Select Committee on January 6 Insurrection report...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
11,735
10,126
187
Fifteenessee

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,167
30,068
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
That's a very poor video. On another shot, which I will look for, his hand seems to be on the back of the driver's seat. You couldn't see more through tinted windows...
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
32,031
19,650
287
52
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
On the subject of Flynn and the Fifth.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I know I've heard this covered previously in cases.

Doesn't a person exercising his fifth have to give that answer to ALL questions from the moment of the first invocation of such onward? He cannot pick and choose which questions to answer and which to not answer - is that correct? I seem to recall this from Mark Furhrer-man in the OJ case.

I'm not in any way defending Flynn, who by all accounts makes Lando Calrissian (gambler, con artist, all around scoundrel) out to be Tim Tebow. But it seems a little bit unfair to my understanding to say "he got asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power and he took the fifth" IF he answered the fifth to everything. If I plead the fifth and then some lawyer says, "Have you ever had naked parties with little boys" and I say "the fifth," it's not exactly fair to me to go running with the story "he didn't deny he has naked parties with little boys" (which is right up the MTG alley).

Now - if he was answering all the questions and suddenly said that at that question, maybe something can be inferred. But if he answered the fifth to everything - which, of course, only guilty people do so Trump says - then it's an incredible spin to say it the way it's being reported.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,167
30,068
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
On the subject of Flynn and the Fifth.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I know I've heard this covered previously in cases.

Doesn't a person exercising his fifth have to give that answer to ALL questions from the moment of the first invocation of such onward? He cannot pick and choose which questions to answer and which to not answer - is that correct? I seem to recall this from Mark Furhrer-man in the OJ case.

I'm not in any way defending Flynn, who by all accounts makes Lando Calrissian (gambler, con artist, all around scoundrel) out to be Tim Tebow. But it seems a little bit unfair to my understanding to say "he got asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power and he took the fifth" IF he answered the fifth to everything. If I plead the fifth and then some lawyer says, "Have you ever had naked parties with little boys" and I say "the fifth," it's not exactly fair to me to go running with the story "he didn't deny he has naked parties with little boys" (which is right up the MTG alley).

Now - if he was answering all the questions and suddenly said that at that question, maybe something can be inferred. But if he answered the fifth to everything - which, of course, only guilty people do so Trump says - then it's an incredible spin to say it the way it's being reported.
Well, not a criminal lawyer by any means, but, IIRC, it depends on whether you're a defendant or witness. If you're a defendant, if you take the stand, then you must answer every question. If you're a witness, theoretically, you could pick and choose, but almost none do. The reason is that any time you answer, you're open to followup questions. For example, had he answered "yes" to the peaceful transfer of power question, he could be asked if there any exceptions to that (like Brexit 1776). If he answers yes or no, the barn door is wide open. I think you can see where that heads. It's safer to answer the same to every question...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,700
28,701
262
Mountainous Northern California
This likely explains why she changed lawyers (I'm guessing very few people knew of her scheduled appearance and even fewer would leak to the Trump camp).

Witness tampering is a serious offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
10,221
687
132
She was very careful, coached, I'm sure, to delineate what she heard first hand and what she was told. As with John Dean, there never was any possibility of conviction, based on her testimony alone. OTOH, as I said above, much can be corroborated by people who have no reason to take the fifth. It will take somebody else cracking, which will probably happen, when they're confronted with prosecution themselves. I'd bet on Cipollone. I think you overestimate the Trump Gang...
Yeah, I don’t really have any reason to believe they won’t do the right, and “legal”, thing.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
10,221
687
132
He's not "Trump's attorney." That was Rudy. He was the counsel to the office of the presidency. It may not sound important to a layman and, certainly, Trump repeatedly confused it, but his duty of disclosure is shrunken to just exchanges between him and Trump on official business. It's much narrower than the relationship between a private attorney and an individual client. In addition, the stuff about the crowd being armed and taking the mags down were not hearsay. Listen again to her testimony. She was "told" none of it. She was present in the tent in the ellipse prior to the speech and heard the president say these things herself. That is not hearsay. As I said above, it still needs corroboration, but, given the number of people present and the use of immunity, that should not be difficult...
I only referenced the hearsay in regards to the incident in the vehicle, which the agents say they will refute under oath(we’ll see). They are “Trump guys”, as is Cippolone (a term I should have used instead of “attorney “ - mea culpa).
That’s the only weak spot in her testimony; SS agents giving contradictory testimony under oath will give cause to his supporters to say all of her testimony is false. Of course that’s absurd, but they’re Trumpers; the absurd is their MO.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,167
30,068
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I only referenced the hearsay in regards to the incident in the vehicle, which the agents say they will refute under oath(we’ll see). They are “Trump guys”, as is Cippolone (a term I should have used instead of “attorney “ - mea culpa).
That’s the only weak spot in her testimony; SS agents giving contradictory testimony under oath will give cause to his supporters to say all of her testimony is false. Of course that’s absurd, but they’re Trumpers; the absurd is their MO.
Naturally. And they've already started full force. If Cipollone corroborates under oath the conversations he and she had, then the dam will break. No one wants to be the last man standing on a island. And remember, she clearly stated it to be a second-hand story, told to her. Also remember that Ornato, although he had been a SS agent, was not acting as such but as a political appointee, who was a favorite of Trump. It has leaked that the committee already had questions about his answers in the two informal (not under oath) interviews they've had with him...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,167
30,068
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Yeah, I don’t really have any reason to believe they won’t do the right, and “legal”, thing.
Actually, under oath, they usually do, faced with federal perjury. It's been proven over and over. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, BTW. Try the blue font, to make sure...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,167
30,068
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
If one other credible person also heard the convo I don’t think it matters much what Ornato says about the convo relating second hand knowledge, which I’ll repeat is more a distraction than anything else.
If you want to know what I really think, I think it was a gross exaggeration, started by Ornato. Judging by what else has come out - and been corroborated - about Trump's temper, I'd judge it was a pretty nasty scene in the limo. As I said, you can see that he's leaning up over the seat back and I don't doubt he reminded them in obscene language who was the president. Ornato embroidered on it and passed it on. When it was related to Hutchinson in front of him, and he said nothing, he was sort of stuck with his story. I actually wish that it had not even come out, since it's immaterial to the gist of the testimony...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,700
28,701
262
Mountainous Northern California
Lots of corroborating testimony as to the gist of what happened.


Hutchinson’s account was supported by other testimony played at the hearing. “He brought it up, he said, ‘I want to go down to the Capitol,” Max Miller, a White House aide now running for Congress in Ohio, said in taped testimony. But Miller’s entire testimony wasn’t played, where he suggested it was a short-lived idea, according to people familiar with the matter....

...

Some White House officials were out of the loop. Ordinarily, the White House’s legislative affairs staffers would be involved in a visit to Capitol Hill, but they were not briefed on any plans for him to go on Jan. 6, according to two senior administration officials. Aides to Vice President Mike Pence heard secondhand from other White House advisers that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, but they were never given a formal plan and did not expect him to follow through, according to a Pence adviser with direct knowledge of their plans.
“There was no plan for what to do if Trump showed up,” the Pence adviser said. “Frankly, we didn’t think it was going to happen.”
...

Some of his allies said Trump never brought up the idea of going to the Capitol with them, even as he bandied it about internally with his aides and Secret Service team. “Not to my knowledge was he ever coming up here,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who regularly talked with Trump in the days leading up to Jan. 6. “To me, I don’t see him going to a riot.” (how did he know it was going to be a riot? hmmm....)

...

On Jan. 4, Trump raised the issue with several White House aides again, but Secret Service and senior staff warned him it would be logistically impossible and dangerous, a person familiar with the discussion said. Another adviser said the Secret Service was particularly skittish about a trip to the Capitol because a trip in November — when Trump went into a crowd of election fraud protesters in Washington — was viewed as nightmarish and difficult to manage.



...


When Trump took the stage, he told the rally, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.” The remark stunned staffers who didn’t understand that to be the plan.
“I told people we were not really going to the Capitol,” recalled the senior staffer who has spoken with Ornato. “It never crossed my mind that was legitimate.”
But as Trump left the stage, he made clear he was serious. That’s when his personal assistant, Nick Luna, first became aware of Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol, according to his taped testimony played at Tuesday’s hearing.
...

“MOGUL’s going to the Capital [sic] … they are clearing a route now,” a National Security Council staffer posted to an internal chat obtained by the committee, using Trump’s Secret Service code name.
“They are begging him to reconsider,” another message said. When a planned route was posted to the chat, the log shows a staffer responding, “So this is happening.”

...


The three agents do not dispute that Trump was furious that the agents would not take him to the Capitol.
Even after the car returned Trump to the West Wing, he still wouldn’t let go of wanting to reach the Capitol.

...

“When we got back to the White House, he said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers, and according to my notes, he then said he’d be fine with just riding the Beast,” former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in videotaped testimony to the committee, referring to the nickname for the fortified presidential limo. “He wanted to be a part of the march in some fashion.”
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,700
28,701
262
Mountainous Northern California
I still believe there were backchannel comms to these groups and I pray it comes out soon. It certainly seems like Rhodes had been in communication with Trump (after failing to get Trump on the phone that night). Also confirms they expected him to give orders and they would then get their stash of weapons. It was all part of the plan.



Reason two: They were awaiting Trump's orders.

When those orders failed to come, Rhodes' lawyers will argue, the Oath Keepers left the Capitol.
They had dinner at an Olive Garden, and then collected the weapons and provisions they'd stashed — but never used — in their rooms at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Virginia. Then they went home.

"I just want to fight," federal prosecutors say Rhodes complained after failing to get Trump on the phone that night, like some extremist Pinocchio with a thwarted dream of becoming a real militiaman.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,700
28,701
262
Mountainous Northern California
And yet more agreement with the gist of the testimony.



Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn’t get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.

The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident – including details that are similar to how former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described it to the House select committee investigating January 6 – in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson’s testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.

Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as “demanding” and that the former President said something similar to: “I’m the f**king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.” The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.

“He had sort of lunged forward – it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don’t know,” the source said. “Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat – for what reason, nobody had any idea.”

The employee said he’d heard about the incident multiple times as far back as February 2021 from other agents, including some who were part of the presidential protective detail during that time period but none of whom were involved in the incident.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,700
28,701
262
Mountainous Northern California
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shop the TideFans.shop !


Your purchase through our TideFans.shop links helps support the site! Thanks!