Secret Service Is Reportedly Prepared to Testify Trump Didn’t Try to Commandeer Limo on Jan. 6, Desp

She should have verified the story before testifying under oath.

 

Again, this is not coming from a credible source, so there is no basis to say that she lied. If Anthony Ornato were to come forward and contradict her, that would be a different story. If the two alleged Secret Service guys were to come forward and do likewise, especially under oath, then this would also raise eyebrows. But so far we have none of that. Just a guy on Twitter claiming that someone close to the Secret Service told him about these guys being prepared to testify.

Why should this be more credible than the testimony already given under oath?

 

Maybe she did. At any rate, it's not a lie if she was told this. Let the guy she says told her, namely Anthony Ornato, come forward and testify if he wants to disagree or corroborate what she said. Let these alleged two Secret Service guys come forward and testify. What is stopping them?

 

"The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f'ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now," Hutchinson testified, relaying what she was told later that day by another White House aide, Tony Ornato."

Seems obvious that Hutchinson lied while under oath or was given bogus information by Ornato. Put Ornato on the stand too. Let's see who is lying.
Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel during Capitol riot: source (msn.com)

 

Mr. Turley is wrong. This committee has no reason NOT to confirm the Hutchins testimony. That action would likely be taken for an investigative committee but the objective here is propaganda, not investigation, and therefore the ONLY objective is to present testimony that supports the anti-Trump narrative. It's no different, really, than the Mueller investigation though, in this case, it's more "in your face".

 

This just keeps getting better and better...lol.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-whi...ssidy-hutchinsons-testimony/story?id=85898838

"Former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann is claiming that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News."

 

her "testimony" was hearsay, not direct witness, unlike the secret service

once again the Democrats for whom you support are on another witch hunt

 

Out of the three people involved.
I'd put my money on the Secret Service agents lying.
They are hard-core Trump supporters.
And I'd bet they pledge their loyalty to him. I wouldn't doubt if it's even in writing somewhere.

 

Liz Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'
By David Wright, CNN
Updated 9:56 AM ET, Thu June 30, 2022

(CNN)Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

...

Cheney told ABC that the panel had spoken with Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, and Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service agent in charge on January 6, 2021 -- and at whom Hutchinson testified that she was told by Ornato that Trump had lunged.

"I don't want to get into too many details," Cheney said. "The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."

... https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/liz-cheney-secret-service/index.html​

There we have it. The ball is entirely in their court.

 

Quite right. Hearsay should never be considered to draw a conclusion. Of course that shouldn't apply to the hearsay testimony of Hutchinson, right?

 

As it was given under oath and she was a credible witness, I'm not going to do the RINO thing of dismissing her testimony out of hand. I'm sure that, at the very least, she is relaying what she was told accurately. All you are doing is parroting attempts to attack her credibility and distract from the rest of her testimony, which was not hearsay and was more damning for Trumpolini.

 

You could have simply said her hearsay testimony is acceptable to you. I get it.

 

OK. Her hearsay testimony is acceptable to me. It's also not overly important to me since that part was only about Trump allegedly fighting with the Secret Service in his limo.

Of much greater concern to me is his desire on January 6 for his armed supporters to be allowed through without the use of the "mags" just because he thought they weren't there to harm him. That demonstrates total disregard for the security of the Capitol on that day, and that was not hearsay.

 

You don't get it. I'm not interested in your views about Trump. This discussion is only about hearsay testimony. Focus.

 

It's puzzling that people are crying about "hearsay". This is not a courtroom so it doesn't apply, and even if it did, the hearsay rule is easily avoided and there are scores of exceptions.

It's pointless crying.

The point of the testimony is that the Orange Moron wanted to pretend to be a warrior king at the Capitol.

 

These RWers think that's a valid and solid source. Even when it's debunked, they'll continue to make the claim.

 

They'll jump on any anonymous source cited in a news report or article they don't like and call it fake, too. Raging hypocrites.

 

Trump's 'girth would prevent him from actually getting to the steering wheel' of his SUV, former Secret Service agent says: 'I don't see this president ever being able to do that. Ever.'
Nicole Gaudiano
Wed, June 29, 2022 at 3:00 PM

Then-President Donald Trump would have had to squeeze through an "extremely tight" space to be able to grab the steering wheel of an SUV and lunge at a Secret Service agent, as a former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified Tuesday.

It wouldn't be impossible, one former Secret Service agent said, but it would be unlikely that the 6-foot-3, nearly 250-pound Trump, who the agent noted is "not the most agile human being," could pull off the move.

"Trump's not a little guy, right? And the space to actually be able to lunge towards the wheel is not that big," the former agent said, speaking on background to Insider. "I don't mean to sound disparaging to the former president, but just his girth would prevent him from actually getting to the steering wheel."

... https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-girth-prevent-him-actually-200030703.html​

The plot, like Trump's girth, thickens.

 

JFC you can’t get to the steering wheel from the back seat where he has to ride. How this stupidity makes any headlines at all is staggering.

 

This argument you're putting forth is missing the point of the 1/6 hearings. That being to discover the "facts" surrounding what happened on that day. Facts typically don't care about your politics or those of the Committee members. True facts are objective and thus in order to obtain all the "facts" it behooves the Committee to corroborate all the testimony. Only then will we have the "facts" of what happened on 1/6. But then, we know neither the Committee, nor you apparently are really interested in knowing the "facts" in the blind obsession of bringing down Trump and anyone associated with him.

 

She also stated that her memory of all events and conversations etc relating to the period in question was not perfect. No witnesses ever is if the they are being asked to recall not one or two specific incidents but rather instead are being taken through everything they can recall abut a long series of events that occurred many months ago.

Getting the date or time minor meeting occurred wrong? Who did a specific minor thing at one point in time in a long chain of both major and minor events? Not perjury. For that matter the crime perjury only applies to circumstances where someone deliberately gives makes a false statement. There has to be intent. So go on 'Mr Memory' prove there was intent here. The entirety of the witnesses evidence is what counts.

 

Considering the gravity, her memory should be perfect. But, she's been exposed as a liar, so she can't use a failing memory as an excuse for her perjury.