“They wouldn’t let me go to the Capitol!” Throws hamberder, which splats ketchup.
“They wouldn’t even let me f’ing drive to the Capitol!” Throws soup. Tomato soup, why not?
“They wouldn’t let me be with my people!” Throws Diet Coke. Gratifying cola-colored splats on the wall and carpet.
“They insisted I return to the White House!” Looks around, sees nothing but salt and pepper shakers remaining on the table. “Quick, somebody, make me a plate of spaghetti and marinara sauce!”
Trump outsourced his SCOTUS picks to the Federalist Society; there plenty of reasons to be unhappy with them, but none have shown signs of fealty to Trump. They have may have their own agendas, but they don’t share his.
The fact that someone so young and inexperienced was working in such an important role is a pretty compelling illustration of the difficulty the Trump White House had in recruiting qualified staff. Typically, in a presidential administration, you hire for (a) experience, (b) competence, and (c) loyalty. Ideally, your people check all three boxes; if your administration is popular and attractive, you have a wider pool from which to recruit, and you are more likely to get good people. It’s obvious that most such conventional prospects recognized the Trump White House as a shit show, and gave it a wide berth, so (c) became the key metric and (a) and (b) were deemed optional. Hutchinson seems to be reasonably intelligent, but in a normal White House she wouldn’t be qualified for anything above a very junior role.
And of course, the fact that she willingly joined the Trump team and was happy to serve their political interests, but is now freely recounting the details of her tenure to the opposition, is implicit but clear testimony that whatever her initial loyalty, the terrible things she witnessed were sufficient to overcome her political allegiance.
These are great!
Except the need to add this bit:
Before he addresses the food on the table, he hands stacks of papers to an aide: “These get flushed, these get shredded, give these to Mark to burn.” [Then back to your idea, until . . . ]
I tried to walk to the capitol, I tried to get driven to the Capitol, I even tried to commandeer a vehicle and drive myself to the Capital but they made me return tot the White House in January. (pause) “Then on the 20th they threw me OUT of the White house and now they won’t let me even on the grounds!”
Wait, that will not work- it has to be set on January 6th so my idea would have to be in a Mar-a-Lago sequel. Never mind, but this will work - -
As Trump is talking into the camera after just a brief shot of the dining table fully set with food, drink, and gold colored utensils, the camera shifts to an old man in butler-esque clothing dusting book shelves with a feather duster. After the first thing hits the wall/bookcase, he rolls his eyes, puts the feather duster into a pocket of his apron, then pulls on rubber gloves and pulls out a sponge and spray bottle of cleaning fluid for a ‘here we go again’ feeling. THEN pan the camera back to Trump flipping out and throwing stuff. Hands shaking, sweat pouring down his face, spittle in the corners of his mouth.
Then a phone rings, perhaps a gold colored one, [perfectly calm] “Hi Vlad, thanks for returning my call!” [pause] “Unavailable?? where is he? [pause] WITH XI !!!” He slams down the phone, throws the rest of the food and beverage against the wall and after a beat orders the pasta with red sauce.
I bolded a portion of the quote to clarify my forthcoming comment.
If Ms. Hutchinson is roughly the equivalent of Margaret from The West Wing, she is in a very junior role. But she is attractive and young, perhaps a little bit connected (her parents may be wealthy or powerful) and perhaps she just graduated from a good school with a Poli-Sci major. She may have taken an administrative assistant level job to work in the White House, and they may have given her an ‘advisor’ title because she is cute and connected and she does the real job too-- so let her hang out and advise as well. It is not as though these yahoos in authority have anything like a genuine professional working space, or work ethic, or sense of propriety. The young pretty girl wants to hang out and give us advice, what do you say? Sure, get someone else to do the typing.
Besides that, she has demonstrated that she is smart and observant and qualified just today. I am quite sure that she is much brighter than Kayleigh McEnany, that one never impressed me as being particularly smart, or good at public speaking, in fact - - - if I were not so enlightened, I might suggest that the best thing McEnany has going for her is her looks. (But I am sure Trump and his toadies are far too high minded to think like that!)
I find it very plausible that Cassidy Hutchinson got a moderately low-level advisor job based upon almost entirely merit (it never HURTS to be good looking). After hearing her speak today, I also find it quite likely that she worked hard and earned a more elevated status also based upon merit.
Now I do not insist that is the case, there is no doubt the Trump administration was a shit show (now with more and improved shit!!). And they never impressed me as being even competent let alone professional, but I do not have any problem believing that Cassidy Hutchinson was a valuable member of the administration who carried her weight professionally.
I believe a more experienced administration would have office staff they are used to working with whom they would bring to Washington with them. Except the President who lives in Washington year round, many politicians may also have a similar staff in the home office in their district or state back home. But Trump just brought his family to hold higher offices and took whatever “secretarial staff” was provided for him. I cannot speak about Meadows at all, but it would not surprise me at all if Trump picked his staff by looking at color head shots.
IANAL, but AFAIK rulings on civil suits can be appealed, too. In fact, either party can appeal a civil ruling, whereas in a criminal case, only the accused can appeal a conviction, whereas the government can’t appeal an acquittal.
Here is an example of an election fraud appeal to the Supreme Court, which SCOTUS rejected. Trump had even crowed about how the wonderful new SCOTUS that he had helped form would overturn the election results. They didn’t. Neither did any of his lower-court appointees support any of his lawsuits.
Also, as @alphaboi867 points out, although the five far-right nutjobs currently on the SCOTUS bench clearly have far-right agendas, that doesn’t imply personal support for Trump, such as overturning a criminal conviction. The Court may be willing to undermine their legitimacy and appearance of impartiality in the service of matters that they consider truly ideologically important, such as pro-gun and anti-abortion rulings, but that doesn’t imply that they would have any interest whatsoever in doing so to save Trump’s orange hide from the consequences of his own criminality.
Its alao my understanding that this peoblem became more and more apparent over the course of the administration. At least some “normal” Republicans with experience in earlier administrations/public policy took jobs early on because while they may not have liked Trump, hey, White House job. But over 4 years, they tended to leave as it was obvious it was a shit show, and they tended to get purged because loyalty was a huge priority. So by January 2020, most of the grownups were gone.
Right. There’s a reason “Scaramucci” became a measuring unit for tenure under Trump.
January 2020? Most of the grownups were gone by early 2018. SecState Rex Tillerson, he who once famously and accurately observed that “Trump is a fucking moron”, was about the last of the adults to go. The exits, both forced and voluntary, had been so frequent right from the beginning that it’s become convenient to measure the tenure of Trump staff in Scaramuccis, an SI unit of time equal to 11 days.
Or she was just smart enough to see how things were going. Weathering a stint in Trump’s orbit is easier if you have some cred and fallback money than if you’re 25 so why not polish up hee image? The podcast world calls…
The usual sober assessment from the New Yorker:
Regardless of the legal obstacles to convicting Trump, however, Hutchinson’s testimony reconfirmed, in perhaps the most graphic way yet, that he must never again be allowed anywhere near power. If Dean, the White House counsel to the Nixon Administration, in his June, 1973, testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee, provided firsthand evidence that Richard Nixon was a scheming, lying coverup artist, Hutchinson provided an inside-the-West Wing confirmation that Trump isn’t fit to lead a support group for reformed rageaholics, let alone lead the country. The idea of the nuclear codes being handed back to him is surely now unthinkable.
Note that the headline “should be the end of Donald Trump” is meant to imply that in any rational world, it would be, but in this one, who knows? But OTOH, Bob Woodward, in a CNN interview, opined that this juncture in the hearings was essentially Trump’s political obituary.
Regardless of what the final outcome may be, one can take some comfort in knowing that undoubtedly many plates bearing ketchup-laden overdone steaks are being hurled against the walls of Mar-a-Lago.
I see the Secret Service wants their people to make sworn statements counter to Hutchinson’s. She really only testified that someone told her that President Trump attacked his security people. But this is a fine distinction. I fear all of her testimony might be discounted.
(Do you think the passenger can reach the driver in a high-security SUV? I suppose we will soon find out.)
Today’s Chicago Trib said it was in the Beast. Could be wrong …
Ah, that good ol’ cognitive dissonance! “Her lying fake testimony proves that Trump really did want to go to the Capitol!”
At this point, they’ve gotten everything they really need from Trump - one more seat on the court for a religious fanatic would be nice, but isn’t necessary. So nailing Trump costs them nothing, while providing a fig leaf of “legitimacy”.
I’d give her more credit though. There’s only one White House, and if you’re a young person looking to get into law and/or politics, working at the WH is a huge win, even if you don’t like the person who’s running the place. I suspect everyone who’s ever worked for a President has done something they disagreed with at some point, but went along because that’s how that job works.
Even a year or two working at that level can provide you with connections to powerful people, and other up-and-coming young people, which in a normal era would serve as life-long advantages, no matter what career you ultimately end up following. So I could see sucking it up and doing the job, because at the end of the day, there were still tens of millions of Americans who thought the job should be done the way Trump was doing it, so “How bad could it be?”
Surely the word “unthinkable” now longer applies to anything related to national politics.
All this talk about the whether or not Trump tried to take control of the Beast away from the driver is exactly what they want us to talk about. We need to keep on point like they do.
Enough of the hijack of the talking points about heresy testimony. When you talk to others about what happened just ignore the presidential limo conversation and hit them with the talking points. Remember that there are many people that did not follow this like we did and are getting spun away from the facts, our talking points. Our talking point scare them.
There’s another issue with Hutchinson’s credibility which seems even weirder.
Trump White House attorney disputes Hutchinson’s testimony about handwritten note (msn.com)
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.
“All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann,” the spokesperson said.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Hutchinson, testifying about the note, said, “That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on Jan. 6, likely around 3 o’clock.”
“And it’s written on the chief of staff note card, but that’s your handwriting, Ms. Hutchinson?” Rep. Cheney asked.
“That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson replied.
The Jan. 6 committee has repeatedly relied on Herschmann’s candid and sometimes vulgar testimony throughout the hearings in June […]
That seems like a strange thing to have a dispute about, especially since it’s a handwritten note.
Thing is that I believe Hutchinson herself said that it was the Beast.
Ornato claims he never told it to her.
It was the SUV, not the limo that we usually see. It’s quite possible both are referred to as “The Beast”.
Ornato has been tainted by prolonged exposure to DJT. He has been MAGAfied. I’m much more inclined to believe Cassidy than I am him.
“Unthinkable” doesn’t apply to those entities inherently incapable of thinking, such as Trumpists or a bag of rocks. It’s meant to imply that any rational person should be terrified of turning over the reins of power to an unstable lunatic and perennial grifter, especially for a no-holds-barred, anything-goes second term. The damage to the White House building alone would be incalculable. As a landlord, I wouldn’t rent a garden shed to this raging asshole.
I agree. However, since it’s going to be used to impugn Hutchinson’s credibility, here’s my take on what is probably going on …
I’m very suspicious that Trump’s hand-picked Secret Service acolytes are so anxious to intervene in what is purely a political matter – that is, not an incident that in itself has an relevance to Trump’s legal culpability in the events of Jan 6, but something that – like the temper tantrums and dish-throwing – is entirely a marker of poor character and mental instability, not a legal matter.
And the only plausible answer I can come up with is that these Trump acolytes are doing this for political reasons.
I also note (per a CBS report) that no one at the SS disputes that Trump was irate and verbally abusive just as Hutchinson described. We also know from first-hand testimony that Trump becomes physically aggressive when irate. So I suspect that what may really have happened is that Trump lunged for the steering wheel but never actually reached it because Engels pulled him back, and then Trump pushed back at him, and that “what really happened” in there is rather a nuanced matter of the irrelevant details of the Toddler-in-Chief having a meltdown. The salient fact remains: the Toddler-in-Chief did have yet another tantrum, this time in a moving vehicle.
Writ large, I couldn’t agree more with this.
Writ small, however (meaning: among Dopers on the SDMB), I like that we sweat the details (ie, we beat them to death) 