Could there really be a Bombshell, about to Drop, from the Jan. 6 Committee?

Not at all, and this is proof of the obvious difficulties you are having, with the simple, straightforward interpretation, of others' words, in this particular thread. Why would you need to retranslate, "logically possible," as anything else, in the first place? Do you not consider those, legitimate words? I do not believe that I, anywhere, suggested that they were, "probably true." Rather, I offered SEVERAL possible scenarios, all based on your suggestion, that Hutchinson was a psycho. So, Meadows never noticed this clear fact?; OR, he knew it, but she was a good lay?; OR; being psychotic, did not make one stand out, in the Trump Administration-- perhaps it was even like camouflage? I was asking your opinion, on which of these list of obvious alternatives, you thought was the most likely explanation; if you thought of one which I had missed, you were, I would think it was clearly understood, invited to offer that reason, as well. But if Ms. Hutchinson was a "psycho"-- which I think any reasonable reader would see is your manifestly, less-substantiated assertion, than any that I was making-- then some explanation, for her continuing service, under Meadows, is called for.

You have very little basis for contending that her "retelling," of a story, which-- let us propose, for argument's sake-- had been "fabricated" by Mr. Renata, should be considered to have been, "fanciful." Even if he is now denying having said anything of the sort, that would be a very understandable reaction, had he told what he'd thought of, at the time, as a harmless fib, which has now attracted all of this attention; note that I did not say that he was, necessarily, lying; only pointing out that this is certainly at least as possibly true, as that Hutchinson is psycho, and made all of this up, on her own, which seems to be the direction your mind is seeing as the most probable reality, and so the most reasonable assumption, for you-- or anyone-- to make. Unless you happen to have the transcript, of the story, as it was expressed to Ms. Hutchinson?-- the way that you characterize her relating, of what she had been told, is in direct opposition to any notion of impartial evaluation.


I hope that this can serve for you, as a reality check.


Oh, here's one other possiblity, I'd left off of my previous list, of potential explanations, for what you had written: OR, perhaps Hutchinson wasn't truly a psycho.

 

Do you even know what you post? You posted:

You did exactly what I accused you of. Now you compound your impossibly flawed logic by adding deceit, by attributing your flawed claim to me. Like I said, you are quite a piece of work.

More of your slanderous filth backed by nothing more than your foul imaginings.

 

No, that is false, as it was the first time you "accused" me of it. Your post, in fact, proves my contention, that you are demonstrating a loss of your ability, under this topic, for objective assessments. Of course, how does one show a person, who is subjectively slanting everything he hears, that this is what is occurring? Here is an excerpt from your post, including my own words, that you quoted, which immediately preceded your quote, at top:

Do you even know what you post? You posted:

a boss schtooking an underling-- and this one is probably more true... when it comes to politicians, and their young, admiring interns/aides, than it applies to just "bosses," in general-- is not a rare situation. Therefore, it seemed like a logical possibility.

I do not see, anywhere in those words, what you had presented me, as saying:

Zorro said: ↑
So in your logic system "logically possible = probably true"?


Please point my attention to the part where I equate logical possibilities, with probable truths. The part you are focusing on, does not mean what you apparently think, and was, in truth, only an aside, which could be discarded without tangibly changing my sentence. I had simply been saying that the boss having an affair with a underling does occur, and I would imagine this happens more frequently, when it comes to politicians and their aides-- who are typically far more enthusiastic than just the average employee, and hold their employer in greater esteem, are more dedicated to him, personally-- than it does, among all jobs, in general. You don't think that Bill Clinton, found it easier to seduce an aide, than it would have been (had he the inclination) for the owner of your nearest McDonald's, to put the moves on his drive-through attendants?

Ultimately, your blowing up this one pore, from my reply, to such a great degree, is not only ridiculous, but pointless. I did not say that I believed Meadows was screwing Hutchinson, I have no knowledge that suggests that this was happening, and so I would presume that, most likely, he was not. As I have already explained, this was only part of examining your own allegation, that Hutchinson was a "psycho."

IF that was the case, went my not especially complicated line of thought, then why didn't Meadows notice this fact? Again, this "fact," which YOU postulate, not I. My own supposition, to be clear as possible, is not that Meadows was doing Ms. Hutchinson; it is that your characterization of her, as a psycho, is utterly false.

But if, if, if, if there is any truth to your contention, it would leave this huge, loose end, for you to explain: why had she not been canned? Was psychotic behavior, in the Trump White House, so commonplace, as to not be particularly notable? Or had Meadows noticed her psychological issues, but kept her around anyway, for some reason? I had only offered you the sexual angle, as an example of a plausible explanation for-- despite the importance of her position, and the sensitive nature of the work-- Meadows' not getting rid of an obvious lunatic. But I did not care whether or not you chose one of the options I provided, as long as you filled this apparent hole in your argument.

What I thought I was making clear was that any explanation for why a psycho could continue serving as an aide to the President's Chief of Staff, could not help but reflect just as poorly, on the Trump Administration, and so this was not a path I had expected you to take. Rather, your most reasonable response, would have been to step back, your allegations of just how manifestly psycho, the Committee's witness, actually was.

 

Maybe it's time to manage your expectations. Look at their zero-hero. Says quite a bit about a person when we know who they admire.

 

And if I read through your linked articles, will "this information," tell me that the "number of Republican Senators" who changed their vote, because of the riot, would have made any difference in the outcome?

I didn't think so.


The info may not be hard to find, but nor does it support your argument, that it was the riot which had prevented Trump from holding on to the Presidency, so we should then be able to presume that Trump did not actually want any kind of violence. Other than the fact that, in the few who were swayed, there would have been no difference in the result, there are just so many holes in your "reasoning." For one, maybe Trump (it turns out, with good reason) just did not trust the Republican effort to succeed at anything, but help a few Congressmen pander to their constituents. His two best options were either to intimidate Pence into cooperating, or to declare martial law, and seize emergency powers, for himself. For both of these, a riot is necessary.

 

Her testimony is such a mash up it makes the Hindenburg disaster look like a fender bender in comparison:



Another 'Cassidy Blasey Ford' Claim Appears Headed to the January 6 Dumpster:

“On March 7, 2022, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to @January6thCmte that former senior Justice Department official Jeff Clark strategized at White House with Giuliani and Trump campaign to object to election. 100% false. They’ve never met or communicated.”

Likely based on lying Hutchinson's claims: "Trump Administration DOJ attorney's house was tossed, and all of whose electronics were confiscated by the Department of Justice. All while he was forced to stand outside in his pajamas."

Let's review: Cassidy Blasey Ford's testimony so far:

1. Hutchinson sicced the feds on Jeff Davis by making false claims about him, I imagine that he will want some answers.
2. Claims "Trump lunged over the seat of the presidential SUV and tried to grab the wheel to steer the vehicle to the Capitol Building. In so doing, he assaulted two Secret Service agents who said it didn’t happen. Hutchinson got the vehicle and incident all wrong, according to the Secret Service agents, who volunteered to testify as much to the committee.
3. She testified and verified she’d written notes about a passage for a presidential speech, but a White House lawyer was the person who wrote it and testified as much to the committee.
4. She claimed people were seen parading with AR-15s at the president’s speech and near the Capitol surroundings. And not only that, she claimed that the president knew about it and was fine with it because he knew they wouldn’t be shooting at him. How did she know there were armed people? Because the Secret Service didn’t want to take down magnetometers to check for them. As former White House Secret Service agent Dan Bongino explained, every president wants to remove magnetometers, because they slow the crowd getting into position for photo ops. If you doubt it, read First Family Detail by Ron Kessler for verification. But only if you can stand reading about Joe Biden swimming nude in front of female agents."

“Hey, guys, since when is hearsay considered evidence?”

"How many undercover cops would allow open carry of an AR-15 around a president and members of Congress?"

"How many undercover Secret Service, D.C. Police, Capitol cops, FBI agents, and other law enforcement would allow open carry of such weapons near the president and protected Congressional reps?"

"How many undercover cops were there?"

"How many were helping to foment unrest?"

"Why were there no arrests of AR-15-wielding Capitol protesters during the unrest?"

No wonder they don't allow cross examination. It's not a truth seeking mission it's a very poorly produced farce.

 

Are the walls closing in?

 

I had been planning to ask, from where you were getting your info, in red, when I accidentally discovered your link, to PJ Media. I must say, this does not impress me as an actual news site, so much as an opinion site-- Right wing, of course-- and their own information confirms that to call them a group of bloggers, comes close to the mark, whereas the description of "news site," seems to be more deeply rooted in their own vanity, than in fact.

[Snip]
About Us
For media inquiries, please contact communications@pjmedia.com

Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news from a center-right perspective– from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers’ quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. The media company’s founders — Academy Award nominee Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) — brought together a tightly knit band of bloggers into an integrated website that has evolved into a reliable source for original, unique, and cutting-edge political news and analysis. It is also home to Instapundit.com. In March 2019, PJ Media was acquired by Salem Media Group and became part of the Townhall Media family.

Townhall Media, an affiliate of Salem Media Group, is a political publisher at the forefront of national discussion with commentary and analysis from a right-of-center perspective. Our unique collection of digital properties includes Townhall, Hot Air, RedState, Twitchy, PJ Media, Bearing Arms, and Townhall Finance. Our content engages civic-minded citizens both within the United States and abroad. Together, the Townhall Media platforms reach more than 24 million unique visitors each month, have over 100 million monthly pageviews, and our award-winning top editors appear daily on major cable news networks.
[End]

 

It is astounding that anybody pays attention to a recount by someone who wasn't there of something said by someone else who wasn't there. The panel should be embarrassed. I, on the other hand, am entertained by it all. How do thinking people lower themselves to this kind of stuff?

 

You missed the point. It's not about whether the outcome would have changed. It's about a process that both sides have used to try to change the outcome.

If I made that argument you might have a point. What Trump wanted was the votes from some States to be challenged and rejected.

You don't even understand my "reasoning" so finding holes in it would be something beyond your grasp.

Your "reasoning" is based on speculation absent any solid facts which puts your "reasoning" on shaky ground. A riot of this nature had very little chance of success. At most it could only postpone the process (which it did) which once put down the process of declaring Biden the next POTUS would be completed. Democracy surviving and shown to be greater than the will of a rag tag mob.

 

Either show that PJ Media's content is wrong in the article they published or stop spreading your disinformation about a subject you cannot defend... your attempt to defame PJ Media is laughable and typical liberal nonsense.

 

""And if I read through your linked articles"" If you just read the article you would answer your own silly questions...

 

The Committee is trying the tactic of "poisoning the well" in anticipation of witnesses tainting Hutchinson's testimony.

https://news.yahoo.com/two-former-white-house-aides-100012762.html

The term "poisoning the well" is one where drinking from the well (testimonies of these witnesses) is unreliable and not to be trusted. Yet, we are expected to trust Hutchinson's testimony - she wouldn't lie to us. Typical bs Democrats do - smear the character of people.

 

"former aides" .... one was fired and the other works for CNN...

 

And the denial, not under oath, is from a SS Trump loyalist who was given a political position under the Orange Conman. He can go under oath and refute her there.

 

The mental gymnastics and painfully sad, grammar school interpretations of inapplicable evidentiary rules demonstrates what Trumpers do when they're upset about hearings that they didn't even watch.

 

J6 Committee: Ornato is a known liar and cannot be trusted.

Also J6 Committee: Hutchinson is 100% honest and Ornato didn't lie to her. At least that's what she now claims only after we set her up with our personal attorneys helping us smear Trump.

Also J6 Committee: We refused to ask Ornato to validate Hutchinson's testimony because we don't want the public to hear his side of the story since he lies about everything.

Also J6 Committee: This is totally normal when trying to uncover the truth of an event in a fair and transparent fashion.

Also J6 Committee: Ignore the fact that we've spliced video and edited out key information during this process, this time we're telling you the full truth. We don't need Ornato to have the full truth.

 

What an uninformed post. Just a few examples of why you're embarrassingly wrong:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-23/h_c1c96a40f63a0e3d43768130159d2029

We have Donoghue, Rosen, Barr and Engel, among many others. Really, learn what the Hell you're talking about before posting.

 

*LOL*

Focusing on side issues won't help. Trump wanted to go to the Capitol to "confront" Congress with his deluded followers. That's the salient point here.

 

It's about Trump's strategy being different than Congressional Republicans who, understandably, would not, for the most part, be in favor of having a riotous mob turned upon them, even if it was Democrats who were much more their targets.

This "speculation," of mine is based on all that we know about the lead up to 1/6, which is actually a substantial amount, even if turning that into a criminal court conviction, at this point, might be iffy.

As to the chances of its success, you are simultaneously mistaken both that Trump would have then had our current hindsight, and that this gambit did not actually have a chance of succeeding. While conventional thinking would not have thought anything of this nature would've had a prayer of leading anywhere, that thinking has changed dramatically, with our understanding of the background planning for this event. It is clear, from your comments, you are unfamiliar with most of mountain of evidence, as to Trump's strategy. This is presumably why you end your post with the same, mistaken faith, which had almost allowed Trump's scheme to triumph over our democracy. History has well-proven that when failed attempts of this sort, employing force to illegally seize control of a government, are not harshly punished, they turn out to be but practice runs, for their generally more successful, follow-up attempts.

 

"Side issues" *LOL*

The Committee is introducing hearsay and then smearing the source of the hearsay as a known liar at the same time. Drink up the Kool-Aid before it gets warm.

 

There's that BS "hearsay" nonsense again.

It's not "hearsay" (you have never had to apply that evidentiary rule, I have) and "hearsay" doesn't apply here anyway. It's a false tool being used by you and others to smear a brave young woman, making your claim about "smearing" rather ironic. Moreover, it IS a side issue. The issue isn't whether Trump is an emotional cripple and a big baby---that's a given---it's that he wanted to go to the Capitol to spur his idiots on. Nobody is disputing that.

Go and drone on about "due process" now. *LOL*

 

Okay, let's not use hearsay since it's offensive to fragile minds. Let's use the word "rumor" instead. The J6 Committee is introducing "rumors" to validate their position and then smearing the source of the rumor as a liar. This brave rumor spreading woman is doing our nation a huge service. Such a hero. Why should the J6 Committee call the source of the rumor to validate it? That's only for people who care about finding the truth rather than spreading Mean Girls gossip. Is that better for you? Hopefully the Kool-Aid is still cold.

 

It's not "offensive" at all. It's just has nothing to do with the 1/6 hearings. I don't know why you take that clueless approach. Moreover, you're trying to use an inapplicable evidentiary rule to smear a brave, patriotic American. Why?

Do you think it applies? *LOL* Define it and prove it. GO!

 

I included the hyperlink which you excluded from your cut of my post.

Not surprising, as you are impressed with Cassidy, whose mashup was so bad that it made the destruction of Pompeii a mere inconvenience by comparison.

IT’S JUST A REALLY BAD SHOW: Liz Cheney’s J6 Committee Show Trial Theatrics Are Further Exposed After ‘Concerning Messages’ Source Is Revealed.

​

"this week, we saw “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson’s “bombshell” hearsay testimony about how Trump allegedly tried to assault a Secret Service agent in order to take over “the Beast” (or SUV) so he could join the protesters fall apart when the Secret Service told reporters that the two agents at the center of this fantastical tale were willing to testify under oath that what Hutchinson was told happened never happened, but that curiously they had not been called upon to do so this week by the committee for reasons that should be obvious to anyone."

"now, in addition to seeing other parts of Hutchinson’s testimony crumble, we’ve learned that the source for two “concerning” mystery messages Cheney teased towards the end of Hutchinson’s day of questioning was Hutchinson herself, though Cheney did not reveal that information after she read them:"

With her 'clever' use of 'teasers' it looks like Cheney is auditioning for a future role on The View. Hell as you may know, is the sentence of an eternity of playing 'Spin The Bottle' with The View.

Here's the sequence:

• "When Liz Cheney got to the tune-in-for-the-next-exciting-episode portion of the recent J6 committee hearing, starring Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney read two examples of what she suggested was witness tampering by TrumpWorld.
  
• First, Cheney read 'how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness' testimony.' Then, Cheney quoted from a description of 'a call received by one of our witnesses,' in that witness' own words.
  
• Cheney offered no details. No names, no timing, no context, no story, no nothing. Except that it was very, very concerning. And tune in for the next episode!
  
• So what do we learn now? That both examples were from the same witness--and that that very witness was sitting right in front of Cheney the whole time! It was Cassidy Hutchinson.
  
• Cheney could have asked Hutchinson about it right then and there. But she instead chose to do the TV tease and leave everybody hanging.
  
• Does this charade have to continue? Why doesn't the committee just say what it knows?

"Perhaps because it “knows” nothing and fully intends to drag this charade out as long as they can because the committee has nothing of substance to offer to American voters and (wrongly) believes that eventually, this will win voters over if they just hang on a little while longer."

"All signs point to this not being a winning issue at all for Democrats come November, but the old saying comes to mind here about how it’s best not to interrupt one’s political enemies when they’re in the process of destroying themselves."

So, indulge your obsession, no one can stop you anyway.