There is a new controversy over the alleged bias of the J6 Committee and the extreme measures used to avoid alternative or conflicting accounts. On Friday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House select committee, declared that former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone” did not contradict” the testimony of previous witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict. The controversy comes at a time when the head of the Oath Keepers has offered to testify, an extraordinary move since he is facing criminal charges. However, he has one big demand: it must be live and in public. In other words, it cannot be edited or tailored by the Committee.
Lofgren told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “Mr. Cipollone did appear voluntarily and answer a whole variety of questions. He did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses. And I think we did learn a few things, which we will be rolling out in the hearings to come.”
The contradictions with Hutchinson are important after other witnesses contested her account on a key point of her testimony.
This brings us back to the offer of Stewart Rhodes to testify live. That is an extraordinary offer for a criminal defendant. No defense lawyer (including this one) would support such an appearance before a criminal trial. If the Committee is truly interested in getting to the truth, why wouldn’t it hold an open hearing? It has suggested that Trump was in collusion or a conspiracy with this group. It also alleged that the Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit an armed insurrection. We could now, for the first time, hear from one of the leaders of the two groups on that very subject. It would ideally allow him to make an opening statement and offer a full account on whether he coordinated with anyone in the White House on January 6th.
If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.
Jonathan: Just to keep you up to date there is more fall-out from Kavanaugh’s encounter with protesters at Morton’s Steakhouse. It appears post-Wade protesters have more plans for Kavanaugh and some of the other justices. Now, a group calling itself “Shit Down DC” has a Tweet for “DC Service Industry Workers”: “If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with details!…We’ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they’re still there 30 mins after your message”. Boy, these people have a lot of money to throw around! Anyway, it looks like the justices will be well advised to have lunch/dinner henceforth in chambers. It’s a travesty when a sitting justice can’t have dinner in peace at Mortons!
Imagine what the media reporting and the Biden White House response would be if a bunch of paid protestorsagitators surrounded Sotomayor at a restaurant, forcing her to evacuate out the backdoor, as they were screaming at her with threatening language because they disagreed with her decision?
Would the media/White House/Democrats all say, “Wonderful. We welcome these protests! Yes, protest at her home! Bang drums, shout slurs, disturb her neighbors! Get in her face out in public, at restaurants, at gas stations! Sotomayor has NO right to peace or privacy anywhere, at anytime! Because this is what democracy looks like!”
Haha, yeah, no. The media/WH/Dems would be screaming about it while calling the protestors “domestic terrorists!” and AG Merrick Garland would have them promptly arrested and charged! Justice would be swift for that kind of “democracy.”
There is actually a dining room at SCOTUS.
Catherine: So why didn’t Kavanaugh have dinner at the SCOTUS dining room? I have a friend who thinks Kavanaugh had a method to his madness in wanting to dine at Morton’s when he knew or should have known protesters would show up. He didn’t just want a good T-bone. He wanted to become a martyr for the cause. And what might be that “cause”? My friend think Kavanaugh was already pissed that protester were marching up and down in front of his house and he wanted a pretext to make the argument for a constitutional “right to congregate and eat dinner” without the presence of meddlesome protesters. My friend says he has sources inside the SC that say Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito are already researching the issue. Alito is channeling the 17th century English jurist Matthew Hale for some insight. Kavanaugh, according to these same sources, told the others: “What about the ‘penumbra” of rights guaranteed by the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th Amendments? I mean William Douglas said there is a constitutional right of privacy for couples to use contraceptives. Thomas stood up and interjected: “Wait a minute. Just wait a damn minute, Brett. That was the Griswold decision that I want to overturn. That argument won’t work!”. While the three were scratching their heads Kavanaugh finally offered a solution. “Hey, guys, why don’t we consult with the noted constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley. You know he thinks protesters outside our homes should be prosecuted. Maybe he can help”. The other two responded: “Great idea!”. My friend says this discussion was confirmed by a leaker inside the SC. Now I know this sounds farfetched. But not any crazier then Turley saying he thinks Stewart Rhodes should be allowed to testify before the J.6 Committee! So, Catherine, what do you think? Why did Kavanaugh want to dine at Morton’s when he had the SC dining room right down the hall?
If Trump supporters were protesting outside of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s house the feds would shut it down within an hour.
On the same day Shinzo Abe was assassinated, the Biden White House was still encouraging the terrorizing of conservative justices.
They literally want them dead.
“Well, people will do what they do.” ~Speaker Pelosi
The greater question is:
Why Mr. Cipollone did not offer his account of the exchanges with Cassidy Hutchinson.
Perhaps because (The specific Statement Hutchinson testified to) He and two Others
knew it was not made (it didn’t happen). Thus protecting Ms. Hutchinson from further
injuring Herself (By lying to Congress – Like Michael Cohen did).
Cipollone threw the J6 Commit an Olive Branch,
by not offering his account and they not asking his account.
Mind you … He could have said She lied (fabricated) about the account.
He still can[.]
Or maybe he doesn’t remember.
Baloney. Of course he remembers; he’s just another spineless woos.
You’re pretending to know something you don’t actually know.
Everybody wants to forget it.
Neither Party wants to send a 26yr. old to Prison.
https://www.thefocus.news/culture/cassidy-hutchinson-bio-age-wiki/
Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of The Beast!
Trump grabbed him by the clavicles!
J6 was a violent insurrection that nearly toppled the United States government!
Lies and more lies. Yet another fabricated, scripted Democrat/media hoax to add to their growing manure pile.
You know what other lies the fake news media worked hand in glove with Democrats to perpetuate?
Here’s what writer Matt Taibbi said:
“After Trump was elected I had psychiatrists call, willing to go on record to diagnose Trump from afar as removable under the 25th amendment. I called those same people back while on the road with Biden in 2019 and they refused to comment on “ethical”
Imagine that.
“After Trump was elected I had psychiatrists call, willing to go on record to diagnose Trump from afar as removable under the 25th amendment. I called those same people back while on the road with Biden in 2019 and they refused to comment on “ethical” grounds.”
“J6 was a violent insurrection that nearly toppled the United States government!”
**************************
Oh please. It was a JV riot by BLM standards and featured a guy with a Viking hat and no guns within … well … gunshot. The calmest “insurrection” in history. Bonus points for the enraged buffoons to comment afterwards: Define an insurrection.
Odd that you think the Capitol Grounds are not within gunshot of the Capitol Building.
Well, by Leftist standards they weren’t since they haven’t mastered which ends projects the projectile.
Guy Reffitt, who was convicted of carrying a gun in the Capitol Complex on J6, isn’t a Leftist.
How would you know unless you had a look at his check from the FBI this week.
It’s telling that you choose to resort to a logical fallacy instead of just accepting that you were wrong.
Anniny:
Hardly, we have no idea how many undercover FBI guys were in that crowd. They refuse to tell us. A gun charge is wonderful cover. Not understanding something doesn’t make it a logical fallacy; its just makes you ignorant of the point.
Reffitt was not an “undercover FBI guy.” You’re apparently ignorant about the fallacy you invoked.
Anomaly,
You’re pretending to know something you don’t actually know.
bRaying, everyone who paid attention to his trial knows.
I am in that group, and apparently you are not.
Mespo says:
“It was a JV riot by BLM standards and featured a guy with a Viking hat and no guns”
Here is what NeverTrumper Turley said about it:
“A desecration of our Democracy”
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533084-a-desecration-of-our-democracy/
Certainly worse than a JV riot…
As a Republican I am thankful this committee is exposing everything possible about one of the worst days in American history. Jon, you should realize that wannabe dictators that succeed in taking or retaining power, will remove your right to speech just as fast as they will opinions from the left. I do not want to see Trump imprisoned. But he does fit the bill for both rebellion and insurrection. Both of which render him incapable of holding any office. Lincoln and Reagan are both rolling in their graves over what our party has become.
Sorry, but you could not be more wrong. Wake up. You are fast asleep.
You voted *for Biden this past election didn’t you?
For shame.
“.. this committee is exposing everything possible…”
Demonstrably false.
“that wannabe dictators that succeed in taking or retaining power, will remove your right to speech just as fast as they will opinions from….”
This is happening right now with the illegitimate Biden regime. Open you eyes.
They even regularly alter official White House transcripts to coverup for demented Biden by inserting what should have been said, as opposed to what Biden actually said.
Jeff, have you noticed that the manner in which the J6 Committee has been operating is a bit unusual?
Jeff:
” … one of the worst days in American history… Lincoln and Reagan are both rolling in their graves over what our party has become.”
**************************
Like Pearl Harbor? Like 9-11? Like the Kennedy Assasination? Like a space shuttle exploding on national TV? Like the financial crisis? Like Katrina? Like every other Hurricane from the dawn of time to hit the coastline? Like the BLM/Antifa riots? Like Thre Mile Island? And that’s just in three seconds of thinking about it.
Another RINO seeking forgiveness for the best performance and President of his party in my lifetime. If you’re really that much on the fence you ought to resign from the country club, turn in the Volvo, put down the secretary and go full bore Democrat. At least, you’d have a team instead of a complaint. Lincoln and Reagan were fighters not quibbling whiners.
Know what’s worse than a radical Dim? An lacking perspective, milktoast RINO enabling him and thereby cripling his own party.
Jeff#2
“As a Republican I am thankful this committee is exposing everything possible about one of the worst days in American history.”
How can they be exposing anything when there is no cross-examination of witnesses and when the committee is using third-hand information along with quotes missing the operative phrases?
Additionally, do you think Pelosi should be called to testify and be cross-examined since she refused additional troop protection?
Do you have an explanation for the deaths of (4) protestors at the Capital building?
Did you watch the videos of Ray Epps?
Can you tell us why the Capital Police or someone else on the inside opened bomb-proof doors
Have you heard the testimony of Byrd?
Why aren’t all the Capital videos released?
What made this demonstration one of the worst days in American History? Was the man in dress-up that frightening?
Did you take note of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision? It proves there was good reason to question the election.
Jeff, as a Republican do you cherish the values behind the Rule of Law? Why didn’t they want Jim Jordan and Banks on the committee to do cross and provide evidence? Do Republicans stand for the Rule of Law. Do you remember what happened when Ed Koch walked out on a hostile crowd that wouldn’t let him make a statement? He said that the discussion was a kangaroo court and he wasn’t a kangaroo. Do Republicans support kangaroo courts?
Jeff you may be a Republican.. but… you need more study..and a Bigger Vision. J6 was a ‘riot’ not an ‘insurrection…’ and the 1 million or so ordinary Republicans who attended what was to be a march ‘peacefully and patriotically’ to the Capitol to protest was a normal event for DC.. ..these folks did not count on the Radical Left & Right Fringe groups to cause a riot. Ronald Reagan, whom I knew, would also be appalled at how a Republican President was treated all 4 years he was in the WH… ‘little foxes’ and little respect….e.g., the Fake Vicious Hoaxes (aka LIES) constantly spun by his opponents and nurtured by the MSM.. e.g., Steele Dossier-Russiagate – spending Zillions of Tax Dollars on Mueller’s sham investigation -The Speaker dramatically tearing up the President’s speech behind his back as he finished speaking…the MSMl constantly taking words from his speeches Out of Context, to frame him as a ‘Racist,’ etc. ….ETC. I voted for Hillary and even I was APPALLED at the treatment of our President. Get a Bigger Vision.
Charge Trump and look like fools again when he gets to cross examine witnesses and get “discovery”. Then on to impeachment 4.0.
Wisconsin Supremes just eliminated voter ballot drops. Arizona is still raging about the last election. Yet only Dems like Hillary can subvert voting – from the inside. Most Americans don’t see something that resembles fairness. Like the 60’s Batman show, the floor is tilted when the villains are on.
Alleged bias? Quite an understatement.
I’m all for bringing those who violated the law to justice, regardless of position or political stripe. But this committee is hardly impartial – the requirement for being named was that the MOC expressed significant hatred for Mr. Trump. It is political; theater; a show trial similar to those held in regimes that Congress used to criticize. Closest thing yet to a federal star chamber.
Whig98 says:
“It is political; theater; a show trial similar to those held in regimes that Congress used to criticize. Closest thing yet to a federal star chamber.”
BUT this is what 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.”
No political theater. No show trial. No star chamber. Rather greater *transparency* and a great deal of *important” information.
Unlike the lying Trumpist Whig98, I’m siding with NeverTrumper Turley.
Will we see another Oliver North? Someone who acknowledges fault and explains his purpose? Oh yeah, the 80s are gone along with the integrity of Congress.
Jonathan: This column is your latest attempt to discredit the work of the J. 6 Committee. It’s based on speculation on top of speculation–with little in the way of actual facts. Neither the NY Times nor you knows exactly what Pat Cipollone has told the Committee. Even the Times admits what it reported is “speculation”. And who are the “people familiar with the questions” asked of Cipollone? That’s always what the media says when they can’t get anyone to go “on the record”. More speculation!
And are you really serious about wanting Stewart Rhodes to testify? No self-respecting defense attorney would allow him to testify while his criminal trial is pending. That aside what could Rhodes offer in terms of relevant testimony? Would he admit he led the Oath Keepers in assaulting the Capitol? Hardly. Now if he says he talked to Trump, or his close advisors, on or before Jan. 6 that would be highly relevant. But there is no evidence he did. I think we should just wait and see. The next hearing is Tuesday with other hearings to follow. Why don’t we just wait and see what Cipollone and other witnesses have to say–rather engage in, I hate to say, more “speculation”.
The committee discredited itself the moment it broke the rules on allowing the opposition to appoint its own members. What is Pelosi afraid of? The truth? Our judicial system requires cross examination. This is a show trial.
It didn’t break the rules. Since the country’s founding, the Speaker has controlled the membership of non-permanent Select Committees.
Good points, but it seems more like a miniseries to me.
Dennis, Jonathan Turley doesn’t need to attempt discrediting the committee. They did a fine job of it themselves by not subjecting testimony to rigorous cross examination. When Cassidy Hutchinson made comments that were directly contradicted by both Deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato, and Secret Service agent Robert Engle, we then discovered these men weren’t first Asked to corroborate her claims BEFORE testifying.
The dealbreaker to me regarding the credibility of the committee was when she testified she wrote the hand written note the committee produced, only for us to later discover that Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann claims to have written the note she took credit for.
And yet, no Ornato, Engle, or Herschmann publicly testifying about their claims she lied. Instead, Hutchinson is deified as producing ‘bombshell’ information, and people like you continue hiding your head in the sand while preaching restraint the rest of us.
Her testimony has not been contradicted by Ornato and Engel themselves, much less contradicted by them under oath.
Anomaly,
You’re pretending to know something you don’t actually know.
Grant him immunity for his testimony, since apparently what the committee would want is a small fish ratting out the former president.
This is a handy test on America’s view of “Equal Justice for All”.
All the pundits and leftist posters on this blog said that he should testify because he would confirm what Hutchinson said. The committee didn’t ask him to confirm her statement because they knew what his answer would be. The committee has not called the Secret Service agents to confirm Hutchinson’s testimony because they know what their answers will be. Their getting to the bottom of something but it has nothing to do with Trump. It comes from the backside of a bull, it smells bad and there is a bunch of it. Another one bites the dust. Another one bites the dust. RussiaGate bites the dust. Laptop bites the dust. Committee bites the dust. Didn’t their momma tell them to stop eating dirt?
Ornato and Engel already testified.
May no mistake about the purpose of Pelsoi’s J6 committee — it is NOT to reveal the truth of what happened on that day. It is a political sham show trial and it should have been shut down from the get go.
*MAKE no mistake, this is a SHAM show trial.
The more these idiot politicians carp on and on about J6 lies and bullsh*t, the more motivated angry voters are –right, left and center –to get out and vote them all out of power in November.
Somewhat related: Steve Bannon, who is set to go to trial on criminal contempt of Congress charges, has told the Jan. 6 Committee that he is now willing to testify, preferably at a public hearing.
I think Banon and others see the possibility to use live televised testimony as a way to get the truth into the pubic sphere. I don’t think Pelosi is going to bite. The risk benefit equation is all wrong for Dems, who’s only goal is setting a phony narrative before the mid terms.
This raises the problem with the media and the Jan 6 Committee from bias to dishonesty. Saying that he did not contradict her testimony indicates that he agreed with what she said. He was not asked about her accusation is an entirely different statement and connotation.
All that’s missing are the Solo cups.
“He was not asked…”
How do you know? Do you have a transcript?
Stop treating your guesses like facts.
Karen S says:
“He was not asked about her accusation is an entirely different statement and connotation.”
Why should the committee have to ask Cipollone whether he disputed Hutchinson’s testimony attributing statements to him?
Compare Bill Barr’s deposition. He volunteered a lot of information in his lengthy responses to questions posed to him. He was not shy. Indeed, Fox’s Mark Levin castigated Barr for his gleefulness in damning Trump by his repeatedly stating that he told Trump that his voter conspiracy theories were ALL “BS.”
If Cipollone believed that Hutchinson was lying or mistaken, he could have *volunteered* his disavowal of her testimony. There is no suggestion that the committee’s lawyers prohibited Cipollone from revealing whatever he wished to say!
“Qui tacet consentiret”
The maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent.”
They are not going to let Stewart Rhodes testify. He stands for everything the committee is against – Constitutional government. He’s a veteran, a Constitutional lawyer and a former political staffer. There is no way Democrats are going to let him be heard.
Rhodes does not stand for a constitutional government.
Rhodes has testify at his trial. Here are the charges against him:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1514876/download
Rhodes may not stand for a constitutional government. Those on the left should be shaking his hand in agreement being that they also believe that the constitution is just an antiquated document that that no longer applies to the modern one collective on the right or one collective on the left. What’s the difference said the black ant to the red ant? Just follow the scent.
Accusations doesn’t prove guilt.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I look forward to seeing whether the DOJ can prove its case at his trial. The fact remains: if Rhodes wants to testify, he can do so at his trial. But I doubt he will.
Anon: There will be no charges by the DOJ. The DOJ will not bring three more rings of a circus to town as there are alredy three there. You will see some DS removals by 10-31-2022.
lighteredknot,
Rhodes has already been charged by the DOJ, so it’s truly bizarre that you claim “There will be no charges by the DOJ.” I linked to the indictment in my 12:40 PM comment..
I don’t know what you mean by “DS removals.”
* can testify, not has testify
House Select Committee spokesman Tim Mulvey: “In our interview with Mr. Cipollone, the Committee received critical testimony on nearly every major topic in its investigation, reinforcing key points regarding Donald Trump’s misconduct and providing highly relevant new information that will play a central role in its upcoming hearings.” “This includes information demonstrating Donald Trump’s supreme dereliction of duty. The testimony also corroborated key elements of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. Allegations of some preinterview agreement to limit Cipillone’s testimony are completely false.”
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a member of the committee, said that Cipollone “claimed privilege on conversations that related to the advice he provided directly to the president or conversations with the president.” “[The committee] still got a lot of relevant information from him, and it provides us another perspective on what was happening in the White House in those weeks running up to January 6th that were so critically important.”
What a fiasco! There is no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, yet spokesmen for the committee provide commentary that serves to reinforce the narrative!
The singular narrative of every committee member, every word of released testimony, every frame of video and every piece of evidence IS the fatal flaw of this committee. This is why no charges can come from this Congressional TV series. Charges are not the point anyway. Public ridicule of Trump and anyone who is not equally obsessed with his removal from relevance – is the point.
Everything Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler and their crew put together has a fatal flaw – whether it’s no prior investigations like the first two impeachments, this Soviet styled kangaroo committee, along with other attempts like the Kavanaugh nomination retry, escapade.
After seeing the selective video edits, releases, and unasked questions, I love the offer that Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes put forth. Stay tuned….
Democrats have never been more vulnerable in an upcoming presidential election. A year and a half in, and we’ve got the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, Russia invading Ukraine again on Biden’s watch, he damaged domestic oil production which led to unaffordable gas prices, which increased the cost of all goods and services, we can’t seem to get computer chip manufacturing going which is hindering everyone from Elon Musk to American auto manufacturing, supply chain problems, American babies going hungry from baby formula shortages, myriad problems in food manufacturing hubs which might lead to food shortages later, Hunter Biden is accused of selling favors for his father to the Chinese and Russians, and Joe Biden is so out of it he reads “end of quite, repeat line” off the TelePrompTer. He’s so befuddled that he has a list of reporters with pre-approved questions he’s “allowed” to call on, or else he’ll “get in trouble.” He is photographed with a flash card that tells him to enter the room, say hello, and sit down.
A year and a half, people.
Foreign dictators and terrorists are salivating.
This is why they’ve created this partisan witch hunt to harass Trump. They are trying to bleed the enemy party because they sure as heck can’t stand on the merits of their accomplishments.
Karen S,
Your comment at July 10, 2022 at 12:44 PM, is spot on.
Just read that both the NYT and WaPo have turned on Biden in op-eds over the weekend.
Civiqs poll has Biden at 29% approval rating, Ramussen had a 37% approval rating and Real Clear Politics 38% approval.
The Jan6 hearing is a distraction they need to keep the spotlight off the Biden admin many failures. Unfortunately for the Dems, very few American’s actually care or are even paying attention to the hearings, with dismal ratings among viewers (recall, the week before a re-run of Young Sheldon got more viewers on that network than the prime time Jan6 hearing). A recent poll of 10 issues, the Jan6 hearing was last of those polled and the only one that rated Not a priority higher than A high priority.
If anything the Jan6 hearings are doing more damage to the Dems, as American’s want real issues addressed that affect them personally. Like Inflation, the Economy, and Crime (those were the top three in order from the poll). As they bring out more “bombshell” witnesses, that are duds, most roll their eyes and see this hearing as the clown show it really is.
Meanwhile on the international stage, the world is shifting and our foreign policy, WH admin, seems to be out of their depth.
But they won’t.
Since when is not recalling making a statement the same as denying it? C’mon Turley!
Only in your world. The Professor said that Cipollone was NOT asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict. Which is different than your incorrect statement. C’mon Enigmainblackcom!
“The contradictions with Hutchinson are important after other witnesses contesting her account on the most sensational points.”
Hurley specifically states there were “contradictions with Hutchinson” when none have been pointed out. Hurley also refers to others contesting her account without mentioning a flurry of people who said they themselves had heard the same things as Hutchinson.
Enigma, if there are others then let them testify under oath. If there are Secret Service Agents who were there at the time in question let them testify to what happened under oath. You saying that others confirm her story let them come forward and testify under oath.
It isn’t what I’m saying. Their unsworn comments carry no more value than the people saying she’s lying. I am saying to point out one set of comments while ignoring the others is disingenuous, which is what Turley does.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/secret-service-sources-reportedly-bolster-hutchinsons-testimony-rcna36405
Enigma, lets get right down to it. Why aren’t you demanding that the Secret Service agents who were in the vehicle who can give first hand testimony that would confirm or deny Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony? Like the committee you just don’t want to hear testimony that might contradict your preconceived judgement. It would be just to emotionally stressful for you to hear. Your world might be crushed so you must be sure that their testimony will never be heard. Being all fair minded and such.
I’d love there testimony, there is no witness at all I don’t want to see testify under oath. Your imagination is not my reality.
Pretending to read people’s minds is one of Thinkitthrough’s favorite ways of trolling.
Turley didn’t say he wasn’t asked, and Turley doesn’t know for certain either way.
Turley said “the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.” Is that report correct? We don’t know.
Rep. Lofgren, a member of the J6 Committee, said on CNN that Cipollone in his testimony “did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses, and I think we did learn a few things which we will be rolling out in hearings to come.” When asked if Cipollone confirmed testimony from Hutchinson, she said, “Not contradicting is not the same as confirming.” “He could say so and so was wrong — which he did not say. There were things that he might not be present for, or in some cases couldn’t recall with precision.” “I think he was candid with the committee. He was careful in his answers, and I believe that he was honest in his answers.”
He may have been honest in his answers but he was never asked if Hutchinson statements were true. They can’t handle the truth.
How do you know what he was asked? Do you have a transcript?
Anonymous, so your bringer of all that is true The New York Times publishes the fact that he wasn’t asked about the accusations of Ms. Hutchinson and you say that what they put down in writing doesn’t mean what they said it means. If it doesn’t fit in the cubby hole instead of making the cubby hole bigger let’s just throw it in the trash compartment because it’s disrupting our playground.
Don’t you ever get tired of trolling?
I often point out that Lefties lies to both us and themselves.
But they also lie by both omission and commission.
Many lefties are dishonest people furthering their agendas dishonestly.
You omit that your claim is no more true of people on the left than of people on the right. Are you lying by omission?
mc:
Liars, enablers of lairs and just dumb liars. That about sums up the Left as presently constituted.