I believe “The Beast” has been used as the name for a number of different (armored) vehicles over the years, but it’s always the title of that specific vehicle, not like “Air Force One” where the call sign follows the president.
Having said that, even if she wasn’t simply mistaken (since she probably doesn’t pay attention to which vehicle he’s in), it’s also possible that random White House Staff just use “The Beast” to mean whatever vehicle he’s in at the time.
ETA, it looks like The Beast is the name of the most recent (or maybe two most recent?) armored limos that you’d have seen Bush Jr, Obama, Trump and Biden using. And maybe Jerry Seinfeld, I never watched that show but when he got coffee in a car with Obama, that may have been The Beast as well.
I assume that’s going to be the case for a lot of the things she said. As has been mentioned here (and plenty of other places) plenty of her testimony wasn’t about things that happened, but about conversations she had or overheard about things that happened. If Trump lunging for the wheel was entirely fabricated, it doesn’t mean she didn’t simply overhear someone saying it is relaying it here.
I’m still interested to see where this is going. If the information contained in the conversations she’s heard is factually incorrect, there should be no shortage of people ready to correct the record, under oath. If the stories are true, I think we’ll get a lot of the people she’s naming showing up on Fox News to tell us she’s wrong and denigrate every thing about her, her life, her job etc, while also doing everything they can to avoid testifying as well.
The funny thing is, we’ve all gotten so used to the right using these ad hominem attacks that I’m assuming most people have learned that as soon as they start attacking the person instead of the argument, it’s all but a confirmation that the person isn’t lying.
Kinda like when people started to jokingly consider getting fired from Trump’s WH to be a Badge of Honor since it implied you had too much integrity.
Or when they randomly attack someone or something on the left, seemingly out of nowhere for entirely nonsensical reasons (ie being a pedophile) and a few days later they get accused of, literally, the exact same thing. Every accusation is an admission etc.
There you go: during any testimony, we trip them up on some obscure question like 1940’s actresses Kim Stanley vs Kim Hunter, then scream Falso in Uno, Falso in Omnibus!
Given that the purpose of this thread was to stop the sidetracking of the Jan 6 hearing thread, I find it… interesting… That the original sidetracker-in-chief has not chimed in here. It’s almost like the original intention was… the sidetracking, rather than the subject itself.
Or that his sole purpose was to sidetrack the other thread. He was going to complain about not being allowed to hijack the thread in the ATMB but never did. This thread was opened up to specifically address his desire to discuss this subject, then nothing.
He didn’t seem to want to deny any of the key points brought up about Trump knowing that the mob was armed and that he purposely incited them. You know, his treasonous acts. Just wanted to discuss hearsay crap.
That reminds me of another thing that came to mind as I was thinking about her testimony. Except for specific questions about how she felt about certain things she did not do a lot of editorializing on the events. Her testimony was basically a straight up description of events. And once again this exposes that unique problem Trump has where he only looks like a criminal when you are looking at him so stop looking at him. It is weird how often he relies on this defense and weirder still how often it works.