Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jan 6 public hearings Live


spartan max2

Recommended Posts

Honestly, what relevance would grabbing the steering wheel or lunging at a Secret Service agent have for the main issue of the commision?  You know the Jan. 6 stuff?  

I know people like to grab one little insignifigant detail and use it to try and derail a larger argument, but he won't be facing charges for trying to grab the sttering wheel.  It will be for the conspiracy stuff.  I found it more important that Trump directed Meadows to call Stone and Flynn considering we know Stone was with the Oath Keepers who met with the Proud Boys, etc.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Then, by your estimate, contrary evidence will never be available and the only thing we have to go by is sworn testimony.  I guess that settles it.

Doug

Maybe you don't understand.  Yesterday someone testified and in that testimony gave he said she said second hand accounts of events that she herself did not witness.  If these events happened the committee knows who to summon to get a first hand account.  If the committee fails to call for that first hand testimony then we must assume it's because it will contradict their hearsay witness and they don't want the truth on record.  

Incase you that's not clear I'll say it very clearly.  If they don't call the trumps limo driver to the stand to hear the truth then we will know this committee is not seeking truth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Honestly, what relevance would grabbing the steering wheel or lunging at a Secret Service agent have for the main issue of the commision?  You know the Jan. 6 stuff?  

 

Great question.  Why would they ask to hear that?  To draw a narrative about trump.  The reason this is a big deal is if this is not true it says much about the entire testimony of the witness and the goal of the committee.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Great question.  Why would they ask to hear that?  To draw a narrative about trump.  The reason this is a big deal is if this is not true it says much about the entire testimony of the witness.

That she answered a question after admiting that it was only hearsay?  How does that ruin her testimony- especially considering it was under oath?  

I'm more inclined to believe someone who says something knowing that they will go to jail for lying than I am for someone who refuses to testify under oath but regularly err.. "Truths" claims about what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That she answered a question after admiting that it was only hearsay?  How does that ruin her testimony- especially considering it was under oath?  

I'm more inclined to believe someone who says something knowing that they will go to jail for lying than I am for someone who refuses to testify under oath but regularly err.. "Truths" claims about what happened.

And regardless, if they don't call for the first hand account that speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

And regardless, if they don't call for the first hand account that speaks volumes.

Yet......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Yet......

Why have her even speak about second hand accounts?

 

Does anyone have a link to a video of her talking about the limo ride and the throwing of food or the chocking or any of the other stuff she didn't see happen that she testified to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Why have her even speak about second hand accounts?

 

Does anyone have a link to a video of her talking about the limo ride and the throwing of food or the chocking or any of the other stuff she didn't see happen that she testified to?

Time constraints, I imagine.  

Not everything she testified to was hearsay.  A lot was first hand experience.  

People are just focusing on the hearsay parts to discredit her overall testimony in the manner which you are describing.  Just like the Secret Service testimony thing.  The only thing the Secret Service seem to be discrediting is the lunging at the steering wheel/assaulting an agent part.  None of the rest have they disputed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Why have her even speak about second hand accounts?

 

Does anyone have a link to a video of her talking about the limo ride and the throwing of food or the chocking or any of the other stuff she didn't see happen that she testified to?

Arguably to scaffold in the first hand account and to clearly indicate to a witness that might be inclined to plead the fifth or hide behind “operational procedures” or some sort of legalese obfuscation that they’re already on the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never happened.  Look where the presidents seat is compared to the driver. 

 

1b724418-e9a2-4ecf-b0ea-f8c71b9bb6aa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

Never happened.  Look where the presidents seat is compared to the driver. 

 

1b724418-e9a2-4ecf-b0ea-f8c71b9bb6aa

Yeah, that was my first thought - and isn’t the President in a sealed booth when riding in the beast with a partition between them and the drivers?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Arguably to scaffold in the first hand account and to clearly indicate to a witness that might be inclined to plead the fifth or hide behind “operational procedures” or some sort of legalese obfuscation that they’re already on the hook.

Oh, and that will be the threshold for which information the committee trying to save our nation from a coup is able to access? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Time constraints, I imagine.  

Not everything she testified to was hearsay.  A lot was first hand experience.  

People are just focusing on the hearsay parts to discredit her overall testimony in the manner which you are describing.  Just like the Secret Service testimony thing.  The only thing the Secret Service seem to be discrediting is the lunging at the steering wheel/assaulting an agent part.  None of the rest have they disputed.

So shift our focus then.  What was the non-hearsay parts of her testimony that would be interesting enough to hold a special session of the committee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Oh, and that will be the threshold for which information the committee trying to save our nation from a coup is able to access? :lol:

Oh absolutely, if someone wants to play stupid games with the committee, they need to be told in subtle and not so subtle ways why that they’ll win stupid prizes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Never happened.  Look where the presidents seat is compared to the driver. 

 

1b724418-e9a2-4ecf-b0ea-f8c71b9bb6aa

That's what I was thinking. 

The rear compartment is sais to seat up to four pax as well as POTUS.  Only Trump could lower the partition that separates him from the driver.

3DDAD00A00000578-0-Donald_Trump_s_bomb_p

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4273134/amp/Inside-Trump-s-new-car-dubbed-Beast.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Oh absolutely, if someone wants to play stupid games with the committee, they need to be told in subtle and not so subtle ways why that they’ll win stupid prizes.  

Stupid games have already been played trying to withhold documents and we've seen there is no information the committee wants that it hasn't had turned over.  Also the reporter from NBC says that the secret service are permitted to testify under oath.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Never happened.  Look where the presidents seat is compared to the driver. 

 

1b724418-e9a2-4ecf-b0ea-f8c71b9bb6aa

Except he didn't ride in the "Beast" that day....  He rode in an SUV.:  January 6 hearing: MSNBC downplays NBC scoop on Secret Service denying Trump-SUV story from Cassidy Hutchinson

Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" for Trump to lunge towards the steering wheel since the car he was actually riding in on Jan. 6 was a Suburban and not "The Beast," which she said would have been difficult for the president to do. - from the article

But hey!!  Now the Secret Service agents can testify under oath that Trump didn't lunge for the steering wheel of the limo...(if they were inclined to be decietful)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

That's what I was thinking. 

The rear compartment is sais to seat up to four pax as well as POTUS.  Only Trump could lower the partition that separates him from the driver.

3DDAD00A00000578-0-Donald_Trump_s_bomb_p

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4273134/amp/Inside-Trump-s-new-car-dubbed-Beast.html

 

Isn’t a 180degree turn in a car a u turn, not a j turn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Except he didn't ride in the "Beast" that day....  He rode in an SUV.:  January 6 hearing: MSNBC downplays NBC scoop on Secret Service denying Trump-SUV story from Cassidy Hutchinson

Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" for Trump to lunge towards the steering wheel since the car he was actually riding in on Jan. 6 was a Suburban and not "The Beast," which she said would have been difficult for the president to do. - from the article

But hey!!  Now the Secret Service agents can testify under oath that Trump didn't lunge for the steering wheel of the limo...(if they were inclined to be decietful)

Why the hell wasn’t he in the Beast?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yesterday someone testified and in that testimony gave he said she said second hand accounts of events that she herself did not witness.

So that invalidates the testimony and we are left with nothing.  So what is this argument about?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Except he didn't ride in the "Beast" that day....  He rode in an SUV.:  January 6 hearing: MSNBC downplays NBC scoop on Secret Service denying Trump-SUV story from Cassidy Hutchinson

Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" for Trump to lunge towards the steering wheel since the car he was actually riding in on Jan. 6 was a Suburban and not "The Beast," which she said would have been difficult for the president to do. - from the article

But hey!!  Now the Secret Service agents can testify under oath that Trump didn't lunge for the steering wheel of the limo...(if they were inclined to be decietful)

Where is that quote from.  I clicked your link and did a search for the phrase "for Trump to lunge" and "Leonnig began by saying it would have been "possible" " and nothing came up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary was that you? :unsure2:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10959599/Senate-sergeant-arms-Michael-Stenger-charge-securing-Capitol-dies-suddenly.html
 

Quote

 

The man in charge of protecting the Senate during the Capitol riot has died just a day before the Committee investigating the attack was set to reveal new evidence in a surprise session.

Michael Stenger, 71, was the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate on the day of the attempted insurrection.

He resigned amid criticism he had failed to react effectively to the building being overrun. 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

So that invalidates the testimony and we are left with nothing.  So what is this argument about?

Doug

It won't invalidate her testimony unless people that were present with Trump are called to refute what she said, hearsay or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

So that invalidates the testimony and we are left with nothing.  So what is this argument about?

Doug

For me the argument is about they summoning the driver that was assaulted for testimony.  If they do then they are after truth if they don't they are just doing propaganda.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

It won't invalidate her testimony unless people that were present with Trump are called to refute what she said, hearsay or not.

I stand corrected.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.