Ah yes, the question of constitutes a “well regulated militia”.
Do you concede that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were well organised and hence committing treason or merely a mutinous rabble?
it came out last night that one of the pressure messages that ms cheney read at the end of the hearing was given to ms hutchinson.
that give us a clear indication of why it was rushed out on tuesday.
I respect your posts Atamasama, I do. But we disagree here. I think the sticking point is the phrase ‘Levying War’
No, this was not a WW. No tanks or ships or airplanes where involved. Steve_MB addresses this above. It was a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. Trump started it with his big lie, and refusing to concede the power of the presidency.
He built his rag tag army for years. And then spent a few months after a free and fair election to whip them into a frenzy. Trump committed election tampering, fake electors and who knows how many other fraudulent and criminal acts to install himself as dictator/president.
When all his claims of election fraud did not work, he had one last chance. His January 6th rally. He got ~ 1000 or so people close to the Capitol. Many came armed with anything they could improvise. Some had more serious weapons. Trump then whipped them up into a frenzy again and unleashed them on the Capitol saying he would lead the way.
If the president of Mexico did that, would it not be an act of war?
Ketchup.
Someone earlier approvingly quoted the DAily Kos as saying: “there’s absolutely no doubt that the House select committee would not have put Hutchinson’s testimony before the public if they did not already have corroboration of everything she said”
Here’s what Jamie Raskin said (emphasis added):
“All I can say is, I found her to be an utterly believable, incredible witness,” Raskin continued. “It’s possible that the story that she repeated, you know, may have some flaws according to somebody else’s interpretation, who knows. But that’s what the investigative process is about. I mean, we’re not in a court of law where we’re trying to prove all of these facts. We’re trying to bring all of the witnesses in so the whole country can hear together, and we can all make a judgment. But I’ve found her to be a 100% credible witness.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin defends Hutchinson’s Jan. 6 testimony (yahoo.com)
So he’s saying outright that he personally finds her testimony believable, but that the Committee does not view its role in presenting these witnesses as showing what the Committee believes to be proven facts. Only as pieces of evidence that they and the country can consider.
Problem is that this is not what people might assume when viewing the presentations. Certainly the Daily Kos didn’t view it in that context.
Honestly, no. If the president of Mexico addressed a crowd of American citizens and inspired them to those actions, I don’t think that would lead to war.
It would be one hell of an international incident, sure. I can’t see war breaking out over it. Strong sanctions would be more likely.
You are not going to be able to handwave the entire J6 Committee away.
This is always the tactic of the right, find one specific thing that you can develop a criticism for, and then claim that means that literally everything is now invalid.
The world does not work that way. You can disbelieve, you can claim anything you want, but that doesn’t make it so.
Nobody, not a single person on the right, not even Trump is denying that he wanted armed attendees let in, that he wanted his people to go attack the capital and that he wanted to be there to lead them. That is indefensible, so instead of trying to defend that we get deflection about another small detail that isn’t even that relevant, and is simply her repeating what she was told.
As noted earlier in this thread, both Engel and Ornato have already testified before the Committee, just that this particular incident was not raised. So the notion that they are reluctant to testify under oath is false.
TBH, I don’t get why the fact that Trump REALLY wanted to go to the capitol is such a big deal. He publically said he intended to go. What exactly is added by finding that he “REALLY wanted” to do exactly what he said he would do?
If you ask me, the real irony of the whole thing is that Trump lunging at the driver is actually something you could easily imagine him doing. It’s not such a far-fetched story, based on his temperment and character. The significance of it being most likely false is in what it says about the reliability of Hutchinson’s testimony, and - more importantly, IMHO - what it says about the Committee’s MO.
Can you elaborate? I just finished The Terror and it might be the best novel I’ve read all year. Is the author a rightwing asshole?
“most likely false”
How do you figure? All we have is an anonymous source stating that other people are willing to testify that it didn’t happen. We have heard nothing from those actual people. And also, she is simply stating that she was told that is what happened. What is her motivation for inventing that out of thin air? Explain why she would do that?
Man the right will believe anything as rock solid if it makes them feel good.
If an anonymous source said something bad about Trump, would you accept that immediately as gospel too?
It’s still nothing. Unless and until they actually testify again and answer these questions, there’s nothing that reduces any of Hutchinson’s credibility. Media references to denials are worthless noise.
You personally might not go to war over this, but I’m pretty sure both politically and historically, this would be sufficient as a casus belli.
Re the “armed attendees”, I have a technical question. (I’m honestly not sure of the answer here, this is not a “JAQ”.)
Supposing Trump had not requested that armed attendees be let in. Was there anything preventing these people from joining the mob at the capitol?
As I understand it, the reason for screening out armed attendees was solely as a part of general presidential secret service protection, since Trump was speaking at that rally. But the rally was at the Ellipse, which is (I believe) about 2 miles from the Capitol. If police had blocked out armed people from attending the rally, would they also have been blocked off from the capitol area?
Hutchinson didn’t even witness the incident. She mentioned being told about it. Even if your assumptions are correct (and I think that’s premature) it says nothing about her reliability.
If you could verify that she was never told what she’s claiming then that’s different. But then why would she only make up this one minor point?
This smells like right wing desperation to me. “I think we can prove that we didn’t jaywalk when heading to the murder scene, we can beat that charge for sure!”
I addressed her potential motivation upthread.
The problem with the “she’s just relating what she was told” angle, is that it implies that Ornato made it up. It’s even harder to see his motivation to do that, especially as he is being impugned as a strong Trump guy.
And even beyond that, Hutchinson says she was told this in the presence of Engel, who did not deny it. So if the story is false, that would imply that Ornato told a false story to Hutchinson in the presence a guy who knew it was false, and who he successfully guessed would not deny it. Unless you buy that there was some conspiracy by Ornato and Engel to make up this particular bogus story, which seems silly.
Bottom line, I don’t think there’s much to hang your hat on there.
No, I’m not speaking about what I’d do personally. Russia has been doing a lot of nasty stuff to try to screw with elections for years and we haven’t done anything about it. I see this as just a step above that.
We’re not talking about Mexico bringing their troops into the capitol. We’re talking about their president talking some disgruntled right wing nutjobs into marching on the capitol. I don’t think that would lead to war. It would probably lead to cutting diplomatic ties and strong sanctions, probably until there were apologies and some kind of reparations. It might make things less friendly for a long time in US-Mexico relations too. It would be pretty serious. I can’t see it being war though.
Probably not, and that seemed to have been their plan, anyway.
As I understand it, he wanted them in his rally, so that it looked bigger; when he was told that they weren’t willing to go through the metal detectors, he made it clear that (a) he knew they were armed, and (b) he didn’t care, because he knew that, while they were a threat to others, they weren’t a threat to him.
Not the point. He knew some were armed, he was told that, he wanted them in, his people, he wanted to go with them to the capital to fight. Everyone on that side knew at the time this was not Antifa or BLM. Everyone on the right has been lying to you about this from the very start.
They are still lying to you because they were complicit. The right wing media, GOP congressmen, even a Supreme Court Justice and his wife. The whole lot was in on this corruption, hence all the pardon requests.
You are putting up quite an effort here, but it ain’t working.
So you agree that Hutchinson is a reliable witness? To say she isn’t, as you say, Ornato and Engel are lying.
Or that it actually did happen and the anonymous source is full of shit. I wonder if the anonymous source is named John Barron, or David Dennison?