2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Frelga]

I haven't seen anyone go on record about the incident. All I've seen so far is unnamed sources making claims about what someone else said or may say in the future.

For example.

Secret Service agent reportedly willing to testify Trump did not lunge at him

[Cerin]

They can't very well go on record (under oath) if the panel doesn't call them, can they? I'm in no doubt that Cheney has already scheduled their appearance, as she is so fervently seeking the truth.

[Frelga]

I mean that no one has gone on record with the media, such as The Guardian article I linked. We only have unnamed sources talking about what the response from the Secret Service may be. And yes, they should testify under oath.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Both Engel and Ornato have already testified, under oath, but they were not asked specifically about the assault story.

[River]

I'm sure if one of them wants to go under oath with the committee again to correct the record, they will not be refused. And who knows, maybe one of them already told it to the documentarian everyone forgot was there.

[Frelga]

NYT quotes the same anonymous source(s).

This seems highly relevant, though.

But the officials did say Mr. Engel, Mr. Ornato and the driver of the Suburban are prepared to confirm to the committee another damning finding from Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony: that Mr. Trump demanded his agents bring him to the Capitol so he could join his supporters, even after they emphasized the dangerous scene playing out there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks Frelga. That is consistent with what I said before.

Meanwhile, the committee has subpoenaed Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who featured prominently in Hutchinson's testimony.

January 6 committee subpoenas Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone for testimony

I will be very surprised if he complies.

[Frelga]

Not to osgilliate but does Cipollone mean "a big onion" in Italian?

[Cerin]

Upon further thought, I think this hearsay witness might be the panel's 'jump the shark' moment. I think it will dawn even on those who are not particularly deep thinkers that any legitimate investigative body would have gone immediately to the first hand witnesses for corroboration before grandstanding the hearsay witness.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I found her to be extremely credible, and much of her testimony corroborated by other sources. I'm appalled at the way that she has been dismissed and degraded and I find very much of it to be extremely sexist in nature.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

ETA: Here is one person who apparently sees it very similarly to how I do:

"I am absolutely confident in her credibility, I'm confident in her testimony, and the committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege," Cheney told ABC.

Liz Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Andrew McCarthy is one of the most conservative legal commentators in the country. He wrote a whole book condemning the Mueller probe. Here is what he has to say about Hutchinson's testimony.

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony against Trump Is Devastating

And this is what he says about the dismissal of her testimony as hearsay (I note that while sensational, the portion that even could be discussed as hearsay is comparatively small and irrelevant; the bulk of her most important testimony comes from her direct observations of things that Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, etc. did and said).

A Closer Look at the ‘Hearsay’ Claims Surrounding Hutchinson’s Trump Testimony

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another person who's mind was changed by Cassidy Hutchinson is former Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (who himself was caught up in Trump's first impeachment scandal). As reported at Fox News:

Mick Mulvaney won't defend Trump against charges he incited riot after Cassidy Hutchinson testimony

Former top White House aide Mick Mulvaney said Wednesday that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony at the January 6 committee hearing this week changed his mind on defending Donald Trump against charges he'd incited a riot.

Mulvaney told "CBS Mornings" the explosive accusations from Hutchinson, who was Trump chief of staff Mark Meadow's top assistant at the time of the Capitol riot, were "compelling and very credible."

"Do you think these hearings are changing mainstream Republicans, perhaps Republicans like yourself about their attitudes regarding the former president?" CBS host Vladimir Duthiers asked.

"Sure. It certainly changed my mind, yesterday’s testimony did," Mulvaney said. "I’ve been defending the president against the charges of incitement to riot. I’ve seen the same speech he’s given dozens of times. I’ve seen him accused of trying to foment violence with no violence coming as a result, so I’ve been defending him. But after yesterday when she testified that he knew that there were guns on property and that he still encouraged people to go down to the Capitol, that certainly changes my mind. Whether or not it’s going to change the hard-core MAGA supporters on the right wing of the party, I don’t know. That remains to be seen."

Again, the testimony that he cites, which is the same testimony that I (and Marcy Wheeler) said was the most important testimony that Hutchinson gave, was not hearsay in any shape or form. It was her direct observation of what Donald J. Trump did and said.

[Frelga]

The right wing spin machine is not disputing

* that Trump knew he lost the election and his claims had no legitimacy (even though he took millions of dollars from his supporters to "fight the lie")

* that he was prepared to lead an armed mob to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power, and was only concerned that he was not going to be hurt

* that it's increasingly provable that the Vice President was in imminent danger of being murdered, and so were some Senators

And on and on.

But all the media is focused on is the possibility that maybe Trump didn't try to choke a Secret Service agent. It's the least incriminating part of what came to light this week.

[River]

Trying to choke an SS agent is easier to wrap one's head around than the rest of that list. Also, it's so much fun to quote an anonymous source that's contradicting what a witness, appearing in person, said under oath. I mean, who's more reliable, the person that won't even put their name to their words or the woman who faces perjury charges if she lies?

The right wing spin machine is not disputing

* that Trump knew he lost the election and his claims had no legitimacy (even though he took millions of dollars from his supporters to "fight the lie")

I'll add that parts of the right wing spin machine are actually facing massive defamation lawsuits from Dominion for aiding and abetting Trump's lies about their technology and the election outcome. The suits are not being dismissed. In short, the right wing spin machine tries disputing this one they'll just end up in another lawsuit. And these lawsuits are in the billion dollar range so it's not exactly something media outlets are game to ignore.

[Dave_LF]

It’s not an accident. The whole Putin/Republican strategy is to keep people arguing about stupid little things so they don’t notice the big ones.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like if the Secret Service hadn't stopped President Trump from traveling to the Capitol.

If he were right there with the mob trying to storm the building, would there have been a battle between the Capitol Police and the Secret Service?

It would have been interesting, that's for sure!

Maybe once the Secret Service saw in person how bad it was, they would, if necessary, have tackled Trump and handcuffed him to make sure he stayed in the car!

So you're apparently unimpressed with the fact that the people who were actually there said this didn't happen? When will the panel be hearing their testimony?

Of course, that testimony wouldn't matter. This story will now become part of the anti-Trump legendarium, and no amount of truth would be enough to dislodge it.

No one has contested that Trump demanded to be brought to the Capital and that the Secret Service refused and brought him back to the White House instead. The only part that has been contested is that Trump grabbed the steering wheel and assaulted Engel.

Yes, that's the part (the assault) that will become legend -- see Sunsilver's comment above. A man out of control, needing to be handcuffed.

I asked what would have happened if "the Secret Service hadn't stopped President Trump from traveling to the Capitol."

That the Secret Service prevented Trump from going to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 appears to be undisputed.

The further details in Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony concerning that action, while colorful, aren't legally relevant. And I said so in my very first post about that subject, before there were any anonymous disputes about its accuracy: I pointed out that Trump's reported movements in the Beast were even less physical than that of the man who recently "attacked" Rudy Giuliani, and that fellow has only been charged with a misdemeanor (and even that charge is widely thought to be excessive). Trump is not reported to have touched anyone, so even if the story is true -- and no one has testified otherwise -- his alleged physical actions in the car are not criminal (but I stand by my statement that such actions would further demonstrate Trump's sociopathy). And again, Hutchinson testified under oath not about what happened in The Beast but about what she says sometime-Secret Service agent and then-Presidential advisor Tony Ornato told her in his office with, she says, Bobby Engel sitting there not disputing Ornato's description. My understanding is that Ornato has not testified.* I am strongly inclined to believe that Hutchinson's testimony is truthful, i.e., she's accurately recounting Ornato's story. Maybe Ornato exaggerated these details when he told the story.

But when I asked my question above, I wasn't thinking of Hutchinson's testimony about Ornato's story at all! I was thinking of this:

Trump's Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Shooting Someone on Fifth Avenue (Oct. 23, 2019)

By the logic that Trump's attorneys made during that hearing before the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals -- although this specific question wasn't addressed directly in that hearing -- not only could Trump not be prosecuted for killing someone, but law enforcement couldn't even prevent him from killing someone if he chose to do so. (Judge Denny Chin: "Nothing could be done? That's your position?" -- Trump attorney William Consovoy: "That is correct, that is correct.") It's essentially the same argument that Nixon made made years ago: "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

So if Trump were leading a mob against the Capitol, as he apparently wanted to do, the Capitol Police, as per Trump's own legal position, wouldn't have been allowed to hold them back, because doing so would impede the President. And if the Capitol Police did determine it was necessary, for example, to use pepper spray against that crowd in order to defend the Capitol -- as they did on January 6th -- would Trump have ordered the Secret Service to start firing on the Capitol Police?

- - - - - - - - - -
*Edit: After I posted this, Politico reported that Ornato has in fact testified twice to the Committee, in January and March, but it's not clear whether this incident came up in that questioning. I think it did not, because an unnamed Secret Service spokesman told Politico that "I spoke to Mr. Ornato and we will share our firsthand account with the Committee under oath and on the record." I don't understand why the spokesman isn't named or who "our" refers to, but in any case, the implication is that Ornato hasn't said anything about this alleged incident under oath yet. Maybe he should get a new lawyer like Cassidy Hutchinson did.

[Frelga]

Screenshot_20220630-142844.png (827.48 KiB) Viewed 1508 times

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This video is very interesting, talking about how Hutchinson's testimony came to happen. It is well worth the couple of minutes that it takes to watch it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 08cadb4bc1

[N.E. Brigand]

The article linked to in that tweet is worth reading.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/06/28/c ... was-armed/

Of particular note is the fact that Hutchinson recently replaced her attorney. I remember hearing about that a little while ago and thinking it might be significant.

It was!

Here's a valuable clip about how Hutchinson came to switch lawyers after she had already testified to the Committee. A key point here is that "Trumpworld was assigning lawyers to a lot of these staffers ... covering the costs of lawyers for people who don't have big legal defense funds". And at the end it's noted that one of the text messages that the Committee displayed, using mobster-like innuendo to encourage a witness not to cooperate, was sent to Hutchinson herself after she switched lawyers.



It seems pretty clear that, as also happened in the Russia investigation, the Trump team is not only using lawyers to obstruct justice. Hutchinson had to change lawyers in order to put the truth before the Committee.

Edit: I think this is cross-posted with V, although I haven't looked at his video link yet. (Edit the second: It is, although V's clip is slightly longer.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Speaking of the Russia investigation, Trump's former attorney Ty Cobb, who defended Trump in that investigation, says that in the January 6th investigation, "there are many damning facts” and adds if what Trump did "isn’t insurrection, I don’t know what is." And yet! Cobb fears that charging Trump would be "one more step in the erosion of our institutions. I am not convinced prosecuting Trump is in the best interests of the country in the long term."

I strongly disagree with Cobb. It's about time we had some top-level accountability.

[N.E. Brigand]

Hmm. The New York Times reports that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony this week "astonished" officials at the Department of Justice. That's troubling. Hutchinson was a top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. A few weeks ago, the Dept. of Justice informed Congress that it decided not to prosecute Mark Meadows for contempt of Congress. How can DOJ have reached that decision without having some sense of the kind of information Meadows was withholding? Maybe they'll reconsider?