Common person head scratcher re J6

and wanted to talk about it,,,,, that they were amazed or surprised,,,, and that they often shared things with each other.

A family talks about a crazy uncle, but bottom line they love him?
.

Such as an inheritance.

In this case, they wanted power.

To Mara Lago?

The story would not have mattered if Hutchinson doesn't testify.

Why wouldn't Engel tell his escapade? How often does a president freak out, grab the steering wheel and choke his SS agent? It would be hard not to tell someone.

They can all lie now and say it never happened that way.

For someone in power with personal jeopardy.

Just for the sheer adoration? To command a literal government overthrow?

And HOW would he know he would be safe? Million dollar question - ergo, Who would
NOT be safe?

with their inside knowledge? Men are often stupid in this very fashion if I recall my mispent youth.

nt

why wouldn't Engel tell him? Yes, they are Trump Humpers.

Hutchinson was part of the team on a busy, violent, emotional day. Why wouldn't they talk to her about what had happened in the SUV? She was one of them.

Why wouldn't Ornato tell Hutchinson the story? They worked closely together. According to Hutchinson, Engel appeared "discombobulated." If your boss had just attacked you while you were doing your job, wouldn't you be?

Why not wave her in to tell her? They were colleagues and something intense had just happened.

If they want to dispute her testimony, they can do it, under oath and in public. Otherwise, their version of events is irrelevant and there is no reason to trust it.

Hutchinson testified under oath, in public, to what she was told re this event. Which, BTW, is pretty much just a sidebar to the real news of yesterday's hearing, but you do keep wanting to question this.

Common person headscratcher: why?

get a story out before he invented one to cover himself (always at someone else's expense)

Crybaby doesn't want anything, however small, to go otherwise, or he flies into a rage.

I'd be trying to cover my ass ahead of his account of the ride.

No idea if that was part of the script to take over. That's TBD.

It is entirely logical of SS to haul TFG and Pence out of danger. That's exactly their job. They know danger.

More than that, I have no idea.

And I won't speculate. (Other people actually do that better)

Other than "It's completely predictable that he wanted the spectacle."

One thing I keep thinking back to on that day was that the insurrectionists all seemed to be incredibly interested in papers, notes and pc's

Didn't the woman who stole Nancy Pelosi's laptop claim to want to sell it to Russia? (for what that's worth or worthless)
Others? Hard to say. Some had a definite agenda, and others may have been idiots just for cover.

I don't want to speculate because I have stuff that needs to get done and I really want to focus on my GOTV and Ukraine and Electronic Privacy stuff. I am willing to back off humor and posting photos. It's just that I am relatively new here and easily distracted. I already backed some stuff off and promised myself to let almost everything not on my focus list go.

This is very complex, with deliberate distractions. As I posted "this story is LITERALLY as long and twisted as a Russian novel. }

He had gone into Ornato's office to tell him about the event, and both of them were probably in somewhat disbelief at the line Trump had crossed.

Ornato summoned Hutchinson in to vent....

"Did you hear...."

My take FWIW....

Hutchinson did Engel say anything? But actually can envision it. Engel just nodding, yup it happened. Still would have been interesting to have asked her what Engel did/said other than not refute.

And she said that the telling was by Ornado in the presence of Engel who never corrected the story or denied it then or later, until today.

wild that just happened to you. And someone is telling the story that you presumably just told them, strikes me you'd interject a bunch. Not that it matters one iota, but at least to me, Hutchinson was closer to Ornato than to Engels. And Engels trusted Ornato more than Hutchinson

as McConnell was taken by surprise and made a statement from the floor condemning the attack which he later abandoned, Ornato and Engler reacted honestly and then changed their story later.

Through that lens!!!

They say they are willing to testify under oath? I don't think so. Lol, so was Ginni then bowed out saying she had too many personal issues at this time. Snort, I bet she does.

Hutchinson had nothing to gain and everything to lose by testifying. She is not lying.

Like... If SHE said it - it has to be true.

Do wonder why after all the BS trump did, that this was different? Perhaps deep inside they knew he was whacked? And he just went TOO far?

Have to look at this all through the lens of the extraordinary events of that day. And they were in the middle of it. Had the violence started yet or was this before?

It is a second hand account of perhaps the least criminal thing said about tfg in her entire testimony and it has quickly grown into the largest right wing talking point on the internet. Is there really nothing else in her testimony that interests you besides this right wing talking point?

I went easy.

Remember on Jan 6 mccarthy and a bunch of repugs were very shaken and vocal against the insurrection. Of course it all wore off in 12 hours.

Actually important for state of mind. And then later it was like JHC knew he was bad but not THIS bad?

So far SteeringWheelGate is the most effective distraction they've managed. Pathetic.

EVIDENCE THAT MATTERS: The afternoon of J6 tRump repeatedly ordered the SES to take him to the Capitol under attack. He promised the insurrectionists he'd be there with them.

overall credibility of witness. Did Ornata really relay this story? Was Engel really in room? And was the story true? And the story includes not only the lunge but FGs adamant desire to go to Cap.

IF TRUMP WAS TRYING TO CARRY OFF A COUP OR OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, it literally doesn't matter to the legal case if this anecdote is true or not.

As for Ornata, he's known to be tRump's man and long disrespected even among tRump circles, as well as professional WH observers. He has extremely poor credibility to start with. The Republicans' promise to have him testify under oath is a bad joke, as anyone who watched the senate confirmation hearings for tRump's nominees should fully realize.

Regarding Hutchinson's testimony, she and it have all been carefully investigated by the House Select Committee. What was presented in the hearing is THE COMMITTEE'S testimony to the people. Please don't confuse the committee's credibility with tRump's, the coup elements in the GOP, and those fighting desperately to protect them.

The committee has thousands of pieces of evidence and hundreds of interviewed witnesses to these events, and some will be able to corroborate or at least support her account. They're not fools. They know the credibility everything they present will be attacked.

Last, the battle for power is enormous. There will be many more attempts to distract us from what means everything and focus us on lies and fake issues like this that, in the end, are irrelevant. Don't be fooled.

common person, talking out the pieces of particular testimony that popped out as mysterious on a personal human interaction level. Not necessarily anything that could ever be considered federally indictable.

That said, it was the Committee themselves who chose to bring this incident to light, right? Is that what you're implying that it was done for reasons we don't know and that no Democrat should pay any attention at all? If yes, we all may need to take some three dimensional chess lessons