Jan. 6th Inquiry Hearings Bombshell

[Pcdunn]

Testimony at today's Jan. 6th Hearings brought astonishing images of a president reacting with rage and violence upon being told it was too dangerous for him to follow "his people" to the Capitol.
Trump knew people in the crowd had weapons ranging from spears to pistols and AK-15s, but retorted "They're not going to hurt me, let them in." He directed security officets to remove the "mags" (magnetometers, metal-scanning detectors).
Trump was aware of the chants "Hang Mike Pence" and was uninterested in stopping them, as he apparently "didn't think they're doing anything wrong."
In the limo after his rally, Trump quarelled with the Lead Secret Service agent, tried to grab the steering wheel, then lunged for the lead agent's throat.
Upon returning to the Oval Office, Trump asked for his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and ended a meeting by throwing his lunch and crockery at the wall.

I am so proud of the witness, Meadows' aide, for standing up for the country and testifying to the true events.
I watched the coverage on January 6th and wept for the country. Today I watched this young woman speak so calmly and bravely and felt pride and hope for my nation. This was a surprise hearing, and they made sure she had a security escort in and out of the chamber.

[FISHY1118]

I wouldn't be rushing to believe anything that came out of that or any hearing over there . Not everyone that is sworn to tell the truth does so . I remember watching the good dr fauchi trying to convince rand Paul that there was no gain of function research going on . Yer right.

[Svensson]

tbh, there isnt much new in those hearings for those who have been paying attention. If anyone feels like perusing the "Right..." thread with our friend Celee earlier this year, this will show much of what the Select commitee are presenting. The difference is that the "right...." thread is relying on journalism and the commitee is relying on sworn testimony from Trump goons and henchmen. But even here we can se how filthy and disgusting the behaviour of some of these people was. For example: Jason Miller testified to the commitee that all possible reports of "voter fraud" had been investigated and that he had told Trump and Meaddows that there was nothing to it. But this did not stop him grom going on Fox on Jan 04 to promote the march "because there has been so much fraud in the election". What a two-faced <insert noun of your choice here>.

Really, I have no idea what Garland is waiting for. Trump, Meaddows, Clarke and Gulliani should be immediately arrested and their residences packed up and shipped to FBI HQ before they have a chance to destroy even more evidence.

The only thing missing now IMHO is information on what went on when the DoD was called to authorise the National guard to come to the Capitol. Why was this not done and who brushed the Capitol's call for help under the carpet.

It was an inssurection, no doubt. Trump should count himself lucky that he didn't manage to turn the US into a Banana-republic all the way or else he might already be dangling off a nearby tree....

[harry]

Quite true Fishy.The higher the position,the bigger the lie.
I remember a head of section here in Aussie,who was to appear at a Royal Commision Hearing,tell me he was going to lie to the commision.He wanted me to file a report backing his lies.I refused and warned him against involving me.
Years later,after I had retired,I went to the local library and read a report of the proceedings.He did lie,but he didn't use my name.
t

[Ally]

I am so proud of the witness, Meadows' aide, for standing up for the country and testifying to the true events.
I watched the coverage on January 6th and wept for the country. Today I watched this young woman speak so calmly and bravely and felt pride and hope for my nation. This was a surprise hearing, and they made sure she had a security escort in and out of the chamber.

Literally had the exact opposite reaction. While I personally think Trump is 100 percent guilty of fomenting insurrection, the performance theater of Hutchinson's testimony enraged me. For starters, it's utter hearsay, and therefore irrelevant to a court of law. In regards to the Secret Service assault story, the two men involved apparently ALSO testified before Congress, so why wasn't their direct testimony shown to the country? While I believe she was told this event happened, it's irrelevant as she didn't WITNESS it first hand, and therefore, it's utterly pointless and easily discredited by rabid, mentally deficient people who still support Trump. It also, when you consider, again, that both the two men involved in this story have actually testified but their stories aren't being shown/told calls the entire story into question. If it happened, why isn't the direct testimony being used, instead of evidentiarily useless hearsay? This is bullshit theater, and I am sick of it. It's just useless posturing and further proof that they have no intention of holding Trump and his lackeys accountable for what they've done to this country. I am ready to try the entire ******* Congress for treason at this point.

[FISHY1118]

Quite true Fishy.The higher the position,the bigger the lie.
I remember a head of section here in Aussie,who was to appear at a Royal Commision Hearing,tell me he was going to lie to the commision.He wanted me to file a report backing his lies.I refused and warned him against involving me.
Years later,after I had retired,I went to the local library and read a report of the proceedings.He did lie,but he didn't use my name.
t

You couldnt have put it better Harry , and whilst i tend to agree with most of Allys points, the problem exist that always existed for decades. That is , its a Giant 3 Ring Circus with the Ring Leader in the starring role, known as the ''System'' which allowes it to continue

[FISHY1118]

Literally had the exact opposite reaction. While I personally think Trump is 100 percent guilty of fomenting insurrection, the performance theater of Hutchinson's testimony enraged me. For starters, it's utter hearsay, and therefore irrelevant to a court of law. In regards to the Secret Service assault story, the two men involved apparently ALSO testified before Congress, so why wasn't their direct testimony shown to the country? While I believe she was told this event happened, it's irrelevant as she didn't WITNESS it first hand, and therefore, it's utterly pointless and easily discredited by rabid, mentally deficient people who still support Trump. It also, when you consider, again, that both the two men involved in this story have actually testified but their stories aren't being shown/told calls the entire story into question. If it happened, why isn't the direct testimony being used, instead of evidentiarily useless hearsay? This is bullshit theater, and I am sick of it. It's just useless posturing and further proof that they have no intention of holding Trump and his lackeys accountable for what they've done to this country. I am ready to try the entire ******* Congress for treason at this point.

''also, when you consider, again, that both the two men involved in this story have actually testified but their stories aren't being shown/told calls the entire story into question. If it happened, why isn't the direct testimony being used, instead of evidentiarily useless hearsay? This is bullshit theater, ''

Correct , However the majority will never even contemplate this ,they only see what their expected to believe.

[Svensson]

let's not forget that this lady was under oath, so I highly doubt that the story was complete bullshit. And Bobby Engel might have been interviewed but he was either only answeing what he was asked about or there was no opened ended question along the lines of "what happened in the car"?

In the end, I think this episode is irrelevant to the overall case and I agree this begs the question: What was the point? What annoys me is this: They stated that they neeed to have an emergency presentation due to new information having come to light. What was that info? That Trump lost his rag with Engel? That Trump was told by staff that some protesters are armed? That he wanted to have the metal detectors removed? They didn't really explain that part. And yes, It would always help to have more than one direct witness to these three questions which is why some people like Pat Cipelloni are not enhancing thier reputation by remaining silent.

[Ally]

let's not forget that this lady was under oath, so I highly doubt that the story was complete bullshit. And Bobby Engel might have been interviewed but he was either only answeing what he was asked about or there was no opened ended question along the lines of "what happened in the car"?

In the end, I think this episode is irrelevant to the overall case and I agree this begs the question: What was the point? What annoys me is this: They stated that they neeed to have an emergency presentation due to new information having come to light. What was that info? That Trump lost his rag with Engel? That Trump was told by staff that some protesters are armed? That he wanted to have the metal detectors removed? They didn't really explain that part. And yes, It would always help to have more than one direct witness to these three questions which is why some people like Pat Cipelloni are not enhancing thier reputation by remaining silent.

As I said in my post, I 100 percent believe she was TOLD that this happened. Which is utterly irrelevant and why hearsay isn't admissible in court. I could tell you I saw Trump murder a baby with my own eyes. And if you said I said Trump murdered a baby, that would be you telling the truth under oath. But that doesn't mean it happened.

And don't get me wrong. I believe a lot of her testimony, like I believe she had this conversation with the two guys, I believe they told her this, and I believe she witnessed the aftermath of him throwing a temper tantrum and breaking dishes and throwing food against the wall. But there's a reason hearsay isn't admissible in court.

If this actually happened (the secret service incident) then her testimony is irrelevant and the only testimony that we ought to be seeing is from the people who were in the car. Because while I fully believe Trump is a giant ******* toddler mentally and emotionally and fully capable of behaving like one, that doesn't change the fact that hearsay is not admissible under the rule of law. And it chaps my ass that this is just more theater that's not going to go anywhere and in the end, not going to accomplish anything REAL. I'm sick of the performance. Charge him and make this **** count or quit with the drama and wasting all our time while the stolen Supreme Court keeps undermining the principles of this country left right and center. If nothing comes out of this hearing, I'm going to be pissed. It's a farce. I already know Trump is a piece of **** who tried to overthrow Democracy. Do something about it or quit the show.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks to those who have replied. I don't know why the men actually in the limo didn't give evidence as to the president's actions, but it is possible they *may still do so.* After all, they told the aide at the end of her testimony that the Committee may have additional questions for her in the future. This isn't uncommon in proceedings like this one, and perhaps Mr. Engels will be recalled for more questions.

[GUT]

let's not forget that this lady was under oath, so I highly doubt that the story was complete bullshit. And Bobby Engel might have been interviewed but he was either only answeing what he was asked about or there was no opened ended question along the lines of "what happened in the car"?

In the end, I think this episode is irrelevant to the overall case and I agree this begs the question: What was the point? What annoys me is this: They stated that they neeed to have an emergency presentation due to new information having come to light. What was that info? That Trump lost his rag with Engel? That Trump was told by staff that some protesters are armed? That he wanted to have the metal detectors removed? They didn't really explain that part. And yes, It would always help to have more than one direct witness to these three questions which is why some people like Pat Cipelloni are not enhancing thier reputation by remaining silent.

I’m sorry but I doubt I have sat through a single case where someone under oath hasn’t lied and dribbled BS all over the witness box.

[Svensson]

As I said in my post, I 100 percent believe she was TOLD that this happened. Which is utterly irrelevant and why hearsay isn't admissible in court. I could tell you I saw Trump murder a baby with my own eyes. And if you said I said Trump murdered a baby, that would be you telling the truth under oath. But that doesn't mean it happened.

And don't get me wrong. I believe a lot of her testimony, like I believe she had this conversation with the two guys, I believe they told her this, and I believe she witnessed the aftermath of him throwing a temper tantrum and breaking dishes and throwing food against the wall. But there's a reason hearsay isn't admissible in court.

If this actually happened (the secret service incident) then her testimony is irrelevant and the only testimony that we ought to be seeing is from the people who were in the car. Because while I fully believe Trump is a giant ******* toddler mentally and emotionally and fully capable of behaving like one, that doesn't change the fact that hearsay is not admissible under the rule of law. And it chaps my ass that this is just more theater that's not going to go anywhere and in the end, not going to accomplish anything REAL. I'm sick of the performance. Charge him and make this **** count or quit with the drama and wasting all our time while the stolen Supreme Court keeps undermining the principles of this country left right and center. If nothing comes out of this hearing, I'm going to be pissed. It's a farce. I already know Trump is a piece of **** who tried to overthrow Democracy. Do something about it or quit the show.

What baffles me is that there seems to be a complete absence of a legislative purpose. What is the ultimate goal here? Surely, it should be to investigate is some new legislation could prevent something lime this from happening again. Where are these bills? I fear that the democrats are asleep at the wheel here. I mean, we had 8 Benghazi investigations and im sure that comprehensive legislation was passed to ensure Embassies in crisis regions are sufficiently protected, correct?

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

What baffles me is that there seems to be a complete absence of a legislative purpose. What is the ultimate goal here?

I'm not sure why you are confused.

The legislative purpose is to investigate alleged crimes if Congress believes crimes have occurred and they are not being addressed.

The Supreme Court has allowed this from almost day one--the Watergate Hearings, The Klu Klux Klan Hearings of the 1870s, the investigation of organized crime in the 1950s, etc.

But Congress can't actually charge anyone. That's up to the Justice Department. So, think of it as a sort of Grand Jury set up for the benefit of Merrick Garland. It's up to him to decide if crimes were committed and if people should be charged with those crimes. He's already admitted that he's watching the hearings closely and he's demanded to see documents, etc.

In this case, Congress isn't playing the role of a group of legislators--they are playing the role of investigators.

And despite the critics calling foul, "hearsay evidence" is allowed in Congressional Hearings. If people are reluctant to testify, this tactic might force someone else's hand. It's not allowed in court--but that's Merrick Garland's problem if he chooses to prosecute anyone.

If one wants to imagine an utterly bleak possibility, think about this. What if the country goes full-blown autocratic sometime in the future, and the Supreme Court takes away Congress's ability to conduct hearings and investigate crimes? It is not a complete fantasy that this might happen, because Congress is not expressly given that power in the Constitution. If that happens, Congress wouldn't have any legal right to investigate alleged crimes committed by the Executive Branch. And who would do so if they didn't? A Justice Department where the head is appointed by the sitting president? Did that work out so well with Bill Barr at the helm?

[Pcdunn]

Yes, everyone is wondering if the Justice Department and the Attorney General will soon step in.

I've not seen the TV series "The Handmaid's Tale", but I did read the novel. You know how the fall of the democracy happened? Armed men stormed into the legislative chambers and slaughtered the representatives and senators in a mass bloodbath. I think the president and the rest of the line of succession were also eliminated. After that, civil wars broke out among the various religious sects. Don't think the Justices were mentioned, but I surmise they were killed or became puppets of the anti-women faction. (The author stated that everything in the novel had actually happened, somewhere in the world, at some point in history.)

As long as these Hearings go on, I feel as if we're going to make it through this. Maybe...