Patterico's Pontifications

7/15/2022

CNN Says Cop Corroborates “Details” of Trump’s Confrontation of Secret Service

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



That’s nice. Which details?

A Washington, DC, police officer has corroborated to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, details regarding a heated exchange former President Donald Trump had with his Secret Service detail when he was told he could not go to the US Capitol after his rally, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.

The officer with the Metropolitan Police Department was in the motorcade with the Secret Service for Trump on January 6 and recounted what was seen to committee investigators, according to the source.

Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was fantastic, particularly where she related things she herself heard and observed. The bit about the thing in the SUV (which she mistakenly believed was the Beast, a different vehicle) was different — hearsay testimony about an account related to her by unreliable actors with a motive to come in and contradict her (“why, we are the Secret Service! We never tell stories on our bosses!”).

The “details” now being corroborated could be as trivial as “Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and we wouldn’t let him. Everything else she said was wrong.” And that’s possible. The people who related the story to her could have exaggerated details. Her memory of what they said could be faulty in minor respects.

The truly important testimony she gave was that Trump knew folks in the crowd were armed but he encouraged people to be let into the crowd without going through metal detectors, to increase the crowd’s size. When he delivered a speech that he had been warned was overly incendiary, this is the crowd he knew he was delivering it to. And remember he had called in goons like Flynn and Stone, whom he had recently pardoned, so he could cash in the favors they owed him.

The struggle/not struggle in the SUV is a sideshow, designed to hit her credibility because her credibility is important. I hope the committee isn’t overselling the extent of the corroboration.

76 Responses to “CNN Says Cop Corroborates “Details” of Trump’s Confrontation of Secret Service”

  1. Mr. Ornato, the ex-Secret Service guy who became Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, is now back with the Secret Service, currently assistant director of their Office of Training.

    Funny how the Secret Service deleted all text messages on 1/5/2021 and 1/6/2021 after a subpoena was issued for those records.

    As I recall, Ms. Hutchinson directly heard Trump say “take the effing mags away!” It will be interesting if or how many heard the same thing.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  2. The walls are closing in now!

    Colonel Haiku (efef16)

  3. Funny how the Secret Service deleted all text messages on 1/5/2021 and 1/6/2021 after a subpoena was issued for those records.

    It is real funny considering they didn’t do that.

    Here is the statement that you need to debunk:

    Statement of Anthony Guglielmi, Chief of Communications for the United States Secret Service on Accusations of Deleted Text Messages From DHS Inspector General

    Published By
    U.S. Secret Service Media Relations
    Published Date
    2022-07-14
    Body
    The insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false. In fact, the Secret Service has been fully cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) in every respect – whether it be interviews, documents, emails, or texts.

    First, in January 2021, before any inspection was opened by OIG on this subject, the Secret Service began to reset its mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned, three-month system migration. In that process, data resident on some phones was lost.

    DHS OIG requested electronic communications for the first time on Feb. 26, 2021, after the migration was well under way. The Secret Service notified DHS OIG of the loss of certain phones’ data, but confirmed to OIG that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration.

    Second, DHS OIG’s allegation regarding DHS’s cooperation with its investigation is neither correct nor new. To the contrary, DHS OIG has previously alleged that its employees were not granted appropriate and timely access to materials due to attorney review. DHS has repeatedly and publicly debunked this allegation, including in response to OIG’s last two semi-annual reports to Congress. It is unclear why OIG is raising this issue again.

    https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2022/07/statement-anthony-guglielmi-chief-communications-united-states-secret

    BuDuh (340919)

  4. The explanation given the by SS makes sense to me and seems plausible. Fabricating it would require multiple people to conspire in the cover up.

    Time123 (28d801)

  5. The truly important testimony she gave was that Trump knew folks in the crowd were armed but he encouraged people to be let into the crowd without going through metal detectors, to increase the crowd’s size.

    And the Secret Service agents are supposed to step in front of the bullets.

    nk (82e1d0)

  6. Pat, I disagree a bit. I think the temper tantrums are important, in that a president should not be someone who throws temper tantrums. The exact opposite of “the right stuff.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  7. BuDuh (340919) — 7/15/2022 @ 9:14 am

    That’s some first-rate a$$-covering, BuDuh. The initial reporting came directly from their Inspector General, and it has a similar smell as Comey and McCabe both getting NRP deep-dig audits.
    I do stand corrected on one thing. It wasn’t a subpoena, it was an IG request.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  8. Oh.. azzz covering. That explains everything.

    The OIG letter has some ambiguity in it:

    https://www.cnn.com/interactive/uploads/20220714-letter-to-house-select-committee.jpg

    That probably doesn’t bother you.

    Back to the azzz covering. Do you think they are trying to obfuscate details regarding Kamala’s location that day as well as the DNC pipe bomb screwup?

    Th OIG sent a letter to the committee that was leaked to the media. The SS promptly responded. Now it is up to the OIG to make their case. Speculation of azzz covering is silly IMO.

    BuDuh (340919)

  9. And the Secret Service agents are supposed to step in front of the bullets.

    Some time in the future, at a gathering of retired Protective Detail agents:

    Bill: “I sure am glad I never had to stop a bullet. I keep seeing what Tim did when Hinckley went after Reagan. Effing amazing!

    Bob: “Yeah but what about poor Joe, who died saving Donald effing Trump from that deranged university professor in 2024. Can you imagine?!”

    Bill: “Dying for Donald effing Trump?!? My wife would kill me.”

    Bob: “And then he said that ‘he prefers agents who don’t die’ … and the next time no one stepped in front.”

    Bill: “A terrible shame that.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  10. The interesting thing to speculate on is what was the committee’s thinking in having Hutchinson recount someone else’s story when, as most concede, those details kind of distract from the key point that Trump was adamant about going to the Capitol against legal and security-detail advice. Then, they chose to not immediately present secret service testimony as to what was accurate and what was not. I figure some of this is button pushing and creating the narrative of a possibly unhinged President, and some is setting up Trump defenders with later confirmation testimony that will be difficult to spin and refute…kind of like what happened with the 10yr old rape victim and the abortion.

    The secret service phone issue seems not as big of a story as some are suggesting….though it is still a bit odd. Certainly some data was turned over. It’s just odd that in this day and age, any data would get “lost”. And it’s equally weird that the IT upgrade would take precedence over an IG request. You would think the SS would err on the side of not appearing to lose any data. Still, I doubt the security detail phone logs will provide magical evidence of Presidential intent…or anything else that couldn’t be provided by interview. It just looks bad based on past hooker misjudgments.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  11. Glad you are ok, nk. It sounded like your departure was permanent when you got so worked up over DCCSA’s pixels. Stay calm brother, and scroll on by.

    BuDuh (340919)

  12. I do stand corrected on one thing.

    I count three things:

    Funny how the Secret Service deleted all text messages on 1/5/2021 and 1/6/2021 after a subpoenawas issued for those records.

    BuDuh (340919)

  13. OT:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyaKB-ySSYQ

    Tip of the cap to Tom Stafford, Vance Brand the late Deke Slayton, the late Alexi Leonov and the late Valery Kubasov. 47 years ago today, July 15, 1975, began the first international manned space mission between the United States and Russia: the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. It began w/t televised launch of a Russian Soyuz and the liftoff of the last Apollo spacecraft and the final Saturn rocket- a Saturn 1B.

    The American and Soviet spacecraft commanders, Stafford and Leonov, became lasting friends. Leonov was the godfather of Stafford’s younger children. Stafford gave a eulogy at Leonov’s funeral in October, 2019. Among my personal treasures is a framed up pix w/flight patch from ’75 signed by both crews- and a sealed pack of Apollo/Soyuz cigarettes marketed in both the U.S. and Russia at the time.

    “Meet the future.” – Butch Cassidy [Paul Newman] ‘Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid’ 1969

    DCSCA (909eca)

  14. When the likes of you can embarrass me, BuDuh, I’ll stay off the internet altogether.

    nk (3a6240)

  15. That’s a funny thing to say.

    Glad you are ok, anyways.

    BuDuh (340919)

  16. I count three things:

    They said would be no math, which is probably good for you. There’s no functional difference between “deleted” and “erased”.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  17. Instead of trolling me, why don’t you address the post? To wit, Marla’s meal ticket asking the people who are supposed to step in front of a bullet for him to let armed loonies come into range.

    nk (3a6240)

  18. At 10:38 I bolded where you got ahead of the available information. I didn’t note “deleted.”

    #1 you already stipulated. There was no subpoena.

    #2 is your use of the word “all.” The OIG letter does not make that claim.

    #3 is the use of the word “after.” The SS letter says the deletions were happening prior to the request.

    BuDuh (340919)

  19. I think Patterico did a fine job with the post and his final line sums up my position perfectly, nk.

    BuDuh (340919)

  20. They said would be no math, which is probably good for you.

    PERSONAL ATTACK!!!! 😭😭😭

    BuDuh (340919)

  21. Personally, I think all of this, Trump and “the Steal” included, is a sideshow. Everywhere I look, one thing is constant — an attempt to call all our institutions into question: The Supreme Court, Congress, elections, the Electoral College and the President. With big plans for “reform.”

    Instead of trying contain and improve dysfunction, all the players seem to want to do is get over on each other, and their ideas for “reform” are nothing more than that. National Popular Vote, Supreme Court “reform”, eliminating the filibuster, term limits, voting “rights” and voting “integrity” — all are partisan attempts to gain advantage and the institutions be damned.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  22. You two need to get a room.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  23. That is disgusting.

    BuDuh (340919)

  24. AJ, It could also be a desire for a good story to anchor the public attention. These are politicians making a case to the public, not lawyers. It could also just be a mistake.

    Time123 (54a8a1)

  25. stop trolling nk. he’s one of the few good ones left.

    Dustin (f01c00)

  26. It certainly could be a detail that the electorate could grasp. As in, he lost his cool and was acting irrationally (though the entire stop-the-steal meme was pretty irrational already). Still, it’s second-hand and everyone can see that too. I think there has to be more if for nothing else to not allow Hutchinson to be smeared….for passing on erroneous gossip. I’m suspicious that some of this is designed to make Trump respond by either contacting witnesses or saying something dumb or just to tweak him.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  27. I apologize. I poorly wrote advice to him to just scroll past DCSCA. nk quit posting on the 4th and said he was done here in relation to some of DCSCA’s posts and noted how others had been driven away as well.

    I was and am sincere. It is a shame that it is regarded as trolling. I won’t bother posting that thread. I don’t see why I would have to mount a defense. nk could clear this up if he wanted to, but maybe the opportunity to trash me is more appealing.

    BuDuh (340919)

  28. ‘designed to hit her credibility’……did they design for her to say that in her testimony?

    Richard Wetmore (ddc02c)

  29. AJ, You could be right. But I think a lot of this ‘3d chess’ stuff is over stated.

    I would find it more persuasive if they left it out. It’s a too colorful. But I’m a data nerd so….

    Time123 (54a8a1)

  30. That’s some first-rate a$$-covering, BuDuh. The initial reporting came directly from their Inspector General, and it has a similar smell as Comey and McCabe both getting NRP deep-dig audits.
    I do stand corrected on one thing. It wasn’t a subpoena, it was an IG request.
    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/15/2022 @ 10:10 am

    wiping cellphones was never a big thing in nevertrump world until today

    JF (83f201)

  31. Show trials are fun.

    In the meantime the left is pushing to abolish the Supreme Court, do away with the electoral college and replace the “racist” Constitution.

    Carry on

    NJRob (f9d6a1)

  32. a source familiar with the matter tells CNN.

    did they find the leaker?

    that someone on the committee is leaking this stuff with minimal details should tell anyone that it’s a nothingburger with cheese

    JF (83f201)

  33. Story’s too good, it has to be true.

    Colonel Haiku (624405)

  34. The “details” now being corroborated could be as trivial as “Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and we wouldn’t let him. Everything else she said was wrong.”

    I think we also have to add the
    “heated exchange”

    Trump, in denying some of this, said that he was said to have jumped out of the car — which was not what Cassidy Hutchinson and Liz Cheney had said.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f’ing hear what happened in the beast?

    This seems to be an error. I think Cassidy Hutchinson was browbeaten and tired and had her memory pushed beyond where it would go. She probably ever saw the car Trump was using. Later, the Beast came up. Trump said he would be willing to use the Beast if that was what it took to get him to the Capitol

    KAYLEIGH MCENANY: [on videotape] So, to the best of my recollection, I believe when we got back to the White House he said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers.

    Note: He had already been told they wouldn’t drive him. In the original car anyway.

    And according to my notes, he then said, you’d [sic] be fine with just writing the piece, but — so that’s my recollection. He wanted to be a part of the March in some fashion.

    UNKNOWN: Alright. And just for the record, the piece refers to the Presidential limousine?

    KAYLEIGH MCENANY: Yes.

    This npr transcript has errors and even the Rev.com one does.

    “be fine with just writing the piece”

    should be:

    “be fine with just RIDING the BEAST”

    In other words, he still wanted to go to the Capitol after he got back to the White House and it would be OK with him to use the souped up vehicle.

    What did he want to do? The committee, or some of its members, would like us to believe he wanted to cheer on his blackshirts – that’s the point of saying he “knew they were armed” – or maybe just enjoy the spectacle of the Capitol being stormed; but really he wanted to give another speech and then walk in to personally lobby Senators and Congressmen (and maybe Mike Pence again) to reject enough Electoral votes to make him the winner, 232-227.

    UNKNOWN: Did the president tell you this, that he wanted to speak at the Capitol.

    MAX MILLER: Correct. Yes.

    Also:

    LIZ CHENEY: And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that the plans for the president to come up to the Capitol had included discussions at some point about what the president would do when he came up to the Capitol on January 6th. Let’s look at a clip of one of your interviews discussing that issue with the committee.

    [Begin videotape]

    UNKNOWN: When you were talking about a scheduled movement, did anyone say what the president wanted to do when he got here?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: No, not that I can specifically remember. I remember — I remember hearing a few different ideas discussed with — between Mark and Scott Perry, Mark and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know which conversations were elevated to the president. I don’t know what he personally wanted to do when he went up to the Capitol that day.

    You know, I — I know that there were discussions about him having another speech outside of the Capitol before going in. I know that there was a conversation about him going into the House chamber at one point.
    [End videotape]

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  35. Now one important thing conclusively revealed by the testimony is that Mark Meadows was playing a double game. Maybe with good reason but he was playing a double game: (the committee doesn’t seem to be very curious about this, and maybe also in getting an explanation from Mark Meadows as to why because they don’t seem to notice there’s a questions to be asked – which could also lead to an answer to the question as to who dreamed up the assault on the Capitol. I don’t think it was Trump, bad as he is as a person. Nor was it spontaneous, a result of Trump working up the crowd he spoke to. And, by the way, the crowd at the Capitol did not all come from the Ellipse.

    It was pre-planned. By somebody or somebodies.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  36. @31. There was a reason the apes clung to the Sacred Scrolls, NJ. The C replaced the AoC- remember? Third time the charm, eh, NJ? Try more mustard on that pretzel.

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  37. What Mark Meadows did:

    Telling everybody outside the White House that Trump would not be going to the Capitol on January 6 (and telling history that as well in his book) and telling Trump that he would be going there:

    The key piece of evidence in Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony of lying by Mark Meadows.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    LIZ CHENEY: And in this text message, you told Tony Ornato, “McCarthy just called me too. And do you guys think you’re coming to my office?” Tell us about the call that day with Leader McCarthy during the president’s speech on the Ellipse.

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was still in the tent behind the stage. And when you’re behind the stage, you can’t really hear what’s going on in front of you. So, when Mr. McCarthy called me with this information, I answered the call. And he sounded rushed, but also frustrated and angry at me. I — I was confused because I — I didn’t know what the president had just said.

    He then explained the president just said he’s marching to the Capitol. You told me this whole week you aren’t coming up here. Why would you lie to me? I said I’m — I’m not lying. I wasn’t lying to you, sir. I — we’re not going to the Capitol. And he said, well, he just said it on stage, Cassidy. Figure it out.

    Don’t come up here. I said I’ll — I’ll — I’ll run the traps on this and I’ll shoot you a text. I can assure you we’re not coming up to the Capitol. We’ve already made that decision. He pressed a little bit more, believing me but I think frustrated that the president had said that. And we ended the phone conversation after that.

    I called Mr. Ornato to reconfirm that we weren’t going to the Capitol, and which was also in our text messages. I sent Mr. McCarthy another text telling him the affirmative, that we were not going up to the Capitol, and he didn’t respond after that….

    …..Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.

    This “off the record
    comment requires some explanation. Here it is:

    LIZ CHENEY:
    And we just heard the president say that he would be with his supporters as they marched to the Capitol. Even though he did not end up going, he certainly wanted to. Some have questioned whether President Trump genuinely planned to come here to the Capitol on January 6th.

    In his book, Mark Meadows falsely wrote that after President Trump gave his speech on January 6th, he told Mr. Meadows that he was, quote, speeding — speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol.

    As you will see, Donald Trump was not speaking metaphorically. As we heard earlier, Rudy Giuliani told Ms. Hutchinson that Mr. Trump planed to travel to the Capitol on January 6th.

    I want to pause for just a moment to ask you, Ms. Hutchinson, to explain some of the terminology you will hear today. We’ve heard you use two different terms to describe plans for the president’s movement to the Capitol or anywhere else.

    One of those is a scheduled movement and another one is OTR. Could you describe for us what each of those means?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: A scheduled presidential movement is on his official schedule. It’s notified to the press and to a wide range of staff that will be traveling with him. It’s known to the public, known as the Secret Service, and they’re able to coordinate the movement days in advance. An off the record movement is confined to the knowledge of a very, very small group of advisers and staff.

    Typically a very small group of staff would travel with him, mostly that are just included in the national security package. You can pull an off to — off the record movement together in less than an hour. It’s a way to kind of circumvent having to release it to the press, if that’s the goal of it, or to not have to have as many security parameters put in place ahead of time to make a movement happen.

    Maybe makin it easier to Mark Meadows to cancel.

    Rev.com has

    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/day-6-of-jan-6-committee-hearings-6-28-22-transcript

    Cassidy Hutchinson: (43:28)
    A scheduled presidential movement is on his official schedule. It’s notified to the press and to a wide range of staff that will be traveling with him. It’s known to the public, known to the secret service, and they’re able to coordinate the movement, days in advance. An off-the-record movement is confined to the knowledge of a very, very small group of advisors and staff. Typically, a very small group of staff would travel with him, mostly that are just included in the National Security package. You can pull an off-the-record movement together in less than an hour. It’s a way to circumvent having to release it to the press if that’s the goal of it, or to not have to have as many security parameters put in place ahead of time, to make the movement happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  38. @27. Wow, BuDuh! They say he’s more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, too! 😉

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  39. Mark Meadows didn’t tell the Secret Service that Trump was planning to the Capitol!!

    So they wouldn’t drive him to the Capitol.

    Note, the Rev.com transcript has:

    A scheduled presidential movement is….known to the secret service

    Known TO the Secret Service.

    While an Off the Record movement is NOT.

    They only tell any Secret Service people at the last minute.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  40. Sammy,

    In your #34, you assert:

    What did he want to do? The committee, or some of its members, would like us to believe he wanted to cheer on his blackshirts – that’s the point of saying he “knew they were armed” – or maybe just enjoy the spectacle of the Capitol being stormed; but really he wanted to give another speech and then walk in to personally lobby Senators and Congressmen (and maybe Mike Pence again) to reject enough Electoral votes to make him the winner, 232-227.

    You misunderstand and misrepresent what the Committee was intending when it went through its analysis of the “he knew they were armed” material. They are after their core contention — that Trump knowingly encouraged armed people to march on the Capitol. That’s the most damning kernal they have because it is the one that gets you to an offense that would support and indictment. It’s a kernal you dismiss because you don’t think Trump had the guts to lead a coup. But Trump’s state of mind matters less when his rabble rousing speech has an obvious result and Trump had knowledge that his crowd had the capacity to do substantial harm.

    As our prosecutor host notes — the whole second-hand incident about Trump having a temper tantrum about not being able to toast his marshmellows at the ensuing weenie roast is a side issue to the main event.

    Appalled (782fe8)

  41. Good news anti-Trumpers: Joe had his Helsinki moment today… in Jeddah.

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  42. @37. She comes across as a ‘Hope Hicks’ wannabe, denied the ‘all-access, backstage pass,’ Sammy.

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  43. Mark Meadows didn’t tell the Secret Service, even Trump’s driver, that Trump was planning to go the Capitol!!

    Mark Meadows was lying to lots of people

    It could be that was because he didn’t trust Trump’s character and judgment, and like “Anonymous” said, he wanted to thwart Trump’s worst inclinations while keeping his position so he could continue to do that, but he was lying to lots of people:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-face-the-nation-2022-06-26

    (excerpt of the interview on Sunday, June 26, 2022 on Face the Nation of Marc Short, former Vice President Pence’s chief of staff. Boldface mine:

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s ask — I want to ask you about the team.

    Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, your counterpart, his name comes up again and again. You just heard the congressman mention it too.

    The acting attorney general testified just a few days ago that it was Meadows who was distributing this bizarre conspiracy theory about Italian satellites. I mean he was sending gifts, or wanted to, to Georgia state election officials.

    How complicit was he in this lie?

    MARC SHORT: You know, Margaret, I think that Mark would often say to me that he was working to try and get the president to concede and accept the results of the election, and, at the same time, it was clear he was bringing in lots of other people into the White House that were feeding the president different conspiracy theories. I think that Mark was telling different audiences all sorts of different stories. And so I think, as I’ve said on many occasions, I believe the president was very poorly served by the team that he had around him, and I think that they fed him many conspiracy theories about the events that conspired on Election Day and then the following.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  44. Sammy,

    And let’s go back to your assumption — that Trump never intended to have the Capitol breached. That may be true and I am not inclined to roam in the weeds for that nugget. However, can you think of a better background for Trump’s “lobbying” campaign than a gaggle of lunatics brandishing weapons and lynching equipment and screaming bloody murder while he tries to persuade wavering GOP cowards to fall in with his plan?

    So the plan went awry. That does not absolve Trump for culpability for easily predicted events.

    Appalled (782fe8)

  45. What tangled webs some weave…

    Colonel Haiku (fe67d2)

  46. DCSCA (ed173f) — 7/15/2022 @ 1:39 pm

    @37. She comes across as a ‘Hope Hicks’ wannabe, denied the ‘all-access, backstage pass,’ Sammy.

    That’s what somebody at Mar-a-Lago associated with Trump said, as an explanation as to why her job offer with Trump after the inauguration was withdrawn.

    She may have been unemployed every since.

    It may even be true (but irrelevant) that she wanted to be another Hope Hicks. She was perceived as ambitious. Some other people with more seniority with Trump resented her:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-testimony.html

    Some colleagues found it presumptuous that the young assistant so quickly came to refer to House members by their first names. But others could see that it worked: Ms. Hutchinson, they said, developed exceptionally strong contacts with representatives during her first year on the job.

    “Trust me, nobody ever sat down and said, ‘Hey, Cassidy, you’re being too chummy with the members,’” recalled another colleague who asked for anonymity out of fear of inciting Mr. Trump. “You can be one of those assistants who’s rarely on the Hill. Or you could be like Cassidy, who took every advantage to help her get a better job in the future.”

    Which quickly occurred. Ms. Hutchinson’s backstage work during the impeachment hearings put her in frequent contact with the influential chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Representative Mark Meadows. When he became Mr. Trump’s chief of staff in March 2020, he promptly poached Ms. Hutchinson from the legislative affairs office as his special assistant….

    …. One former colleague recalled that there were times when Mr. Meadows got staff members taken off Air Force One to make room for Ms. Hutchinson.

    Some staff members begrudged her rise. “I think she became a victim of her own access and success,” said Ms. Hutchinson’s friend, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump White House communications director. “I’m sure that more senior people resented her for it.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  47. @45. Leave it to Walrus Gumbo to gum up the narrative…

    John Bolton admits he’s helped plan coups in other countries while speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper on live TV: ‘It takes a lot of work’

    Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted to planning coups on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper Tuesday. However, Bolton, 73, explained that it is a “mistake” to think the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol were a “carefully planned coup d’etat” spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, 76.

    “That’s not the way Donald Trump does things,” Bolton told host Jake Tapper. “It’s rambling from one half, vast idea to another; one plan that falls through and another comes up — that’s what he was doing.” He added that the former president’s actions were “not an attack on our democracy.” “It’s Donald Trump looking out for Donald Trump,” Bolton said. “It’s a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.”

    “As somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat — not here, but, you know, other places — it takes a lot of work, and that’s not what [Trump] did,” Bolton added. “It was just stumbling around from one idea to another. Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol; as to that, there’s no doubt, but not to overthrow the Constitution — to buy more time to throw the matter back to the states to try and redo the issue.” – https://people.com/politics/ex-national-security-advisor-john-bolton-admits-hes-planned-coups-says-it-takes-a-lot-of-work/

    … and Darth & Daughter Darth frowned. 😉

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  48. 27- lawyers trash people to buy fancy shoes and smokes

    mg (8cbc69)

  49. @46. Hardly irrelevant- it’s how folks get chosen to be around him, Sammy. No Phyllis Diller’s in his posse. 😉

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  50. Big deal people grab at steering wheels every day. Tempest in a tea pot. AOC says committee is afraid to investigate wither capital police let rioter into capital. Thats important news.

    asset (1ed153)

  51. Appalled (782fe8) — 7/15/2022 @ 1:44 pm

    Sammy,

    And let’s go back to your assumption — that Trump never intended to have the Capitol breached. That may be true and I am not inclined to roam in the weeds for that nugget. However, can you think of a better background for Trump’s “lobbying” campaign than a gaggle of lunatics brandishing weapons and lynching equipment and screaming bloody murder while he tries to persuade wavering GOP cowards to fall in with his plan?

    Trump didn’t necessarily know or expect any lynching equipment to show up or weapons to be brandished, nor did he know violence had started before he was setting out to go to the Capitol.

    I think the very fact he intended to give a speech there means he expected no violence at that time.

    What he did want was for the size of the crowd to be greatly exaggerated.

    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

    Donald Trump: (02:44)
    The media will not show the magnitude of this crowd. Even I, when I turned on today, I looked, and I saw thousands of people here, but you don’t see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don’t want to show that. We have hundreds of thousands of people here, and I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media. Turn your cameras please and show what’s really happening out here because these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer. Go ahead. Turn your cameras, please. Would you show?

    Arizona Republican Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (maybe believing Trump about the numbers) said:

    https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111123258/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    STEPHANIE MURPHY: There were also concerns among members of Congress. We have a recently released recording of a conversation that took place among Republican members in the US Capitol on the eve of January 6th. This is Republican Congresswoman Debbie Lesko from Arizona, who led some of the unfounded objections to the election results. [Begin videotape]

    DEBBIE LESKO: I also asked leadership to come up with a safety plan for members. I’m actually very concerned about this, because we have who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here. We have Antifa. We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually believe that we are going to overturn the election.

    And when that doesn’t happen, most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts. [End videotape]

    Now how did the leadership of Congress intend to counter that?

    Maybe, by having the proceedings end after 3 am in the morning!

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  52. #47

    I always liked someone’s description of Bolton as the angriest mustache since Yosemite Sam.

    Appalled (782fe8)

  53. We don’t know how Trump expected their presence at the Capitol to help it all to work. All he said is:

    Donald Trump: (16:25) ….Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

    Donald Trump: (18:16)

    We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country….

    …. And now we’re out here fighting. I said to somebody, I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. Ten o’clock, it was over. But I was going to take a few days.

    Donald Trump: (21:52)

    And I can say this, since our election, I believe, which was a catastrophe when I watch and even these guys knew what happened, they know what happened. They’re saying, “Wow, Pennsylvania’s insurmountable. Wow, Wisconsin, look at the big leads we had.” Even though the press said we were going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. Even though the press said Ohio is going to be close, we set a record. Florida’s going to be close, we set a record. Texas is going to be close. Texas is going to be close, we set a record. And we set a record with Hispanic, with the Black community. We set a record with everybody.

    Donald Trump: (22:36)

    Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made. We’re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity, they’ll be ashamed. And you know what? If they do the wrong thing, we should never ever forget that they did. Never forget. We should never ever forget. With only three of the seven states in question, we win the presidency of the United States.

    ….. Donald Trump: (01:12:43) So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country

    So all Trump said was that if it didn’t work they would never forget. That was his threat.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  54. Somebody in the Capitol police changed the intelligence assessment after January 3 so as top say that maybe not even the rally at the Ellipse would take place!

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  55. Appalled:

    So the plan went awry. That does not absolve Trump for culpability for easily predicted events.

    They were not easily predicted.

    They were not predicted at all – at least before the proceedings were over. Debbie Lasko, at least, was worried about what wold happen after they failed to stop the certificaton.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  56. The Secret Service had time the change for the period betwee the election and the inauguration.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  57. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/politics/pat-cipollone-jan-6-trump.html

    Mr. Cipollone’s agreement to sit for an interview before the panel had prompted speculation that his testimony could either buttress or contradict the account of Ms. Hutchinson, who attributed some of the most damning statements about Mr. Trump’s behavior to Mr. Cipollone. For instance, she testified that Mr. Cipollone told her on the morning of Jan. 6 that Mr. Trump’s plan to accompany the mob to the Capitol would cause Trump officials to be “charged with every crime imaginable.”

    Two people familiar with Mr. Cipollone’s actions that day said he did not recall making that comment to Ms. Hutchinson. Those people said the committee was made aware before the interview that Mr. Cipollone would not confirm that conversation were he to be asked. He was not asked about that specific statement on Friday, according to people familiar with the questions.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  58. OT: How appropriate for today, the 47th anniversary of the joint, U.S./Russian Apollo-Soyuz space mission as noted in #13:

    U.S. renews space flight cooperation with Russia for ISS

    ‘Despite geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and Russia, NASA and Roskosmos will keep using each other’s bases to send astronauts and cosmonauts to the International Space Station. Russia and the United States reached a deal on Friday to resume shared flights to the International Space Station (ISS) as Washington and Moscow faceoff over the war in Ukraine.

    “To ensure continued safe operations of the International Space Station, protect the lives of astronauts and ensure continuous US presence in space, NASA will resume integrated crews on US crew spacecraft and the Russian Soyuz,” US space agency NASA said in a statement. Under the deal, US astronauts will travel on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft and Russian cosmonauts will get to ride on SpaceX rockets launched from Florida. “The agreement is in line with the interests of Russia and the U.S.,” Russian space agency Roscosmos also said.

    NASA confirmed that the first astronauts to be hosted on so-called “cross flights” would be Francisco Rubion from the US, set to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan in September, and Russian cosmonaut Anna Kikina, who will take off from Cape Canaveral in the same month.

    The U.S. space agency stressed that the ISS was designed to be operated jointly with participation from the space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada. “No one agency has the capability to function independent of the others,” it added.

    Despite geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia, NASA and Roskosmos will keep using each other’s bases to send astronauts and cosmonauts to the International Space Station.Russia and the United States reached a deal on Friday to resume shared flights to the International Space Station (ISS) as Washington and Moscow faceoff over the war in Ukraine.

    “To ensure continued safe operations of the International Space Station, protect the lives of astronauts and ensure continuous US presence in space, NASA will resume integrated crews on US crew spacecraft and the Russian Soyuz,” US space agency NASA said in a statement.

    Under the deal, US astronauts will travel on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft and Russian cosmonauts will get to ride on SpaceX rockets launched from Florida.

    “The agreement is in line with the interests of Russia and the US,” Russian space agency Roscosmos also said.

    NASA confirmed that the first astronauts to be hosted on so-called “cross flights” would be Francisco Rubion from the US, set to launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan in September, and Russian cosmonaut Anna Kikina, who will take off from Cape Canaveral in the same month.

    The US space agency stressed that the ISS was designed to be operated jointly with participation from the space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada.

    “No one agency has the capability to function independent of the others,” it added.

    Putin removes space program chief

    The bilateral agreement comes despite the announcement by the European Space Agency (ESA) earlier this week that it was ending its relationship with Russia on a mission to put a rover on Mars.

    Russian space program chief Dmitry Rogozin, an ardent backer of the war in Ukraine, was angered by the ESA statement. He responded to it by banning cosmonauts on the ISS from using a Europe-made robotic arm. But hours before the NASA partnership was announced, Rogozin was dismissed from his post with no explanation.

    [Guess who blinked: removing Rogozin is a ‘stellar’ win for the United States, kids.]

    Rogozin, known for his controversial statements and strong ties to Putin, had held the job since 2018. It was not clear if his sacking was related to the rare display in cooperation between the US and Russia. Critics had described him as an outsider who lacked the necessary education and expertise to head Roscosmos when he got the job.

    He has been on a list of U.S. sanctions since in 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine.” – source, NASA, AP, DW.COM, Deutsche Welle. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  59. Trying to avoid putting on the record a conflict of testimony.

    And Cipolone’s purported statement there would not make sense.

    The question is, how did so many errors make their way into Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony?

    She also claimed to have personally written some notes that some other person said he wrote.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  60. NASA, Russian space agency sign deal to share space station flights

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/15/nasa-russian-space-agency-sign-deal-to-share-space-station-flights.html

    Apologies for double-post. This is good news all the same- for all concerned.

    DCSCA (ed173f)

  61. Breaking off co-operation in space would not affect the war. Meanwhile Iran is getting involved – selling drones to Russia (something though of little or no effect) and the humanitarian corridor in Syria is now set to end in six months. (It had previously been extended in yearly increments)

    There is still a kind of danger of the war expanding in territory – maybe to include Syria.

    Putin is aware that Biden is almost terrified of escalation.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  62. #7 – as stated by USDC Judge Lynn N. Hughes in U.S. v. Edwin P. Wilson, 289 F.Supp 3d 801 (SD, TX 2003) @ 809: “Honesty comes hard to government. …” regarding, inter alia, the introduction of the fabricated false affidavit of Charles A. Briggs, the executive director of the CIA, in the government’s rebuttal case,over objections of violation of the 6th Amendment, hearsay and no ability to test the affidavit on cross exam. (#7 – make sure you go to then end and read the conclusion re Inspectors General.)

    Hughes vacated Wilson’s conviction and sentence of fifty (51) years, after Wilson had served seventeen years, 10 in solitaire, stating:

    [802] Twenty years ago, the government tried a former Central Intelligence officer for exporting explosives to Libya. His defense was simple. He said he was still working for the Company. The government refused to disclose records of his continued association with the agency. When he presented witnesses to his contacts after the end of his formal employment, the government convinced the judge to admit an affidavit from a principal CIA official to the effect that there were, with one minor exception, none zero. There were, in fact, over 80 contacts, including actions parallel to those in the charges.

    The government discussed among dozens of its officials and lawyers whether to correct the testimony. No correction was made not after trial, not before sentencing, not on appeal, and not in this review. Confronted with its own internal memoranda, the government now says that, well, it might have misstated the truth, but that it was Wilson’s fault, it did not really matter, and it did not know what it was doing. Because the government knowingly used false evidence against him and suppressed favorable evidence, his conviction will be vacated.
    * * *
    [811] The government says that its use of the false affidavit was an innocent error. It says the law does not require a retrial when a man is convicted on manufactured evidence as long as the use was not intentional. Under the Constitution, an argument may be reasonably made that the government should be responsible for the integrity of the evidence that it presents. The costs of using unchecked or otherwise unreliable witnesses ought to be borne by the user. Unless other data contradict the testimony, the government can probably never know whether a co-defendant is shading his recollection to help himself. Retractions later by fellow crooks are inherently suspect. In this case, however, the falsity comes from high public officials with sole access to voluminous records not some high-school dropout street-level drug dealer with a memory of one sale.

    Among the people who knew the government through the CIA and Department of Justice was both failing to disclose records of Wilson’s work and offering a false affidavit was the CIA’s general counsel. Yet the Department of Justice refused his request to correct or not to use the false affidavit. This person was no obscure paper-shuffler; he had been director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission and, after his CIA tenure, became a federal judge. Similar careers were had by people at the Department of Justice.

    The government must be responsible for its internal fabrication of evidence. The test is not the ingenuousness of the prosecutor but the integrity of the government itself. The government would like to restrict the scope of responsible knowledge to the individual prosecutor in the courtroom, but the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America. The evidence, now, shows that the hierarchies of both the Justice Department and CIA were as knowledgeable as was the individual talking to the judge and jury. The government’s attempt to split the government into the personal belief of the least informed attorney will not work. The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it. Governmental regularity due process requires personal and institutional integrity.

    CIA attorneys told Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be used as evidence, as then written, and asked him not introduce it. He did.
    * * *
    [815] In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process with a consequentially unreliable result than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington.

    The government may not excuse its presentation of false testimony by claiming that (a) it did not know, (b) it did not understand what other agencies knew, or (c) it believed the testimony. It cannot use these excuses because they are not the law and the facts do not support them. See Mesarosh, et al. v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1956); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972); and United States v. Mason, et al., 293 F.3d 826 (5th Cir.2002).

    The Supreme Court has dismissed the argument that the federal government is too unwieldy to require accuracy in its presentation of evidence, saying, “To the extent this places a burden on the large prosecution offices, procedures and regulations can be established to carry that burden and to insure communication of all relevant information on each case to every lawyer who deals with it.” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (Berger, C.J.).

    Here, it was not that the right hand did not know what the left hand knew. The right hand knew and still misrepresented the facts. At justice’s blindfolded eyes, the right hand made a fist, concealing the truth.
    * * *
    [816] Briggs swore that, with only one exception, Wilson stopped working for the CIA in 1971. If Wilson had had the government’s extensive documentation that showed that he had contact with the CIA at least 80 more times, the jurors very likely would have believed Wilson’s theory and acquitted him. (Wilson Mot. to Vacate, Ex. 101.) With only his word, Wilson could not effectively counter the public official’s document saying that he had not continued to work for the CIA. Only an hour after it requested a re-reading of the affidavit, the jury returned its guilty verdict. Then, a juror reported to the press that the affidavit had played a critical role in the jury’s guilty verdict.

    Although it was a different trial on different facts, Wilson had been acquitted of similar charges, revealing that the government was not necessarily bringing irrefutable cases.

    This sort of behavior is among the reasons that the Constitution allows an accused to confront the witnesses against him. Instead of a witness whom Wilson could examine before the jury, in his Texas trial Wilson was contradicted by a dishonest agency memorandum issued from a bunker in Virginia.
    * * *
    [817] 12. Conclusion.

    At the time of trial, some of the information may have still had significance, but while the government may choose to prosecute, it may not prosecute without telling the whole truth. If secrets or errors are too important to use in a “speedy and public trial,” the government simply makes the policy decision not to prosecute. If it chooses the criminal process, it will have to yield its information about both the offense and defense.

    Wilson’s defense obliged the CIA to gather all of the direct and secondary evidence of his association with the agency and to show it to Wilson’s lawyer. If some of it might have hurt the interests of the country and if a means could not have been devised for its presentation in an abstract manner, then the charges might have to have been dropped.

    America did not defeat the Axis because it locked up Japanese Americans. America did not defeat the Soviet Union because it tried to lock up its philosophic fellow-travelers here. America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent.

    The government’s preparation, presentation, and preservation of false evidence are not the process that is due from the government. As Justice Sutherland observed, while a prosecutor “may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed. 1314 (1935) (George Sutherland). The government has no legitimate interest in buying or presenting false evidence from outsiders it has less than none in lying to the court itself.

    The government may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by legal evidence that Wilson is guilty of violating the law. It will have that opportunity because Edwin Paul Wilson’s conviction will be vacated.
    _____________________________

    What was Charles A. Briggs’ position before he was the Executive Director of the CIA? He was the Inspector General of the CIA.

    So much for Inspectors General.

    Arguably, because not only were none of the over 2-dozen high level attorneys from both the DOJ and CIA, and their superiors held to account here, and because in fact all of their careers were greatly enhanced (3 were elevated to federal judgeships and serving in 2003 when Judge Hughes’ decision came down) – it can be argued, this case was the template for the plot & coup against candidate, then president, Donald Trump and the targeting, framing and entrapment of General Michael Flynn.

    So much for the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States of America.

    There is no one left to blame – but he judges/judiciary.

    Liberty & Truth require constant vigilance. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (49eea4)

  63. What was Charles A. Briggs’ position before he was the Executive Director of the CIA? He was the Inspector General of the CIA.

    Gary, as it an IG who caused Wilson to be convicted?
    My point is that there is good reason to be skeptical of Secret Service conduct, to not give them the benefit of the doubt, especially over the past decade.

    Agents were involved in another strange episode a little later on January 6. As the Trump-incited mob breached the Capitol, Vice President Mike Pence was whisked to safety, and his security detail reportedly sought to get him into his armored limousine. But Pence refused, reportedly fearing that the agents would remove him from the building, which might have further disrupted the certification of Biden’s win.

    The agency’s independence isn’t the only thing that looks shaky: so does the other pillar of its reputation, competence. This week, an employee staffing Biden’s trip to Israel was sent home after a reported physical altercation with a woman there. (This isn’t the first time an employee has been shipped back to the States for bad behavior.) In April, the FBI alleged that two men impersonating federal agents had fooled the Secret Service. And earlier this month, Biden announced that the agency’s chief was leaving to join the social-media company Snap (where at least he won’t have to worry about preserving his messages).

    These incidents are just part of a string of snafus dating back more than a decade. During the Obama administration, the Secret Service allowed people to fire shots at the White House, permitted an armed guard to ride an elevator with the president, got into trouble overseas, and had car accidents after drinking. Officials were repeatedly sacked—including one who was investigating agents visiting sex workers overseas, until he himself was arrested in a prositution investigation.

    This sort of haplessness is entertaining when it’s the Keystone Kops doing it on celluloid. But when the issues involved are as serious as the life of the president or attempts to subvert an election, laughter doesn’t come so easily.

    The links are there in the article, and history didn’t start yesterday.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  64. Mark Meadows didn’t tell the Secret Service that Trump was planning to the Capitol!!
    So they wouldn’t drive him to the Capitol.

    Sammy, who was the Commander-in-Chief, Meadows or Trump?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  65. wiping cellphones was never a big thing in nevertrump world until today

    Nice story, JF, too bad it’s not true.

    In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said all of the data contained on the phones was intentionally backed-up prior to the phones being wiped.

    Hopefully, those erased Secret Service texts turn up, as the IG requested.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  66. NEW POLL: Liz Cheney losing to Trump-backed primary challenger by more than 20 points

    ‘Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., trails Republican challenger Harriet Hageman by 22% in a poll released Friday, spelling trouble for the anti-Trump Republican’s primary next month.

    More than half, 52%, of likely primary voters in Wyoming said they would support Hageman if the election, while just 30% expressed support for Cheney, according to the survey conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy on behalf of the Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune. The poll, conducted July 7 – 11 among 1,100 likely voters, showed single-digit support for other Republican primary candidates for Wyoming’s sole House seat, and indicated that 11% of voters were undecided.

    Former President Donald Trump selected Hageman out of several Republicans vying to unseat Cheney, who voted to impeach the former president and is one of two Republicans on the House committee investigating Trump’s alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    The Wyoming poll found that the majority of voters disagreed with Cheney’s decision to serve on the Jan. 6 Committee (63%), and thought her opposition to Trump hurt her ability to represent Wyoming (61%). And 54% said Cheney’s service on the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attacks made them less likely to vote for her.

    Cheney has tried to convince Democrats in Wyoming to vote for her in the Republican primary to gain support, a move that Hageman’s campaign characterized as a “desperate” move to “hold on to power.” The committee is making the case in hearings this summer that Trump not only inspired but also encouraged attack on the Capitol in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s supporters broke into the building as Congress was certifying the 2020 election results.

    Cheney and the Jan. 6 Committee say that Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results and his unsupported belief that only massive fraud could have delivered President Joe Biden the victory are a grave threat to Democracy itself. Cheney pitches herself as a constitutional conservative who has fought for “everyday Wyomingites” against crippling regulation and government overreach. The Wyoming primary election will be held Aug. 16.’ – https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-poll-liz-cheney-losing-trump-backed-primary-challenger-20-points

    20 points?! Neocon be gone: ‘The Force’ is strong with this one, eh Daughter Darth?!

    “How sweet it is!” – Jackie Gleason

    DCSCA (814602)

  67. Nice story, JF, too bad it’s not true.
    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/15/2022 @ 4:46 pm

    well if Weissmann says it’s not true, you’d certainly take that as evidence

    JF (96b5f8)

  68. well if Weissmann says it’s not true, you’d certainly take that as evidence

    The story didn’t die for no reason, JF, or because elite deep state globohomo groomer media shut it down.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  69. The story didn’t die for no reason, JF, or because elite deep state globohomo groomer media shut it down.
    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 7/15/2022 @ 7:31 pm

    sez the guy who mocked the hunter laptop story

    JF (78818f)

  70. BuDuh (340919) — 7/15/2022 @ 11:21 am

    Nope, on #3. The IG letter, per your link, was clear that the deletions were post-request. Like I said about math.

    sez the guy who mocked the hunter laptop story

    You’re making sh-t up, JF.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  71. At least we are now up to two out of the three that you are stipulating. (Your math dig seems just as misplaced as it was before)

    About number 3, the IG letter was clear that there were deletions after the request. They were silent on deletions prior to the request. The SS letter clears that up.

    If you read the IG letter with scrutiny you will see that it is a little sneaky. Ask yourself this, were there SS texts on Jan 5th and 6th made by agents that were no where near DC and had nothing to do with any of the activities?

    The SS very well could have continued with their planned maintenance, after the IG request, on phones that were in service those days that had zero to do with anything.

    BuDuh (340919)

  72. Same FBI that gave all Hillary’s team immunity and then destroyed their phones and computers, right?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  73. It seems like:

    1. People are leaking misleading leaks to try to make it appear that what Cassidy Hutchinson said was the absolute truth.

    2. The point about Trump expecting to go to the Capitol, and his having an argument with Secret Service people about it, is true.

    3. The spin about what this his wanting to go to the Capitol means is both false and illogical – and that, possibly combined with continuing complaints that he did not call them off, seems to be based on an assumption that he was in control of the demonstrators — an assertion that some members of Congress seem to have believed back on January 6, 2021.

    But just because many of the demonstrators said they were acting on behalf of Donald Trump doesn’t mean that he was the man behind the curtain. Anybody trying to get people in the crowd to do anything would have claimed that instructions were coming from Donald Trump.

    4. There was nothing special at deleting text messages relating to Jan 5 and 6. They were deleting everything related to what happened during most of the Trump Administration.

    5. The committee was informed by the Inspector General that texts were not supplied.

    6. It turns out there was a way to recover many of them.

    7. The most relevant things would be Trump’s argument with the Secret Service and Mike Pence’s argument with the Secret Service on January 6 (the Secret Service wanted Mike Pence to leave the Capitol grounds. He refused.

    8. The Trump argument was caused by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows telling Donald Trump he was going to go to the Capitol but not telling that to the Secret Service. No text messages needed to be received by the Secret Service right after the speech Trump gave at the Ellipse for his Secret Serviice driver not to want to go there.

    Sammy Finkelman (b7dc9b)

  74. In a perfect world no one would have permanently shunned Andrew Weismann on to assert anything as truth, and Trump would be making those balloon hats at the county fair.
    But no….

    steveg (975a36)

  75. The Secret Service handed over only ne text from the time period January 5 tp 6 – from someone at the Capitol.

    The first request from Congress took place on January 16, 2021. Agents were last reminded they could back up their phones on January 25. The system reset took place on January 27.

    Any text message would have been an informal or unplanned record, and no record is made of voce calls, except maybe that they took place

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  76. The truly important testimony she gave was that Trump knew folks in the crowd were armed but he encouraged people to be let into the crowd without going through metal detectors, to increase the crowd’s size.

    Not into the crowd, but into the secure area nearer to him.

    But they didn’t do it.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108396692/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

    LIZ CHENEY: Just to be clear, Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that the President wanted to take the mags away and said that the armed individuals were not there to hurt him?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s a fair assessment.

    Nobody says they actually took the magnetometers away.

    Later in the June 28 hearing:

    LIZ CHENEY: Again, much of this information about the potential for violence was known or learned before the onset of the violence, early enough for President Trump to take steps to prevent it. He could, for example, have urged the crowd at the ellipse not to march to the Capitol. He could have condemned the violence immediately once it began.

    Or he could have taken multiple other steps. But as we will see today and in later hearings, President Trump had something else in mind.

    Like what? He wanted to be there himself.

    He thought they would pressure Republicans- but the thing was even if he got every singe Republican he was not going to be declared president-elect.

    If somehow the election got thrown into the House, would he have had Wyoming’s vote? Was Trump counting on Liz Cheney?

    It’s not what Trump wanted to do – it’s what the Oath Keepers et al wanted to do.

    Mark Meadows expected something bad: (bit not everybody did)

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, Cass, are you excited for the 6th? It’s going to be a great day. I remember looking at him saying, Rudy, could you explain what’s happening on the 6th? He had responded something to the effect of, we’re going to the Capitol.

    It’s going to be great. The President’s going to be there. He’s going to look powerful. He’s — he’s going to be with the members. He’s going to be with the Senators. Talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.

    LIZ CHENEY: And did you go back then up to the West Wing and tell Mr. Meadows about your conversation with Mr. Giuliani?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did. After Mr. Giuliani had left the campus that evening, I went back up to our office and I found Mr. Meadows in his office on the couch. He was scrolling through his phone. I remember leaning against the doorway and saying, I just had an interesting conversation with Rudy, Mark. It sounds like we’re going to go to the Capitol.

    He didn’t look up from his phone and said something to the effect of, there’s a lot going on, Cass, but I don’t know. Things might get real, real bad on January 6th.

    LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson. Mr. Meadows is engaged in litigation with the committee to try to avoid testifying here. What — what was your reaction when he said to you things might get real, real bad?

    CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In the days before January 2nd, I was apprehensive about the 6th. I had heard general plans for a rally. I had heard tentative movements to potentially go to the Capitol. But when hearing Rudy’s take on
    January 6th and then Marc’s [sic – this is Mark Meadows] response, that was the first — that evening was the first moment that I remember feeling scared and nervous for what could happen on January 6th. And I had a deeper concern for what was happening with the planning aspects of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1819 secs.