciously torpedo Trump.

        1. 18th hole,

          Turley works for Fox News as a contributor.

          Turley has never called the Mueller investigation a “hoax” as do lying Trumpists.

          I am unaware that NYT or WAPO have ever apologized for their reporting on Trump.

      2. Jeff: I don’t think it is “mere coincidence” that Turley’s posts almost always follow the Fox line. Take for example Fox’s treatment of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony regarding the incident inside Trump’s SUV when he found out he would not be going up the Capitol. Fox reported that Tony Ornato was “appalled” by Hutchinson’s testimony. Fox had a headline on 6/29: “Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn’t lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot”. Turley says in his column: “Fox News is reporting that Ornato was ‘shocked’ by the testimony [Hutchinson’s]”. Why would Turley cite only Fox when discussing this important part of Hutchinson’s testimony? Unless he is echoing the Fox line? Turley even takes the bizarre position that Trump had a right to go to the Capitol and practically implies the SS kidnapped him. He says the SS is guilty of false imprisonment! Turley does not go on Fox to offer an independent “legal analysis”. He is their to echo the Fox talking point of the day. I think you are giving Turley too much credit.

        1. Dennis,

          Perhaps, I am giving Turley too much benefit of the doubt, but I try to be fair-minded. It is hypocritical that Turley does not criticize his Fox colleague, Andy McCarthy, for suggesting that Trump is probably guilty of a crime when he has lambasted liberal legal commentators for doing the same. Still, you have to give Turley credit calling Trump a “jerk” in an article (despite never saying so on Fox). As I have said, Turley is in a tough spot, trying to stay in the good graces at Fox without losing his academic credibility and professional integrity. I hope he is getting paid handsomely to put his career at risk.

          1. Jeff: Turley lost his “academic credibility and professional integrity” the minute he went to work for Fox. In fairness, Turley says in his post the Jan. 6 committee has “offered a great deal of important 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”. Well and good. But in the next breath he tries to chip away at Hutchinson’s revelations. The title of his column is: “Key witnesses challenge allegations of key witnesses…”–a direct reference to Hutchinson. And who are those “witnesses”? They are Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel–but neither has said directly that Hutchinson’s account is false. Turley cites Fox in reporting that Ornato was “shocked” by Meadows former senior aide’s account
            of what happened inside the SUV. Why does Turley cite only Fox and ignores any other reporting? I think Ornato was “shocked”, not by the veracity of Hutchinson’s account, but the fact that the SS was ill-prepared by what happened on Jan. 6. It may also be the case that Meadows and Trump did not want to divulge their plans so they kept the SS in the dark. The SS is embarrassed by what happened and has every motive to challenge Hutchinson’s testimony. One former SS agent is quoted as saying it would be physically impossible for Trump to grab the steering wheel of his SUV. Why? Because Trump’s “girth would prevent him him from actually getting the steering wheel”. No doubt Trump will challenge such an assertion. Turley takes a different tact. He claims Trump had a right to go to the Capitol and the SS had to virtually kidnap the president to prevent from carrying out his plan. That’s the ridiculous attempts Turley is trying to make to justify Trump’s actions. Keep your eye on the ball. Don’t be distracted by the sideshow. Pay attention to what Turley will say after the next Jan. hearings. I predict he will try anything in his tool box to discredit future witnesses. No, if I’m wrong the beers are on me!

            1. Dennis,

              I do agree that Turley is a sell-out, but he has distanced himself from Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson’s outright lies. I remain certain he will not go full Trumpist, he shall disappoint them when all is said and done. If I did not believe that, I would not waste my time here.

              1. Jeff: I’ll try this one last time and then I’m done. Show me one instance in which Turley has “distanced” himself from a Fox host? Last Friday Turley was on a Fox panel discussing the impact of the decision overturning Roe. Andrew McCarthy, another Fox legal analyst, was on the panel. He declared: “It’s a great day for life…It’s just a great day”. Neither Turley nor any of the hosts disagreed. Turley said: “A lot of presidents promised to put a pro-life majority on the court. He [Trump] succeeded. And I think that is one of the reasons why many people still remain loyal to him in terms of coming through on those pledges. So this is a victory for pro-life, but also for president Trump”. Notice Turley doesn’t refer to Trump as the “former president”. Telling. Turley added that “most of the population resides in states that have already protected abortion rights”–an attempt to downplay the devastating effect the abortion decision will have on millions of women around the country. Anchor Dana Perino added that the Mississippi abortion law still permits abortion up to four months. Turley didn’t disagree. But the Mississippi “trigger” law bans all abortions except where the mother’s life is in danger or in case of rape but only if it is reported to the police. In case of incest can one even imagine a 15 yr old reporting a rape by her step-father to the police? In effect, the GOP controlled state wants to ban all abortions. And this ban comes despite the fact that in 1998 the Miss. SC ruled abortion is protected under the state’s constitution. The sole abortion provider in the state has filed suit against the state claiming the abortion ban is unconstitutional. Turley says this is part of the “democratic process”. What is “democratic” about taking away a fundamental human right guaranteed under Roe? Now the right to an abortion depends on where you live. The vast majority of Americans still support Roe. Is it “democratic” to take away their rights? Turley doesn’t say.

                And religion played a significant role in the Court’s decision. Five of the Justices in the 6-3 ruling overturning Roe are Catholic–Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Turley is also Catholic. That’s why he supports the decision. When McCarthy said overturning Roe was a “great day” he could have said it was a “great day” day for the Catholic Church! If you are Jewish, a Muslim or a non-believer our views have no importance to the religious cabal on the Court that wants to impose its beliefs on the rest of the vast majority of us.

                Turley hopes to be appointed to the SC. Under Biden that won’t happen. He thinks his frequent appearances on Fox and his pro-Trump positions, e.g., attacking the Jan. 6 Committee and its witnesses, will get the former president’s attention and that of McConnell who will be the majority leader if the GOP takes back control of the Senate. Take this into consideration when you read Turley’s future posts. It’s all about self-interest, not the law!

                1. There is both a benefit and a cost. The benefit is obvious, life. The cost is a little inconvenience for those who do not care about life. That inconvenience will depend on the state in which the person resides. A previously bad Supreme Court decision was reversed..

                  1. Jamelle Bouie: “”Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state [Ohio] had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.” https://t.co/k90cow4PDs

                    Forcing this 10 y.o. to carry a pregnancy to term or find someone who could afford to take her to another state for an abortion is just “a little inconvenience” for Meyer.

                    Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term only to watch the newborn die right after birth because it has a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth is just “a little inconvenience” for Meyer.

                    Forcing a woman whose pregnancy is creating health problems to wait until those problems are life-threatening is just “a little inconvenience” for Meyer.

                    Forcing a rape victim to be further traumatized by having to carry her rapist’s baby is just “a little inconvenience” for Meyer.

                    Pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions needed for miscarriage — because those medications are also used for elective abortions — is just “a little inconvenience” for Meyer.

                    May he be faced with analogous little inconveniences in his own life.

                    1. If you think about it, you will recall that the decision was leaked 2 months ago, so the suddenness of the decision is not so sudden. All had almost 2 months to get a legal abortion.

                      You are now dealing with the inconvenience. Understand how inconvenient it is to have a probe stuck in your head to kill you, and how inconvenient it is when the doctor detaches and removes each limb, one limb at a time.

                      However, forget whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion. It didn’t belong in the federal court system. It is a state issue, and convenient or not the decision has to lie with the state.

                      The Supreme Court did not stop the ability to have an abortion. They reversed a bad decision and left it to the states where it belonged. The costs for travel are a fraction of the lobbying costs of the pro-abortion group that wants abortion up to the actual birth, and a bit after while a live baby sits on the table.

                      You can now sing your sad song while Blacks against abortion sing theirs, noting more Black children over the years were killed by abortion, than the total Black population today.

                      I was present when Candace Owens got into a fight with a very prominent well-respected individual. She called it Black genocide. She had a good point.

                    2. Spare us your crocodile tears. Your people killed over 100 million people outside war in the last century.

                2. Dennis,

                  First, you do realize that I am despised by the Trumpists here for my unyielding condemnation of Turley for being a hypocritical Fox News sell-out! I have been doing so before you showed up here I believe! I yield to no one in my contempt for Turley giving legitimacy to the Fox Primetime rage provocateurs by his appearing with them. I have stated that the stigma of his profiting off the rage of his Fox colleagues- a rage which he condemns everywhere but Fox- will follow him for the rest of his career.

                  That having been said, Turley is not a Trumpist like his Fox colleagues. While he is disingenuous. He will not outright lie as they do. I have given you examples in the past. Furthermore, he will condemn things that Trump has said and done which they refuse to do. Turley maintains a level of plausible deniability of his association with those Trumpists with whom he appears to claim that he is an impartial and objective legal analyst.

                  You say:

                  “Notice Turley doesn’t refer to Trump as the “former president”. Telling.”

                  This was a slip of the tongue. There is no way that Turley does not know Biden is the legitimate president.

                  Unlike his clear views on the First Amendment, Turley’s personal views on abortion and the Second Amendment are hard to pin down. He looks at these court cases without revealing his preferences. Rather, he analyzes them with cold clear logic and dispassionately. For all we know, he may favor states passing Constitution Amendments enshrining a right of privacy notwithstanding his belief that Roe was wrongly decided. In spite of his personal beliefs, he will hold his tongue as he represents the interests of his employer Fox.

                  I doubt Turley believes he has any chance to be nominated for the SC. He has too much baggage. I have to disagree with you about Turley when you claim “It’s all about self-interest, not the law!” I do believe that Turley believes in the rule of law; he also works in his self-interest as most of us do! Here are two interesting articles which better explain what I think:

                  “What the Heck Happened to Jonathan Turley?”

                  https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/what-the-heck-happened-to-jonathan-turley/

                  “Jonathan Turley Provides a Master Class in Concern Trolling”

                  https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/05/30/jonathan-turley-provides-a-master-class-in-concern-trolling/

                  Whatever his liberal values and beliefs, Turley works for a loathsome news outlet, and his reputation on the Left will never be the same.

    2. The BIG Difference between Hutchinson and Dean is most of what Hutchinson related is second hand or hearsay vis-a vis Dean relating his own direct experience with the President..and as far as Hunter Biden is concerned… he has never stopped trending as he has gotten away (so far) with what many consider to be ACTS OF TREASON.in giving the Chinese access to our military technology. See Peter Schweizer’s excellent research: in this Documentary” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmlcEBAiIs

    3. not only is there coordination, i’d be shocked if turley doesn’t have a financial arrangement with fox to workshop future talking points on his blog here before the mothership runs with them. it’s been abundantly clear when tricky days come up for the right, turley is the first to go all ‘hunter’ for them. there is probably a financial reward for turley to get hunter’s name listed in the top five google searches of his name . turley regularly accomplishes this. he’s good at his job.

      of course that makes it all the more important for those of us on the left to monitor what goes on here because it’s surely to be hammered on fox in the immediate future.

      1. “of course that makes it all the more important for those of us on the left to monitor what goes on here”

        LOL. Being a lizard is as close as you will get to being a monitor.

  3. If I were paid to hang out here all day too, I guess I might. The troll responses are almost always proportional to the topic in relation to a particular issue. Especially if it involves Trump. Regular readers know by now, for the rest: ignore the trolls. You will know them by their being completely off-tooic, down to their insulting of the Professor. They harp the same tune every time, and always have canary feathers on their faces.

    1. Stooge (James), you ‘are’ on this blog at least 12 hours per day. All your puppets post in clumps, filling each morning.

  4. Anonymous says:

    “One suspects many Republicans ‘do not want to believe’ William Barr dismissed Trump’s fraud allegations. To accept that Barr boldly shot-down the possibility would throw the average Trumper into a state confusion.”

    Tellingly, Turley did not say one word against anything Barr stated under oath to the consternation of Trumpists! They won’t acknowledge it publicly because they want to pretend that Turley disbelieves Barr’s damning testimony, but he does NOT.

    And another Fox legal analyst, Andy McCarthy, is also turning on Trump and wrote:

    “Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony against Trump Is Devastating”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/cassidy-hutchinsons-testimony-against-trump-is-devastating/

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

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

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

    McCarthy concluded by stating, “That’s what we learned today. Things will not be the same after this.”

    We all know how Turley never fails to criticize those legal analysts in the MSM who rush to conclude that Trump is likely facing a criminal indictment. We have not heard Turley objecting to McCarthy’s damning indictment of Trump in the National Review, now have we?

    Tell me, Trumpists, which is it? Is McCarthy a RINO or suffering from TDS? Come on, it’s gotta be one or the other….

    1. “which is it? Is McCarthy a RINO or suffering from TDS? “

      It’s funny that you seem not to realize that McCarthy early on was a Never Trumper.

      That being said, let me quote McCarthy: “When it comes to cases that implicate electoral politics, particularly involving the incumbent administration’s partisan adversaries, the DOJ’s presumption should be against indictment. That presumption can prudently be overcome only if there is crystal-clear evidence of a serious crime. “

      Above McCarthy says: ““For now, all we can responsibly do is ask ourselves whether the evidence presented under these deficient procedures seems coherent and credible.”

      He then goes on to say he has convicted people with very little evidence. That is not very assuring to innocent people facing federal prosecution.

      Classic example and scarier than hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M3P8sT4IFg

      Tell us Jeff, what evidence did he hear from Hutchinson’s testimony that is compelling?

      I guess your answer is the usual, ‘I (Jeff) don’t have the needed information’. That is right and the needed information hasn’t yet been broadcast. Hutchinson provided a tall tale and you guys on the left fell for it. LOL

  5. POLLS:

    Republicans Doing Their Best To Avoid Hearings

    Yet DeSantis Gaining On Trump

    The YouGov poll showed relatively few Republicans are even paying attention to the Jan. 6 hearings, and significantly fewer trust the information they’re getting. For instance, only 26 percent say they had heard and believed the news that Attorney General William P. Barr told Trump his voter fraud allegations were “bvllsh1t,” despite Barr testifying under oath to it and the committee heavily featuring that testimony. And only 13 percent had heard and believed that half a dozen members of Congress had sought pardons, as the committee disclosed last week. (About 4 in 10 Republicans said they had heard about each story, but either doubted them or weren’t sure they were true.)

    But this poll also contains some instructive findings when it comes to the hearings’ potentially more subtle effects.

    There’s Trump’s apparently growing vulnerability in the 2024 primaries, mostly by virtue of a potential challenge from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). Earlier this year, we highlighted polls suggesting that matchup could be competitive. Then last week came a University of New Hampshire poll showing DeSantis pulling even with Trump in the crucial first primary state.

    The Yahoo/YouGov poll also bears this out; it shows Trump at 44 percent and DeSantis at 33 percent when it comes to which one of them people would like to see as the 2024 GOP nominee.. That’s not as close than the UNH poll, but it’s remarkably close given Trump’s supposed stranglehold on the party.

    The poll also shows 56 percent of Republicans say they want Trump to run again in 2024. That number was as high as 78 percent in Quinnipiac polling late last year.

    Edited From:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/republican-polling-trump-january-6/

    ………………………………………………………………..

    KEY PASSAGE ABOVE:

    “Only 26 percent (of Republicans) say they had heard and believed the news that Attorney General William P. Barr told Trump his voter fraud allegations were “bvllsh1t,” despite Barr testifying under oath to it”.

    ***

    One suspects many Republicans ‘do not want to believe’ William Barr dismissed Trump’s fraud allegations. To accept that Barr boldly shot-down the possibility would throw the average Trumper into a state confusion.

    One can also surmise that rightwing media failed to cover Barr’s testimony. That would go a long way in explaining why so many Republicans were out to lunch on this.

    1. They are deliberately doing that. They don’t want trump supporters to begin to doubt. They got to keep them in their bubbles of ignorance as long as possible so they have the best chances come election time.

      1. I don’t get it; I gave attribution…

        unless you believe I fabricate quotes from the Framers, Founders, Constitution, and Bill of Rights (the latter amendments are illegitimate and were excluded herein due to the fact that secession was/is constitutional and everything “Crazy Abe” and his complicit successors did was unconstitutional, ditto for those who failed to enforce and obey immigration law in 1863).

  6. Professor Turley Writes:

    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.

    ***

    The Fox News Link Reports:

    However, a source close to Ornato told Fox News that he watched the hearing yesterday and was shocked when Hutchinson made the allegation about the steering wheel.

    Both Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Secret Service detail who was in the car, and Ornato, who was not in the car, testified to the January 6 Committee in private over the past year, the source close to Ornato said.

    Fox News previously reported that a source close to the Secret Service said both men are willing to testify under oath that Hutchinson’s story about Trump is not true.

    Edited From:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-january-6-committee-didnt-reach-about-story-trump-lunging-agent

    ………………………………………………………………

    Because Hutchinson’s account is disputed by Ornato and Engel, those two men must come back to the committee for clarifications. Here’s how that could go–

    ***

    Bobby Engel: “No, the president did not lunge for the steering wheel. But ‘yes’, he was highly upset. We had warned him, repeatedly, that the protesters were known to be carrying weapons. The president didn’t care. The president kept saying, ‘They’re not going to use their weapons on me’.

    ***

    In other words Donald Trump was furiously demanding a ride to the Capitol so he could rally a mob he knew was armed.

    This one piece of testimony could logically convict Trump of trying to lead a coup.

    1. This one piece of testimony could logically…

      Peter Shill / Seth Warner / Svelaz / Sammy / Natacha / Dark Triad Troll,

      no one would ever use the word “logic” in anything you copy/paste, never mind original composition. Tell your paid handlers to send us fresh new trolls because your material is beyond hope. Not even Jesus could resurrect your reputation from the dead

      😉

      1. REGARDING ABOVE:

        Estovir is the one, and only, BLOG STOOGE, handler of endless puppets.

        Estovir is also Thinkthrough, Hullbobby, James, Feldman, Ralph Chappelle, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, Alma Carman, Giocon, N.N, and many, many more.

    2. Anonymous says:

      “This one piece of testimony could logically convict Trump of trying to lead a coup.”

      It doesn’t help!

      Everyone here has seen the classic film, “A Few Good Men,” and recall the famous cross-examination of Colonel Jessup by Kaffee:

      Kaffee: A moment ago, you said that you ordered Lt. Kendrick to tell his men that Santiago wasn’t to be touched.

      Jessup: That’s right.

      Kaffee: And Lt. Kendrick was clear on what you wanted?

      Jessup: Crystal.

      Kaffee: Any chance Lt. Kendrick ignored the order?

      Jessup: Ignored the order?

      Kaffee: Any chance he forgot about it?

      Jessup: No.

      Kaffee: Any chance Lt. Kendrick left your office and said, “the old man is wrong”?

      Jessup: No.

      Kaffee: When Lt. Kendrick spoke to the platoon and ordered them not to touch Santiago, any chance they ignored him?

      Jessup: You ever served in an infantry unit, son?

      Kaffee: No, sir.

      Jessup: Ever served in a forward area?

      Kaffee: No, sir.

      Jessup: Ever put your life in another man’s hands and asked him to put his life in yours?

      Kaffee: No, sir.

      Jessup: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?

      Kaffee: Yes, sir.

      Jessup: Are we clear?!

      Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I just have one more question before I put Airman O’Malley and Airman Rodriguez on the stand. If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
      ————————

      Trump said during his 1/6 speech:

      “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard….”

      If this command was sufficient to offset his call to arms, “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore,” then why didn’t his loyal followers listen to his order?

      Why did they fight like hell instead of acting peacefully?

  7. Olly,

    Whatever criticisms Turley has of this Congressional committee, he does NOT dismiss it out of hand as a “witch-hunt” as Trumpists do. That is a distinction which you liars- for obvious reasons- refuse to acknowledge Turley making. He wants to know the truth about Trump’s intent and is willing to accept the evidence. You and your ilk will never concede that Trump could be a criminal. I don’t know whether Trump committed a crime, but I do know that Trumpists do NOT want to find out!

        1. And true.

          You are free to write as you please – but I have no interest in your compliments – sarcastic or otherwise.

      1. A select committee is not a court of law. The results of the Committee’s investigation into an attack on our Capitol, incited by a sitting President who refused to believe that he had lost re-election, are not intended for criminal prosecution. Republicans did the same thing to Hillary Clinton, who cooperated, unlike Trump, and testified for 11 hours. Republicans, other than Cheney and Kinziner, had a chance to participate, but refused because Jordan, who was directly involved in the insurrection, and Banks, who has stated his extreme bias, were rejected by Pelosi. So, Kevin McCarthy withdrew the other 3 nominees.

        1. Jordan was LESS involved than Pelosi.
          When are we going to hear her testify ?
          When will we hear Byrd Testify ?’
          When will we hear the officer who killed Rose Boylan testify ?

          When will we hear any of the testimony that is at odds with the narative you are trying to seel.

          It took multiple Congressional inquiries to get to the actual truth of the Conduct of those int he Obama administration on inumerable matters – such as Benghazi which were legitimate topics of federal oversight.

          What part of the J6 hearings involves oversight of DOJ ? Or any other Cabinet office ?

          My support for executive priviledge is extremely narrow – I would give congress fairly broad authority to question actual whitehouse advisors.
          Though private people advising the president – particualrly those advising him Politically or legally and especially as an indvidual or candidate and not as president are off limits. As is the whitehouse counsel.

          Unless of course you want all the same people from the Biden Whitehouse testifying to congress in 2023.

          But regardless of my views – the courts have found broader executive priviledge than I would.

          Ultimately I do not care that much – except for more nonsense to spin, you will not uncover anything – because there is nothing to uncover.
          There is no conversation that would prove your case – because there were no criminal acts.
          If Trump discussed declaring marshall law – that would not matter – because he did not.

          In the end you have Trump encouraging people to Tresspass where they were constitutionally allowed to go, and small violence that resulted because you violated the constitution.

          That is all,
          And it is obvious that is all you could ever possibly get.

          As to the committee – YOUR description makes it perfectly clear why your claims regarding Jordan are irrelevant.
          This is NOT a grandjury or a petite jury, It is not a court of law. Your basis for excluding Jodan and Banks was WRONG and IRRELEVANT.

          I would note that Pelosi stated her reasons for rejecting Jordan and Banks were political.

          You are running a witch trial, and people see through it.

          You are free to delude yourself otherwise.

          How well did that work for you in the past ?

          Do you ever wonder why you have been so wrong on so many issues ?

      2. Merriam-Webster

        kangaroo court noun

        Definition of kangaroo court

        1 : a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted

        2 : a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures

        1. Should have posted image of the definition directly from the dictionary, below the text a photo of the J6 Committee is displayed

          1. Ornato is reported as having said that he didn’t brief CH about the events in the car. So where did she get the story? And how did she recall the details of what exactly was said by whom a year and a half after the event? I don’t trust anything she said.

            1. Do you also believe that Jim Baker couldn’t possibly be expected to recall accurately what Sussmann did or didn’t say to him over 5 years ago, and that Durham was foolish to have charged Sussmann with lying to Baker when Baker wasn’t sure?

      1. This is not a court of law.
        The rules regarding hearsay do not apply.

        But the lack of credibility of hearsay does.

        Further if this was a court of law – your exception would not apply – the statement was not made by a party, and the person who made the statement is available to testify.

    1. Lysias says:
      June 30, 2022 at 3:11 PM

      Why did the people in charge of the hearing even permit hearsay evidence?
      -=-

      Good question.

      First this isn’t a court of law.
      At best she could be telling the truth in what was relayed to her.
      Worst, she’s lying for personal gain.

      We’ve seen this before… one online site put her image along side that of Ford from the Kavanaugh hearing.

      Within hours of her testimony, those actually present to the alleged event, deny that it ever happened and are willing to testify to the committee to that fact.

      The committee knew her testimony before she appeared in front of them. They had every chance to verify it.
      They didn’t. The committee is a political one and partisan politics are at play.

      It is apparent that they are not seeking the truth, but to put Trump on trial as a way to stop him from running in 2024

      1. They may not have had time to verify it. Remember this was a last minute addition to the hearings. They had to call back members of the hearing from their holiday recess.

        1. Anomaly,

          “They may not have had time to verify it.”

          What is the alleged rush, additional hearings are scheduled in mid-July? The committee is obligated to only present truthful and factual information, an obligation that they have woefully failed at. The price of this failure is their credibility.

          1. The price of this failure is their credibility.

            Exactly. There’s a moral to the story that’s apparently lost on the Democrats.

            There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth. The Boy Who Cried Wolf

        2. She was interviewed and gave testimony to the J6 story-tellers, never mentioned this Tony Ornato story about the Trump assault and then some months later had a coming to Jesus moment and seem to recall the Trump story about assault and commandeering the beast or SUV driver, whichever it was and then said this:
          “There is more I want to share that was not asked in those settings, how do we do this?”

          The story is in the link below.

          https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-trump-aide-alyssa-farah-griffin-says-she-put-cassidy-hutchinson-in-touch-with-liz-cheney

      2. Worse still – her testimony – though strange still does not advance any consequential claim.

        According to HER, the SS refused to take Trump to the capital for his own safety.
        That is the only reason the SS could refuse to take Trump where he wanted.
        Their job is to protect the president – not to judge the political, constitutional or legal merits of his actions.

        Joe Biden is likely incompetent. The secret service agents serving him no that more than anyone.
        Yet, they are not going to push to remove him via the 25th amendment and they would likely be barred from testifying about his competence.

  8. Jonathan: Not unexpected. Your column is an attempt to de-legitimatize the Jan. 6 hearings. So, let’s try to unravel some of your claims. You claim the Committee is not “balanced”. At the risk of repetition this is not true. The Dems proposed originally that the Congress establish a joint Commission (like the Warren Commission) with an equal number of Republican and Democratic members. McConnell and Republicans refused. When Pelosi set up the Jan. 6 Special Committee. she asked McCarthy to submit the names of GOP members. Pelosi only rejected Jim Jordan which was her right to do under House rules. She knows Jordan is not interested in gathering evidence but, as a loyal Trumpist, his role would have been to obfuscate, to disrupt and to distract by raising extraneous issues .He’s a bomb thrower. Had he been allowed on the Committee we would still be in the middle of the first hearing! So McCarthy decided his caucus would not participate which proved fateful. Donald Trump has severely criticized McCarthy for this move saying there is no one on the Committee to “fight for me”. Your claim the membership of the Committee is not “balanced” does not pass a simple fact check. The fault lies with McConnell and McCarthy–not with Pelosi.

    Based on your false premise the bulk of your column is to try to portray the Committee’s investigation as a “heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence”. You spend time trying to undercut the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson regarding what Tony Ornato told her re the incident inside the security vehicle when Trump tried to grab the steering wheel and then lunged at the SS agent. You cite your column in The Hill in which you suggest, erroneously, that the SS was engaged in an “abduction” in preventing Trump to lead the march up to the Capitol. The main job of the Secret Service is to protect the president. They knew there was a good chance of violence. Some of those gathered at the rally were armed. Hutchinson testified that Trump told his aides to turn off the “mags” because “they’re not here to hurt me”. With the real possibility of violence the SS did the prudent thing in taking Trump back to the WH. But you suggest the SS action was akin to false imprisonment. Bizarre! Trump demanded he be allowed to march up to the Capitol. Why? Because Trump knew the optics would be terrible if he didn’t show up when he promised his followers he would be there for them. We haven’t seen anyone step forward and directly contradict any of Hutchinson’s testimony. But the incident inside the “Beast” is more a side issue that doesn’t directly bear on Trump’s criminal liability for the main crimes. But it does show Trump is a deranged (not insane) sociopath. The insurrection happened even though Trump was safe back in the WH. It was what Trump wanted. You haven’t challenged any other part of Hutchinson’s “bombshell” testimony regarding other aspects of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. That’s telling because you want your followers to focus on what happened inside the “Beast” not on the other more important aspects of Hutchinson’s testimony.

    What is even more of concern is what Liz Cheney said at the end of Tuesday’s hearing–something you chose not to discuss. She showed the texts of threatening messages some witnesses have received from Trump associates. One said: “[ A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition”. Witness intimidation is a crime. No doubt this caught the attention of AG Garland. If the DOJ can identify the caller or those who also sent intimidating messages, and they can be tied directly to Trump, the DOJ will have another crime they can charge Trump with. Trump keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper.

    1. Are there any women here today?…..

      Who threw that stone?
      Go to the back! There is always one isnt there?

  9. Where are the hearings on the BLM and Antifa riots that terrorized Democrat-led cities for a year?

    Where are the hearings about the seditious “autonomous zones” in which radicals seized entire city blocks, holding residents and businesses hostage? They couldn’t complain if they knew what was good for them.

    Republicans watched Democrats riot, loot, commit arson, commit assaults, and murder police with near impunity, as their politician lauded their civic mindedness. It was only a matter of time before a group of Republicans got rowdy. They didn’t realize that rules don’t apply to Democrats. Only Republicans. They didn’t loot or burn down the Capitol building. They did trespass, and interrupt a Congressional proceeding. And that was bad. Most of them were properly charged with trespassing and illegally parading. What was improper was keeping them in solitary for 8 months, while those Democrats who threw firebombs at federal buildings and rioted got away Scott free.

    There are dual sets of laws, depending on politics.

    What bothered me even more than the disrespect of the Capitol building was the fact that up until January 6th, rioting was squarely hung around the neck of the Democrat Party. It was Democrats who urged their voters to riot. “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe their will be.” Nancy Pelosi. “Go out, make a crowd, and make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.” Maxine Waters. “It will continue and it should continue.” Kamala Harris on the riots. “You, Justice Kavanaugh, have unleashed the whirlwind.” Chuck Schumer. There are myriad examples of Democrats openly urging riots, as well as their bailing rioters out of jail. Then there are the ubiquitous activists constantly showing up at the Capitol or the Supreme Court in scarlet cloaks, pretending that Christians want to rape them all like in Handmaid’s Tale.

    Compare and contrast to Trump telling people to be peaceful and law abiding. His rallies had always been peaceful. The overwhelming majority of attendees of the Jan 6 rally had a great time, and went home, not even knowing that a small group had broken off before Trump finished speaking, and went down to the Capitol Building. They were just at another uplifting Trump rally, with people who cleaned up after themselves.

  10. Once the Jan 6 Committee edited out Trump telling his followers to peacefully let their voices be heard, just like any Democrat in front of any federal building, then all pretense of fairness evaporated.

    This is, yet again, an abuse of power by those who seek to undermine Trump.

    Democrats must be terrified to run on Biden’s record. They are so frightened of the former President that they are ONCE AGAIN wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a witch hunt. Like the Biden Hoax. Like when they tried to get him impeached for inquiring about Biden’s bragging about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Like when they pretended that a company from which you’ve divested all control letting out hotel rooms to anyone, foreign or domestic, for a set rate is somehow in violation of the Emoluments Clause.

    “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    1. Karen S: I’ve told you before that if I wanted to hear Tucker and Hannity’s take, I’d just watch the program. The offhand remark about “peacefulness” was just that–off hand, and doesn’t offset the lying, the “Stop the Steal” tourss, the planning and coordination with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers at the Willard Hotel, and who had weapons on them on Jan 6th, which Trump was told about. In response, he ordered that the magnetometers (metal detectors) be taken away. HE WANTED ARMED SUPPORTERS TO GO TO THE CAPITOL. There was a group of his fans in a motel across the Potomac with a cache of weapons, waitng for their exalted leader to call for arms when he went would lead them to the Capitol, as he promised. The Secret Service would not comply. Could anyone seriously doubt that the pig tried to force the Secret Service to take him to the Capitol? Pence knew what Trump was capable of, which is why he refused to be removed from the Capitol. He knew Trump would have him transported far away so that he couldn’t formally accept the certified vote counts. He wouldn’t budge.

      You don’t even have a cursory understanding of the facts. Biden has already been more successful in less than 2 years than Trump was in 4, and early in his administration, he already had a higher approval rating than Trump ever could obtain. The most-serious problems we face are all due to the spectacular failures of Trump, who botched the pandemic, causing it to be far worse than it had to be. The country was mostly shut down for 2 years, and people died unnecessarily. The supply chain with China for key items like computer chips went down due to Trump’s trade war. Chips are needed for everything from cars to home appliances, and has stll not caught up. Factories and businesses cut back, due to unemployment which caused lower consumer demand. School kids are behind due to school closings. Because of Trump tax breaks for the very wealthy, the national debt soared to record levels. Biden has gotten the pandemic under control, schools are open, restaurants and businesses are back, but some didn’t recover, and he has made strides to lower the national debt, interest on which has helped fuel inflation. Trump’s trashing of EU and NATO and pandering to Putin are directly responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Because of our allies’ sanctions against Russia, global fuel prices are at record levels. Putin thought that Trump had so alienated NATO that they wouldn’t help Ukraine. He was very wrong. Another contributing factor to high fuel prices is lower demand during the Trump recession since school buses weren’t running and people were working from home or not at all.. Since Biden has turned that around, supply has not caught up with demand. Biden has united our NATO alllies and Sweden and Finland were invited to join NATO, something your hero could never do. This is Biden’s record in less than 2 years, and Americans are proud of it.

      Trump DID attempt a quid pro quo–we all heard him try to leverage aid appropriated by Congress in exchange for claiming that Ukraine was “investigating” Biden. Trump NEVER “divested all control” of anything. The test isn’t “control”–it’s ownership. “Divested” means neither he nor any member of his family had any pecuniary (monetary) interest in the business. Jimmy Carter SOLD the family peanut business after he won the election. That’s what “divested” means. Trump, a pathological liar, CLAIMED that the hotels were being run by his stupid sons, and rooms were rented out to foreign dignitaries and representatives of foreign countries seeking some advantage from the Trump administration at highere than going rates. There’s proof that the rooms, including conference rooms at much-higher than going rates, were never even used, so renting out the rooms was just a ruse for what was essentially a bribe. Trump was making money on the Washington DC hotel while in office, and that IS a violation of the Emoluments Clause. Once we voted him out, the hotel flopped and income couldn’t even cover operating expenses, so the hotel was sold off.

      You obviously have relied on Fox for your information about what the Jan 6th Committee has uncovered, which is a well-planned and coordinated plot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. This wasn’t. as you’ve previously claimed, a peaceful demonstration that got out of control with “a few yahoos”.

      1. Do you read what you write before you hit post ?

        There are over 10M ar-15’s in the US – I would bet 90% of them are owned by Trump supporters.

        Yet not one of them stormed the capital with an AR-15.

        Your entire rant is speculation.

        I do not care if there were 10,000 members of the Virginia Militia with AR-15’s out on the mall.
        Unless they charged the capital – that fact is irrelevant.

        The proud boys plotted to “occupy the capital” – Mario Savio is rolling in his grave.
        Woe is me!

        The only armed people inside the capital were Capital police.
        Revolver has done stories on the few people with handguns OUTSIDE the capital.
        They are likely all Federal agents. Regardless, they were OUTSIDE.
        Further none of them – no matter who they were used their weapons.
        Capt. Byrd did to murder a protestor. After he fired – no one shot back at him.

        The only violence outside the west tunnel was by the capital police.
        At the west tunnel there is credible evidence the police instigated the violence by murdering Rose Boylan.

        We should find out whether that is true.

        Regardless, the results of your entire hearing are self contradictory nonsense none of which is criminal.

        It is likely much of the testimony if either perjury or blatant spin.
        But even accepted as truth – it does not get you where you keep trying to go.

        People “plotted” to overturn the election – within the constraints of th law and the constitution.

        You have so many huge problems.

        Was what actually occured in Harris/Tilden in 1876 unconstitutional ? Criminal ?
        Was Hillaries efforts to overturn the 2016 election Criminal ?
        Pretty much every election won by a republican has democrats objecting to one state or another – are they all criminals ?

        1. Some of the Trump fans who were arrested on Jan 6th had hand guns. Didn’t Hannity cover this? One of them was from a town in Indiana where a friend of mine from nursing school grew up. There WAS a cache of AR 15s in a motel across the Potomac, with Trump supporters waiting for the call to charge the Capitol. I’ve seen photos of the weapons. Did Tucker omit this coverage?

          1. Absolutely many many trump supporters have guns.

            You do not seem to grasp that most americans have guns and that is not a crime.

            A TINY portion of J6 protestors had guns – OUTSIDE THE CAPITAL – again not a crime.

            Arresting a protestor and finding that in their car or hotel room they have a gun is a gazillion miles from what you need.

            Take any poor city block in Chicago and “arrest” everyone – and you will find FAR MORE guns than at the capital on J6.

            Todate there is ZERO evidence that any protestor took a gun INTO the capital.
            And no protestor USED a gun – inside or out.

            There is evidence that about half a dozen people OUTSIDE the capital had handguns.
            None of these people went into the capital.
            None have been arrested,
            It is near certain these people were federal informants or agents.

            If a Single Trump supporter had brought a gun into the capital and Shot and killed a Capital oplice officer – that would be absolutely horrible.
            It would STILL not be an insurrection.

            And that did not happen.

            I would note that a significant portion of the protestors were:
            Current or former law enforcement or military – of course they had guns. That is not a consequential question.

            What is relevant is did they take guns into the capital in significant numbers and did they use them.

            And the answer is not only NO – it is that they did not take guns into the capital AT ALL, and they did not use them inside or outside the capital AT ALL.

            Which can not be said for the capital police.

            We all know that those of you on the left are terrified by the existance of guns.
            But more than half the country owns guns.

            Get over it.

            There are more guns in the US than cars.

  11. There were some US Presidents that belonged to secret societies.

    Is a secret society known as the Templar Knights influencing US politics?

    1. Is a secret society known as the Templar Knights influencing US politics?

      🤣 There are plenty of organizations that lay claim to the Knights Templar name and legacy. I can assure you that my order certainly has had no influence on US politics, as evidenced by where our politics and culture are today.

      In short, we are the Modern Knights Templar, an Ecumenical Christian and Chivalric charitable Order. We do not claim a direct linage to the original Knights of the Temple, but we do seek to emulate their positive attributes in our daily lives today. We have adopted two of the original Templar missions of Protecting Christians at Risk particularly in the Holy Land and the Middle East and in Keeping the Road to Jerusalem open to all people as our order.

      Our guiding lights are the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, through which members aspire to serve faithfully as Knights of God’s Temple. The motto of the Order, “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da gloriam” is the Latin version of Psalm 115, verse 1 — “Not unto us, Oh Lord, not unto us, but to Thy Name be given glory.”
      http://www.smotj.org/

      Now do BLM.

          1. I believe that a very young, and very beautiful, Jane Seymour was Bond’s paramour in this movie.

Leave a Reply to Jim22 Cancel reply