What someone says under oath and what someone says to the media can be a vast gulf.
My cite: The Trump team crowing day and night about election fraud to be broadcast to the public through press conferences, on Twitter, on right wing talk shows, and so on.
Once those same people (Giuliani and others) got to court, not one word about election fraud. Under oath, they even flat-out stated there was no fraud. They instead would nitpick about one local law or another regarding things like accepting mail-in ballots once the in-person ballots closed.
Why? Because they are aware that they can lie to the public with absolutely no consequences, but once they are under oath, they have to be extremely careful about what they say.
Keep all of this in mind when you compare Hutchinson’s testimony to various rebuttals you see in both traditional and social media. If someone wants to testify under oath that she was mistaken or being deceitful, I’ll consider that. Everything else is inconsequential noise.
Trump attempted to cast Hutchinson’s testimony on Tuesday as revenge, claiming she was “very upset and angry that I didn’t want her” at his Palm Beach residence.
Because that’s exactly what he would do. Therefore, that’s what she did.
I agree, especially since it’s not important who actually put those words on the paper. She had no reason to say it was her handwriting if it wasn’t. If it was someone else, she could I have said, “I recognize that handwriting as Mr. or Ms. x.”
Yeah, Trump playing his greatest hits, “I barely knew them, and they suck anyways!” is probably the best indication we have that she’s telling the truth.
But I also understand that a Secret Service agent with an inappropriate level of political (or other) sympathy for a protectee is theoretically capable of lying for them, under oath, as well.
It’s kind of the notion that … people are still people, despite occupation, training, experience, oath, etc.
And those who’ve watched the news over the last few or so years are acutely aware of how profoundly human many of these Secret Service agents really are.
Trump’s protestation that he barely knew her are also completely irrelevant. Hutchinson never claimed a close personal connection with him, and little of her testimony concerned conversations they had. She mostly talked about conversations with other aides.
I think this is a likely scenario. It’s in some ways analogous to an abusive relationship. Immediately after an incident, the abused might call a friend to vent. But a few days later, they convince themself it wasn’t really that bad, Trump didn’t really mean to grab my neck, I kind of deserved it…
I think Donald suffers from delusions of adequacy.
In the line of questioning, Cheney makes it quite clear that Engel and Ornato were in the room and not disputing the account. So it appears that either Hutchinson is mistaken or that Engel and Ornato are quite willing to perjure themselves. They didn’t contradict Hutchinson before, but now to please their Dear Leader they want to do so now. I don’t buy it.
I get the sense he’s trying to discredit her testimony by painting her as a nobody, not because she’s testifying about anything he actually said or did in her presence.
Because of course, in his worldview, if he doesn’t know you, you’re a nobody. And if you’re a nobody, who cares what you have to say about anything?
No reason not to gossip to her. People at work warn each other. “Hey, the boss is pretty pissed off about that damaged shipment. Might be a good day to stay in your office.”
People at work also try to impress coworkers they’re attracted to. “So then he lunges for the wheel!”
This makes a lot of sense. Meadows and Stone arrange with the Proud Boys to launch a spontaneous attack on the Capitol by patriotic Americans to disrupt the vote. Trump gets wind of this and thinks that it would be an awesome photo op for him to be marching to victory with his supporters at his back.
Meadows is scared since it is vitally important that the march on the Capitol can’t be tied to the president (and more importantly anyone associated with him such as Meadows himself). So he tells his subordinate to make sure that Trump doesn’t do this. Trump still wanting his be at the center to things makes his speech incriminating himself and promising to lead the march leaving no doubt that its his fault.
Meadows is now apoplectic, madly calling his subordinate to shut it down, and probably also calling Ornato letting him know that there is going to be a riot in the capitol and for his physical and legal safety the president needs to be kept as far away from it as possible.
