Why would they tell her that story in the first place? Did they laugh amongst themselves at his antics?
Yes. Running against him in 2024, DeSantis will say, “When they try to steal my election, I’ll be marching into Congress with the true patriots to take back our country – not throwing hissy fits in a limo!”
Yup. And let’s agree to something in advance:
-
If it turns out that he said it under oath, and that after investigation it turns out that he’s telling the truth that it’s his note, I agree that that casts a huge amount of her testimony into question. It’s very difficult, IMO, to be mistaken about whether you wrote a note, in the detail that she claimed. If she did not tell the truth about that note, it was deliberate.
-
If it turns out that he didn’t say it under oath, or that after investigation it turns out that he’s not telling the truth, I hope @SpacemanSpiff_II will agree that there’s a tremendous effort to undermine her on bad-faith grounds, and will view any other attempts to undermine her with tremendous skepticism.
Fair?
That cite is worthless. It’s speculating based on the supposed motivations of the committee when there is actual evidence to the contrary. And in particular the speculation that “the committee already has Ornato agreeing to that story” goes in the face of reporting that Ornato is specifically denying it.
Also, there are - per media reports - at least three people denying it, those being Ornato (as to whether he told her), Engel, and the limo driver as to the incident itself.
However, a source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle.
So here’s a question for those who advance that line of reasoning. Suppose it should turn out that the Committee did in fact tie themselves to testimony “that could readily be knocked down”? Does that change your view of the Committee?
No. This is not remotely “fair”.
On the one side, you’re willing to concede that the specific testimony of Hutchinson is shaky. Youre not offering to concede anything about any other witnesses or evidence. But on the other side you’re demanding a concession as to “any other attempts to undermine her”, whether via Hershmann or anyone else.
Unless you can show some connection between Hershmann and this broader “tremendous effort”, that doesn’t remotely fly.
And note, that to this point the Committee itself has relied heavily on Hershmann and his veracity, as quoted upthread.
As others have said, this is a distraction. The point of the testimony wasn’t to show that Trump was unhinged, it was to show that Mark Meadows was well aware that Trump was unhinged and didn’t care, because this was all part of the plan.
I’m not saying credibility doesn’t matter, but if at the end of the day Hutchinson misheard something, it doesn’t drastically alter the intent of that line of questioning.
I will consider your posts with this attitude in mind.
Just a reminder. Please bang this drum all day.
it is possible that immediately after the event they were stunned by trump’s actions in the suv. as time passes they go with a “it wasn’t that bad” view of the events.
trump pitched a fit. that is the fact.
I’m just a guy who cain’t hear no
She’s in a terrible fix
I always say, “come on, let’s go”
Jist when she’s seein’ my prix
The Secret Service agents are willing to testify, under oath, that this didn’t happen… and then, while the committee has them there, under oath, they can then ask them about any other things that happened that day… which may have been the whole point of this to begin with.
Who knows if any of these people are actually willing to testify. I’m skeptical until they actually do it. Ginni Thomas says she was willing – turns out she’s not. Not a surprise.
I doubt it. Both Engel and Ornato have already testified before the Committee (though not as to this alleged incident, which apparently didn’t come up).
…ABOUT THIS.
Talk is cheap.
You need to remember that the words used in the testimony are chosen very, very carefully.
As to the note, Hutchinson testified that she wrote it on the Chief of Staff’s note card (i.e., it was in her handwriting) as directed by Meadows, acknowledging that Herschmann contributed.
According to “a report” in the Washington Examiner–I know Washington Examiner, but bear with me:
The note pertained to a statement intended for former President Donald Trump to release as his supporters stormed the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021. A spokesperson for Eric Herschmann, a former White House attorney, told ABC News on Tuesday that the note was written by Herschmann on Jan. 6. During her testimony, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, said that she had written the note at the direction of Meadows.
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” Herschmann’s spokesperson said.
Now, suppose for a second that Herschmann actually came up with the words on the note, that he told Meadows the note should say “Anyone who entered the Capitol illegally without proper authority should leave immediately,” with the bolded part being struck out (I don’t know how to code a strikethru). If so all these statements can be true.
- Hutchinson was told by Meadows to write those words on the note card he supplied.
- Herschmann was the person who came up with those words (Hutchinson heard part of that conversation).
When Herschmann (or his spokesman) is using the word “written” he means “authored.” When Hutchinson uses “written,” she means “in my hand-writing.”
As for the discrepancy between what Ornato reportedly told Hutchinson about the limo ride, it would be interesting to see what Ornato would say, under oath, about what he remembered about any conversation he had with Hutchinson on that day concerning what Engel had told him.
There’s also the risk that enabling Trump’s shenanigans too far, especially with his political mojo in decline, risks a backlash that will end in an empowered Democratic Party cured of its autosciophobia*.
*sciophobia = fear of shadows. I leave working out the last bit of etymology as an exercise for the student.
Why would the SS agents tell her specifically about the car incident? And why did the valet warn her about Trump’s fit?
I think it’s human nature if you see something totally outrageous that you tell people about it.
Since it’s handwritten, it should be fairly easy to show who wrote it. Which is why I’d be pretty shocked to find out she lied about this. Shocked enough to conclude that her entire testimony was a plant for some nefarious reason.
At some point, every investigation relies on the honest testimony of the witnesses. If she lied about this, and other things, it’s likely because she’s tied up in something bigger than herself. It’s entirely plausible that Trump et al., or some other entity, is coordinating a deliberate attack on the committee by subverting witnesses. After all, the whole point of this investigation is that there was an actual conspiracy afoot. I don’t expect super-human abilities to detect lies from the committee.
So if it turns out she lied, it actually emphasizes how important it is for the investigation to continue. And the hearings, since if we hadn’t heard about this yesterday, then we’d never had heard about the conflicting accounts of these events.