The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

She testified a conversation took place involving two other people.  If that conversation didn't take place, that's perjury.

 

Also that is not what she testified. 

 

See below. She very specifically said that Tony, one of the people saying they would testify otherwise, told HER this information and that Bobby was in the room when it happened. She didn't hear two other people have this conversation. Its not hearsay. She said someone told her this story. Not that this story happened. And not that she heard someone say it to someone else. Tony could just as easily testify that he lied to her and then its literally nothing. 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Congress is out for the 4th. Will be a couple of weeks.

 

I say, ask Trump to testify. Prime time. Huge ratings.

 

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

The very fact we’ve spent 2 pages discussing this stupid story is why it was a self inflicted wound by this committee and a big mistake. Just don’t even bring it up if it wasn’t a first hand account or if you didn’t have someone else to corroborate it. The focus has shifted entirely from the very real bombshell of Trump being told the crowd had weapons, he didn’t care because they weren’t going to hurt him, and he still send them to the Capitol to stop the certification, and the first hand account of people in the room saying the president didn’t care if the VP was killed. 
 

They played right into their hands on this one 

 

Yall fall for this **** yourselves. Maga world could literally have someone make a tweet or press release refuting any other piece of testimony in this hearing and it would have the exact same weight. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

In a perfect world,  he'd be recalled by the Army and then dishonorably discharged.

Edited June 29, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[Ball Security]

 

 

[Dan T.]

A couple things about someone claiming Ornato and Engel are willing to testify.  First, Engel already testified before the committee and corroborated the information that Trump intended to go to the Capitol and was irate when told he couldn't.  That's already in the record.  From him.

 

Second, neither Ornato nor Engel are exactly disinterested parties.  Both have been described as Trump loyalists.  They got to their positions because Trump plucked them from their previous USSS positions. So any testimony from them should have that as a backdrop.

 

Third, it they really do want to go before the committee under oath, they damn sure will have to answer a LOT more questions than just the one about the tussle in the car: Did they know things could get violent days before, as Hutchinson testified? Did they know about the weapons in the crowd and did they brief Trump and staff about it? Did they know about "**** the mags, let my people in"? Etc.

 

When it comes down to facing the committee at this point, they may not have the balls Cassidy Hutchinson showed.

 

 

 

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

A couple things about someone claiming Ornato and Engel are willing to testify.  First, Engel already testified before the committee and corroborated the information that Trump intended to go to the Capitol and was irate when told he couldn't.  That's already in the record.  From him.

 

Second, neither Ornato nor Engel are exactly disinterested parties.  Both have been described as Trump loyalists.  They got to their positions because Trump plucked them from their previous USSS positions. So any testimony from them should have that as a backdrop.

 

Third, it they really do want to go before the committee under oath, they damn sure will have to answer a LOT more questions than just the one about the tussle in the car: Did they know things could get violent days before, as Hutchinson testified? Did they know about the weapons in the crowd and did they brief Trump and staff about it? Did they know about "**** the mags, let my people in"? Etc.

 

When it comes down to facing the committee at this point, they may not have the balls Cassidy Hutchinson showed.

 

I'm curious how willing some super duper MAGA loyalists would be to knowingly perjure themselves in order to try and make Trump look better. I have a feeling it wouldn't be many when it really comes down to it. There's a reason that all of the MAGAs shrieking about this stuff on TV and social media are doing so there instead of in front of the committee.

 

Ornato and Engel may be Trump fanboys, but that doesn't mean they're fans of spending up to 5 years in prison for him. If Engel goes in front of the committee and contradicts his own previous under oath statement then he's going to have a problem.

[Dan T.]

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Dan T.

[China]

Ginni Thomas Says She Cannot Testify Because She’s Too Stressed Out

 

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who previously said that she “can’t wait” to be interviewed by members of the House Jan. 6 Committee, is now saying she is too stressed out to testify.

 

In a letter delivered by her lawyer, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence told the House Select Committee that she should not have to testify citing a “particularly stressful time” over reports about her role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

 

“Before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” attorney Mark R. Paoletta wrote in the letter, according to The Daily Caller.

 

“I would also note that this has been a particularly stressful time as the Thomases have been subjected to an avalanche of death threats and other abuse by the unprecedented assault on the conservative Supreme Court Justices and their families,” The attorney added.

 

According to multiple reports, the committee has obtained text messages in which Thomas plots with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

 

Read the full letter at the link

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 minutes ago, China said:

Ginni Thomas Says She Cannot Testify Because She’s Too Stressed Out

 

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who previously said that she “can’t wait” to be interviewed by members of the House Jan. 6 Committee, is now saying she is too stressed out to testify.

 

In a letter delivered by her lawyer, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence told the House Select Committee that she should not have to testify citing a “particularly stressful time” over reports about her role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

 

“Before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” attorney Mark R. Paoletta wrote in the letter, according to The Daily Caller.

 

“I would also note that this has been a particularly stressful time as the Thomases have been subjected to an avalanche of death threats and other abuse by the unprecedented assault on the conservative Supreme Court Justices and their families,” The attorney added.

 

According to multiple reports, the committee has obtained text messages in which Thomas plots with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

 

Read the full letter at the link

 

 

 

**** that crusty ****.  She better roll her fat ass up there and testify.  

 

Seriously, just **** all of these people, right in the ear.  Everyone's stressed you narcissistic **** muffin, yet we all have to do **** that we're not thrilled about.  Maybe you should have realized that trying to organize an insurrection was a bad idea and you'd get found out you dopey ****.  

[China]

‘Unfit to Be Anywhere Near Power’: Washington Examiner Pronounces Trump Politically Dead After ‘Damning’ Testimony

 

The Washington Examiner’s editorial board released an article applauding Cassidy Hutchinson for her testimony and holding it up as proof Donald Trump should never be president again.

 

The conservative-leaning outlet published an op-ed in the aftermath of Hutchinson’s many explosive revelations while speaking before the January 6 Committee. While delving into Hutchinson’s political background, the op-ed deemed her a “tremendously credible” witness who “did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.”

 

“Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career,” the piece proclaims. “Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.”

 

As the board ran through the most shocking parts of Hutchinson’s testimony, they commended her “believable” and detailed accounts leading up to “a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty” as president.

 

“Considering the entirety of her testimony, it is unsurprising that Hutchinson said she heard serious discussions of Cabinet members invoking the 25th Amendment that would have at least temporarily evicted Trump from office,” the op-ed states. “Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[gbear]

Dan T, I think you hit the nail on the head.  If the two people she said had the conversation want to come and publicly testify they never had the conversation, OK.  However, while they are there, they will be asked whether the other things she said happened actually happened.  To be honest, the bit about going for the steering wheel is just about the least damaging thing she said to my eyes.  Did he knowingly allow armed people in the mob?  Was he warned beforehand about potential security issues he was creating... 

 

If they want to come out and testify under oath and in public, I will applaud them if they answer the rest of the questions so the public can get a better read on what actually went down. Until then, I will take the word of the one person who testified under oath.  In many ways it seems that portion might be the perfect temptation/trap to get one or both of them to testify in public and "set the record straight." 

[tshile]

I believe the examiner is considered a right wing newspaper ?

[China]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I believe the examiner is considered a right wing newspaper ?

 

Yes, it even says so at the beginning of the second paragraph.

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I believe the examiner is considered a right wing newspaper ?

 

They are. Examiner is still somewhat reputable unlike say the Washington Times. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Also that is not what she testified. 

I think you two saying the same thing…

 

she testified a conversation (A) took place with her and two other people, where one person told the story and the other didn’t make any attempt to disagree with or contest the story. 
 

the story is about event A. 
 

if conversation A didn’t take place, that’s perjury.
 

if event A didn’t happen the way she described, but conversation A did happen, then that’s not perjury. 
 

I think the wording just lends to confusion. But the way I read @PeterMP‘s comment, you’re saying the same thing. 

2 minutes ago, China said:

 

Yes, it even says so at the beginning of the second paragraph.

Thanks. I skipped the second paragraph lol

1 minute ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

They are. Examiner is still somewhat reputable unlike say the Washington Times. 

I actually thought it was the other way around. 
 

not arguing - just saying I (incorrectly) thought it was the other way around

 

If I recall correctly they both have trash websites that are awful to try to read 

[Corcaigh]

10 minutes ago, China said:

“Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party ...

 

 

All of this has been known for many years. Lindsey Graham and many other GoP leaders stated as much in 2016. The question is how does the GoP admit they were wrong and purge their delusions?

[China]

Just now, Corcaigh said:

 

All of this has been known for many years. Lindsey Graham and many other GoP leaders stated as much in 2016. The question is how does the GoP admit they were wrong and purge their delusions?

 

Not impeding the investigations of the Jan. 6th Committee and the DOJ would be a start.  And stop making statements to the press in support of Trump.  It is possible to just say nothing or "no comment."  Some of them like their camera time too much.

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I actually thought it was the other way around. 
 

not arguing - just saying I (incorrectly) thought it was the other way around

 

If I recall correctly they both have trash websites that are awful to try to read 

 

Yeah neither one is especially great. The Washington Times tho is legit garbage. It's owned by the Moonies cultists what think ya need to have AR 15s at their church so they can be closer to God. 🙏

[Corcaigh]

1 minute ago, China said:

 

Not impeding the investigations of the Jan. 6th Committee and the DOJ would be a start.  And stop making statements to the press in support of Trump.  It is possible to just say nothing or "no comment."  Some of them like their camera time too much.

 

I think they are all lost. Rather than admit they are wrong they are all either going down with the ship, or are willing to destroy democracy in the country.

[China]

Ex-Aide Releases Melania Trump's Revealing 1-Word Text Message From Jan. 6

 

Former first lady Melania Trump was given a chance to call for peace on Jan. 6, 2021 as her husband’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol and attempted to block the certification of the 2020 election.

 

She declined.

 

Stephanie Grisham, who was Melania Trump’s chief of staff at the time, revealed a text message exchange she allegedly had with Melania Trump that day:

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Llevron]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think you two saying the same thing…

 

she testified a conversation (A) took place with her and two other people, where one person told the story and the other didn’t make any attempt to disagree with or contest the story. 
 

the story is about event A. 
 

if conversation A didn’t take place, that’s perjury.
 

if event A didn’t happen the way she described, but conversation A did happen, then that’s not perjury. 
 

I think the wording just lends to confusion. But the way I read @PeterMP‘s comment, you’re saying the same thing. 

Reading comprehension bro. You got it lol. I’m not as blessed 🥲 

 

my bad @PeterMP if it means anything the only reason I challenge you so often is because I respect your intelligence. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Llevron

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

The very fact we’ve spent 2 pages discussing this stupid story is why it was a self inflicted wound by this committee and a big mistake. Just don’t even bring it up if it wasn’t a first hand account or if you didn’t have someone else to corroborate it. The focus has shifted entirely from the very real bombshell of Trump being told the crowd had weapons, he didn’t care because they weren’t going to hurt him, and he still send them to the Capitol to stop the certification, and the first hand account of people in the room saying the president didn’t care if the VP was killed. 
 

They played right into their hands on this one 

 

Stop thinking that what you talk about or what we here on this thread talk about represents what the entire country as a whole is paying attention to. There are probably far more people who do NOT post to social media out there than those who do. We are the tiniest of slivers of the population. How many pages have been spent on this thread is so damn irrelevant to everything. Hell, even FOX isn't focusing on this as much as we have lol...

 

It wasn't a mistake to bring it up in testimony as it shows Trump's mindset at the beginning of the insurrection. Until it is proven otherwise, it should be taken as accurate--that is, that she really did hear this story being told. "A source close to the secret service says that two other people in the secret service said that..." doesn't negate anything.

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

In a perfect world,  he'd be recalled by the Army and then dishonorably discharged.

 

They need to take away his pension too. It's ridiculous that tax dollars are supporting his insurrectionist ass.