You are so backwards on this, it’s sad.
All of this is why it’s unlikely that her story is false. All of this is why you are wrong to have your initial assumptions. The only reason you have them, is because it’s comforting. You’re believing an anonymous claim in the media because you want it to be true. It’s unconvincing to those who aren’t clinging up that hope.
Did they ever actually remove the metal detectors per his wish? He called those knuckledraggers “my people” 
100%
It’s also exactly the same tactics Trumpworld always has used when confronted with unfortunate truths. Attack the messenger, sow chaos, claim hoax, everyone else is a liar, etc…
It convinces nobody that doesn’t really really want to believe it. It’s very hard to admit when one has been had for so long.
What’s to hang your hat on right now is that there’s nothing at all to suggest that Hutchinson is not being truthful. Anonymous denials are worthless.
Local DC gun control laws.
Because, for years we’ve been told that Trump (who “tells it like it is”) shouldn’t be taken literally. And, so, when he spoke about how “we” we’re going to march to the Capitol and “fight” to save the country, many of his defenders said that he was speaking metaphorically, and never intended for any violence to happen - it was just a bunch of left wingers trying to make him look bad.
This testimony, meanwhile, makes it clear that Trump planned to lead a fight at the Capitol and was angry when he was denied a ride (I mean, he could have still walked, but he’s incredibly lazy).
If Trump would have taken ownership of his rhetoric, this evidence wouldn’t be necessary.
I appreciate the citations; I sincerely do.
But I don’t think that they do much to support your argument.
Your first claim is that she wanted “civil significance”. Indeed, she said that - in a puff piece for her university. It was nothing more than a generic platitude about working in government, and it’s quite a reach to suggest it evidences some sort of lust for power.
The second link, about how she had a falling out with Meadows and lost a job at Mar-a-Lago, relies on an unnamed source (remember how often Trump would tell us that these are worthless?) and then a typical Trump quote about how he wouldn’t give her a job and so now she wants revenge.
Notably, Trump never offers a reason why he decides to not take her along. And, if indeed there was a falling out with Meadows, maybe it’s because of what she saw him do, or not do, while the government was being attacked (which she’s now conveniently testified about).
Your third citation, about how she’s currently unemployed, is a dead link.
ETA: I can now link to it, weird. Yes, it’s a line in a WaPo story. No details as to why, so any guess that she’s struggling for work is conjecture. Of course, maybe being Mark Meadows loyal aid has been hampering the search.
Since we are apparently living in a country where nine priests conduct seances with the ghost of Thomas Jefferson to determine life in the 21st century, let’s go back to their mindset.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not envision a crowd being whipped into a frenzy to legally declare war against an unbeatable nuclear state in a global environment dominated by the West. What they envisioned was exactly what happened: a local potentate rallying his army to attack the Congress. The Founders were but a century removed from Cromwell and the Stuart Restoration, they were well-versed in the politics of Rome and Greece, these guys were effectively humanities students at best. They weren’t thinking ‘tanks vs guy with taser’, they were fearing that which happened in France just a decade later, another ‘rabble’-lead movement.
Resurrect Ben Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, whoever… show them January 6th… they would not have any trouble calling Trump’s actions treason. No 18th-century intellectual man of the world would.
I don’t get why you mentioned this, and then showed the Trump quote. I didn’t quote Trump or mention revenge as a possible motivator. I would dismiss anything Trump says about this, or anything. Why would your response to me focus on something that I didn’t even mention? Honest question.
Point is the same. She was once at the center of power and has been far far removed from that for a while now, with little prospect of getting it back. I wouldn’t assume she has a hard time getting a regular job same as anyone else, but nothing like what she was as Meadows’ top assistant or like what she accomplished with her testimony.
You are hanging your hat on an anonymous source who saying what other people are going to say. It’s the thinnest of threads.
Why don’t you wait to see what Ornato actually says before jumping to the conclusion that her story is most likely false?
Why are you creating a fairy tale about her possible motivation for lying when there isn’t even anyone publicly calling her a liar?
“Most likely false.” That’s total fucking nonsense given the information we have.
Trump: I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her.
Also Trump: I personally turned her request down.
So he doesn’t know her, but he personally turned her down.
One would think 7 years of having Trump defense crumble after Trump defense crushed, people would learn.
Forgot to add: the significance of her wanting to work for Trump at M-a-L after his term ended is that 1) it’s consistent with her wanting to work for a political mover-and-shaker, as she had done, and 2) it suggests that she did not turn against Trump over his post-election shenanigans, as others have been suggesting.
Because that was the closest thing in your cite to support your assertion that she lost out on a job at Mar-a-Lago. If you don’t take Trump at his word, then where’s a credible citation that she was supposed to work there?
People who worked close to Trump are politically radioactive. She may have felt that working at Mar-a-Lago was one of her only options.
I find it hard to believe that you genuinely think that CNN quoting “one former White House aide” is less credible than Donald Trump.
But even in the unlikely event that you do think so, you should allow that others might disagree.
I doubt we would counter attack Mexico as well. But what we are talking about is treason, and how it’s defined. The president of Mexico cannot commit treason against the United States. Only a US citizen can.
As far as the goobers in Trumps mob are concerned, let them off with very stiff penalties. Not treason though. It’s the leaders that tried to accomplish this that are the traitors.
^ 100% And they wrote the laws defining treason. If we are going to follow the constitution, well, lets follow the constitution.
Sure, seditious conspiracy, insurrection, inciting violence, intimidating elected officials, attempted voter fraud, agreeing with a mob that the VP of the US should be hung and finally attacking the United States congress are all serious charges. Then creating, gathering and sending said mob to attack the congress of the United States so that you could take over the presidency.
When that all gets wrapped together by the conspirators and the package is opened - That’s levying war against the United States.
It’s clearly treason.
Genuinely… why?
Trump is a documented liar. When has he earned our trust?
[Emphasis mine]
Nobody is less credible than Donald Trump. Tommy Flanagan and Joe Isuzu are more credible than Donald Trump.