If Trump is prosecuted by DOJ, will DOJ's attorneys be able to strike a jury that doesn't have a "sleeper agent" juror, a ringer, who won't convict Trump, regardless of the evidence?
Mostly I agree with what you’re saying then I look at Al Capone, John Gotti, and other mobsters like Trump and they were convicted so I have a tiny glimmer of hope.
Prof, you were en fuego on Politics Chat yesterday! Did Trump pardon Roger Stone, or just commute his sentence? If it's a commutation, this does not shield him from further prosecution as I understand it.
You are quite correct: The distinction between pardon and commutation are that a pardon is a complete remission of penalty by a sovereign power as authorized by law[iv]. But, a commutation of a sentence is only a substitution of a lesser punishment for a greater punishment. NO OTHER LANGUAGE REGARDING FURTHER PROSECUTION.
Heather, you're always a source of great reporting and insight. Thanks for your unfailing efforts. This is the first edit I've seen from you in over 2 years, and at all hours. I'm beginning to see some light at the end of this tunnel, both from the Democrats managing to orchestrate this production and their ability to put us in the front row as this the plot unfolds.
Lighten up on our United States Attorney General Merrick Garland.
He is fully engaged in the appropriate investigative imperatives that will surly bring all criminal perpetrators to the full consequences of their chosen misdeeds.
His patriotism's love of America will be honored by all who seek justice and restoration of America's Democratic ideals!
Agreed. Also, Garland, and the DOJ generally, are facing a Catch-22, IMO. Even if it's determined that prosecuting a former president is doable, the DOJ will face charges of 'partisanship', 'political bias', etc., due to the fact that a Democrat is in the White House. You needn't be omniscient to know that there would be NO prosecution with a Republican POTUS, so Garland's choices, it seems to me, are to prosecute and devil take the hindmost, or not prosecute and let a seriously dangerous cancer continue to metastasize in the body politic.
If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, I think we'd be in a different place now. I feel that all should be accountable under the Law. I am glad Garland is being cautious and it might be better if a prosecution of tRump, Giuliana and Meadows happens in a few months, closer to the midterms (?)
I absolutely agree about the Nixon pardon. It was a grave error.
I just want the prosecutions to be well done and success ful, and before it is too late! The crimes are on-going, and the longer they simmer the harder to squelch them.
The mid-terms are FOUR MONTHS away. Likelier they will happen before a trial. It’s voting that we have to count on and with DeJoy and his moles still in the USPS, preferably voting in person. Which leads us to how to protect voters, election judges, and voters, particularly in vulnerable districts.
An indictment that comes after Labor Day will give Republicans even more excuse to claim that it’s all politics persecution—us, I know, they will anyway. So an indictment needs to come down right after these hearings conclude (within a couple of weeks, I hope). That is the cost of DOJ’s initial slowness in moving the investigation.
Elie Honig from Cafe wrote a timeline article back in May. His Bio: Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities. Here is his timeline (all below is an exact quote):
This is not another piece on the likelihood that Merrick Garland will eventually indict Donald Trump. The arguments are familiar by now, both ways, and whatever will be will be.
Today, we’re asking this: when?
No matter where you might fall on the “will-he-or-won’t-he?” spectrum, we can all agree that the clock matters, and it’s ticking. Every day that passes makes a potential federal prosecution of Trump less likely to happen, and more fraught for the Justice Department if it does.
It’s now early May – sixteen months since the January 6th attack, and fourteen months since Garland took office. There’s no technical reason DOJ needs to indict anytime soon — the federal crimes in play here typically carry five-year statutes of limitations — but the Department’s pace conveys a lack of urgency that is ill-matched to the gravity of the potential crimes. Put it this way: if Trump did commit a crime relating to the coup attempt, it’s the most serious political crime in our country’s history. Yet the Justice Department is going to wait a year and change (and counting) to do anything about it?
I know, I know: these things take time, and they want their case to be perfect. That’s an easy refrain, but I reject it in these circumstances. During my fourteen years as a prosecutor, I saw law enforcement move with astonishing speed when circumstances demanded it. As attorney general, Garland has the full resources of the Justice Department, including the FBI, at his disposal. If ever a case required urgency, this is it. Yes, as a prosecutor you want your case to be strong and well-supported. But you don’t spend over a year fretting over whether your proof is absolutely flawless, particularly when there’s already ample evidence in plain public view.
Let’s flip ahead on the calendar. Midterm elections are on November 8th. The Justice Department has a longstanding policy against announcing new criminal charges or taking overt investigative steps (such as executing a search warrant) shortly before an election. There’s no formal provision on the books, but AGs of both parties over the past several administrations have issued Department-wide memos reminding prosecutors to abide by this blackout practice, which applies either 60 days or 90 days before an election, depending who you ask. (I always understood the blackout period to be 60 days, but other DOJ alums place the line of demarcation 90 days out.)
Knowing Garland’s tendencies, he’ll err on the side of caution. So counting back 90 days from November 8th puts us in early August. That means either (1) we’ll see a federal indictment of Trump by late summer, or (2) we won’t see one until at least the end of 2022, if ever. (The same applies, by the way, to other pending DOJ investigations with obvious political implications: Matt Gaetz, Hunter Biden, Rudy Giuliani.)
So unless you genuinely expect to see United States v. Donald J. Trump sometime within the next three months or so, then we’re talking about DOJ allowing nearly two years to pass between commission of a crime that threatened our democracy, and criminal consequences. That’s tough to envision and, if a charge does happen, the delay will be difficult for Garland to justify.
Of course, the political world will change after midterms. History tells us the Democrats are virtually certain to lose control of the House, and potentially the Senate too. In six of the past seven midterms following election of a new president, that president’s party has gotten crushed in the House (the lone exception being 2002, when George W. Bush was still riding a post-9/11 wave of popularity). Senate results also have been grim for new presidents, though not as drastic. Given Democrats’ current razor-thin margins in the House and Senate, and President Biden’s low approval ratings, they’ll likely lose one or both houses of Congress.
A Republican-controlled Congress can make life miserable for DOJ. Don’t get me wrong: Congress should remain entirely hands-off when it comes to the Justice Department’s prosecutorial function. But do you trust a newly-empowered Republican House majority, led by Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert and Lauren Boebert, to do the right thing here?
A new Congress might call hearings and demand answers from DOJ officials about the investigation and its underpinnings. The Justice Department would be right to resist and potentially even refuse, but it’ll be an ugly sideshow. Congress could tinker with DOJ’s funding, or threaten to do so, as a retributive measure. Do you put it past the current slate of prominent House Republicans? Or, at an extreme, a Republican-controlled House could bring impeachment proceedings. Think that’s a bit much? Well, Axios recently reported that “The largest body of conservative House members — the Republican Study Committee, which represents more than 150 members — is laying the groundwork to push for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.” They could just as easily turn their sights on Garland, if sufficient political motivation arose. Again: do you trust McCarthy and company to show restraint with their newfound power?
Further complicating matters, once the 2022 midterms end, the 2024 presidential election cycle begins. Trump might announce his candidacy immediately and, even if he doesn’t, he will be the prohibitive Republican frontrunner unless and until he formally declares that he’s out. So now, consider this: can you really see Merrick Garland authorizing the first-ever indictment of a former president, who also happens to be the active presidential nominee, or presumptive nominee, of the opposing political party? And can you see that happening two years (or more) after the events at issue, just as the next election hits the political radar?
It’s possible, sure. But a post-midterm indictment would lend ammunition to the inevitable cries by Trump and his allies that any prosecution is a politically-driven witch hunt. It’s already tough enough, politically, to indict a former president. It’s even more fraught to take down the other party’s presumptive nominee after the new election season has begun.
Finally, let’s consider this reality: if Garland does charge Trump, there’s going to be an actual case to prosecute. Trump will surely seek to have it dismissed based on selective prosecution (meaning he was singled out for political reasons) or some version of presidential immunity doctrine. Those arguments are questionable, legally, but Trump will duke them out in the federal courts, and that’ll take time. And if Trump loses those arguments, we’re going to have an actual trial, folks. When exactly is U.S. v. Trump supposed to be tried? In late 2023 or early 2024, with elections right around the corner? It’s tough to imagine that the politics-averse Garland would sign on to that.
The debate surely will rage on about whether Garland has meaningfully and pragmatically set his sights on Trump. Someday, we’ll find out. No matter what happens, the delay in reaching a resolution is counterproductive and inexcusable.
I have to think DOJ has already been examining the committee’s work. They were on Jeffrey Clark when he was the topic du jour, and shortly after that got hands on Eastman’s phone. Are there rules prohibiting them from consulting with J6 on work in progress?
Garland should look then to Hutchinson’s example. She has done the (belated) right thing under great pressure to stay “loyal”. Her decision to “do the right thing and show up under oath and state the truth” is the road-map. Gop does not want justice. Ford took the easy way out and allowed Nixon to go unpunished setting up the downward slide of “justice for all”. Garland has enough leads to make the case. I don’t mind if he works to make it air-tight, but for America’s Sake, show us “Justice for All”! Otherwise, we have to accept that POWER is the only game. And the gop are saying to us “bend over”.
I was in my 20's in the Watergate days. At that time, there was pretty much unanimity that it was better for our politically torn country to just let Tricky Dick slither on home; beat his poor wife Pat with ever greater frequency (the whole thing was her fault, after all); and die disrespected and forgotten. He didn't try to stage a violent coup anything like the Orange Sadist's nearly successful attempt. Then again, he WAS responsible for the deaths of 2,000,000 Vietnamese people and 58,000 US troops. But of course, that was war so it doesn't count. (Sarcasm)
I'm tired and a little outraged at media and public figures warning of future complaints by Republicans, of political bias in any attempts by law enforcement officials to hold Traitor Trump and his minions accountable under our currently beleaguered rule of law. The idea that the criminal, anti-democracy, fascist Republican party and any of its followers might say a DOJ prosecution of Trump or any of his henchmen is partisan or biased is irrelevant. And if it were not such a serious matter, it would also be laughable. They are traitors! Many, many of them are criminals! They lie as easily as they breathe. They have no shame, no morality and no concern for the preservation of our United States of America. Their word or their opinion is less than worthless. They will criticize any and all attempts to hold them accountable. And if the news media reports their criticisms, it is shoddy, irresponsible journalism not to include in that report what the Republican party or in some instances, what that politician or henchman, did to contribute to the attempted overturning of our presidential election and/or our democracy. We've seen what Republican opinions do to our country and we've had MORE than enough of that poison.
I share your frustration with the possibility of GOP blowback from a Trump prosecution, but I would say this: if Trump is not held accountable for this undeniably treasonous act, our democracy is toast. This, any potential negative consequences of prosecution are of little to no concern.
I may not have been clear enough, Frank. I'm not concerned about Republicans complaining about a Trump prosecution. That's a given. These days they live to complain and rage. I'm annoyed with the media and non-Republican figures who don't like Trump, but who keep warning about Republicans accusing prosecutors of political bias. Who cares? What Attorney General is going to forgo prosecuting a former president who plotted to overthrow our government and who has committed more federal crimes than most mob bosses, just because it will upset that former president's followers? We all know if our rule of law is not upheld, we will have no democracy. So the media needs to stop wringing it's hands about whether it's okay to prosecute a criminal repeat offender like Trump. We have no choice if we want to protect America from future criminals trying to destroy our country.
Thank you for the clarification. I did misinterpret your post. I agree: credible media, in an attempt to appear non-partisan and balanced, have failed in their duty to report the facts, and the fact is that Trump committed unpardonable (word carefully chosen) acts that must be prosecuted. We're on the same page.
Optics! The so-called security decision makers were worried about the optics if more security personnel were at the Capitol! Optics, what trump has done is criminal and partisan concerns or optics are in the words of the flunky Bill Barr, our b.s.
This is the conversation I had last week with my good friend who used to live in DC and protest at the Capitol on a regular basis (she was one of the first AIDS protesters in DC in the early 80's). After the debacle of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs appearing with the President and the clearing of the mall by the police during a George Floyd murder protests where TFG made his "Bible Photo-Op" there had to be conversation among the several agencies about "managing the optics". I can certainly understand the premise of that, but in the face of what had to be considerable intel from various agencies about the plans of the insurrection, the utter lack of adequate law enforcement presence and apparent command and control failure is incomprehensible, at least to me.
Yes, the picture is coming into greater and greater focus, isn't it?
Lots of intentionality it seems. So very, very disturbing. People DID die and I am sure that Pence and Pelosi would have been seriously hurt if not killed that day. Hate to think that but nothing is out of realm of possibilty at this point. I hope they gave Cassidy some protection but not sure who is trustworthy anymore.
If optics were the main concern, I don’t understand why the DC National Guard couldn’t have been deployed inside the Capitol building, out of sight from the outside. Since the Capitol was closed to the public, it wouldn’t have been obvious, but they would have been readily available to reinforce the Capitol police. Of course, Jim Jordan, MTG, et al would have been aware of their presence and notified the White House gang. Then there was the unconscionable delay in mobilizing the Guard after the assault began. So it seems like the bottom line is that the people in charge wanted the assault to succeed.
Click on the picture to get an enlarged view of the Ellipse and surrounding land. I can't get an answer to whether the folks hanging out in the trees were on Federal land, but I suspect so. Being Federal land would mean it's the jurisdiction of the Park Service, which would mean the feds were in control of what authority would intervene to de-weaponize those in that space beyond the Ellipse. This would mean, like at the Capitol, local police would not have jurisdiction to intervene. Nor did the DC National Guard have authority to intervene.
From my DC friend, Capitol, Metro, and Park police have concurrent jurisdictions and frequently offer mutual aid to one another. Other Federal agencies (FBI, DHS, ATF, Treasury all have a police function response protocol.
She disagrees that this was a command and control failure, but perhaps simply a badly managed one. I completely disagree.
Agree Ally, why wasn't there more preparation as there were plenty of warnings that she testified to yesterday before the 6th from agencies who would know. It made me think that the lack was deliberate.
We're at a stage that if DOJ chose not to prosecute, that would be a political decision — driven by fear of MAGA's reaction. Garland, in the face so much evidence of a Trump-orchestrated coup, is duty bound to seek charges. And it's clear that he is.
There will be fallout, even violence. But that's a small price to pay for preserving the rule of law. Holding the insurrectionists accountable is essential to preventing or at least stalling future assaults.
I agree with all that you said except for "that's a small price to pay" about violence. It's a price, a large price but I think of our men and women who go to war courageously!
I feel very strongly that if Trump is not prosecuted, our democracy is toast. Thus, any potential negative consequences of a prosecution are of little concern.
Worst thing that can happen is an indictment and trial of the defeated former president for his seditious acts, after which he is acquitted. It will be just another lost cause like the Mueller investigation or the two House impeachments. The AG knows the bar is set much higher for evidence in a courtroom than in a Congressional hearing room or in the 'court of public opinion.' The DOJ is waiting for those who had direct contact, one on one, with the likely defendant to 'flip.' The increasing threat of their own imprisonment might cause such witnesses to do exactly that, as Chairman Thompson requests at the close of each Committee session.
The threat of federal criminal charges will surely persuade some with key information to flip to avoid prison. Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, and John Eastman appear to be likely high-level candidates.
Others who likely haven't broken any laws but have refused to testify to the J6 Committee will be forced to appear before federal grand juries and reveal inside information. Pat Cipollone is a sure bet.
Agree, Jack..."waiting for those who had direct contact." I am hopeful that what Heather and others have seen/heard from Ms. Hutchinson will be enough, but I was concerned about the hearsay statements not being the evidence that Garland/DOJ needs.
George, I totally agree with you. If the Attorney General does not have every i dotted and t crossed, Trump’s army of well paid lawyers will begin to pull threads and in the minds of some, the entire prosecution will unravel.There is no room for even the smallest misstatement or misstep.
Trump’s attorneys will attack every piece of evidence, that’s true. But Trump does not pay his attorneys and he gets what he pays for. Remember the obscure personal injury lawyer who defended the second impeachment trial in the senate? I just had to point this out!
The problem with the Justice Department is that they don't attract the brightest and best. How many of Bush's Liberty University hires are still there?
They need to be super careful because a loss would be humiliating.
His DOJ does not leak and there is a reason for that. They don't want to alert those that they may strike next. Also prosecutors like air tight cases, so that greasy types like death star and some of his minions cannot slither out of things.
Garland seems to be a measured, thoughtful person, who thoughts and deeds are well reasoned and appropriate. In my opinion he will do a job that reflects those qualities. I feel very pleased that he is at the helm.
Repent, apologize, and see the error of your ways, Magats and right wing Christians! If, following yesterday’s hearing, any doubters remain, the only solution for them is for lightning to strike. They should have already been hit by radical atonement — metanoia, in Greek! A very young woman has revealed the face and spirit of honor, morality, and love of a democratic nation above all else.
At my assisted living dining hall, the four women at the next table bragged that they couldn’t be bothered to watch. Foxers all I’m sure. Wonder what Tucker blathered about last night. Will Rupert ever feel the heat? He could be burning in hell and feel right at home, I’ll wager….
This is what they are getting. It’s time to save one’s ass. As in, the rats are not scurrying, they are jumping ship knowing the cold sea is a better option than the hell on board the ship.
Rupert is one of the architects and the original megaphone of this debacle, beginning in the 90s. He wasn’t allowed to openly lie in the UK or Australia so he set up shop in the US. His entire brazen operation was conducted in plain sight. And we continue to allow it.
If they watched and had any sense of decency, they could no longer hang on to their thinking that death star is great and isn't as he has been portrayed in these hearings....vulgar, immature, traitorous.
Brett Bair was abruptly stopped after stating “compelling testimony”, noting trump’s immediate response as …Ms. Hutchinson was under oath, the former President is not……
I’m curious now. I’m still surprised that they showed the hearing. They are $$-driven…and DeSantis could entertain their demographics. Good thought, Kathy.
That they have corrupted what Christ taught appears, to me, to be both obvious and completely in line with what Christians have done throughout the centuries. I understand the danger of painting everyone with the same brush, but Christianity has also cast me, and people like me, out for simply being different.
I appreciate your sentiment, as I know some fine, upstanding people who really do good works and are open and affirming, but others who will love me but hate my "sin"; Christianity does not get a free pass from me.
I believe that the problem arises when some so called Christians use a corrupted version of Christianity (but we could use any other misguided religion) to support their politics. It is no less dangerous now than it was two thousand years ago. I have a segment of my family who has disowned me because I don’t support their Fundamentalist religion (especially the Rapture). One member of that group is extremely sick with Covid and hospitalized. I have cousins who were the joy of my childhood who have gone astray having been radicalized by their church and their church’s support of Donald Trump. It is both sad and frightening at the same time.
I totally get that and do not blame you at all. It is my personal choice to stay and resist. Fortunately, my church community is small and so far is not tainted .
Nor from me. I know too much of the history. When religion is in service of the state, corrupt power hungry individuals, the envious, the hateful, we have seen what has and is still happening.
Rs are calling it hearsay even though the witness was present at some of what she described and obviously was someone all the people in the hallway talked to and trusted. I noticed that she often called them by their first names. Last night on NBC news there was a mention that the driver of the limo and someone else are saying that death star didn't lunge at anyone. While bleating in public, some of these people have to be worried.
This is precisely the problem with faith it doesn’t require evidence. The best we can hope for is Republicans like Cassidy Hutchinson and enough independents To keep our country together because I do believe Trump will be prosecuted, assuming somehow he can’t pardon himself or I mean didn’t pardon himself, and there will surely be a great upheaval in this country not so different from a second civil war in some respects.
I think it worth noting that the Jan 6 committee referred Meadows to the DOJ for contempt of Congress. The DOJ did not act on that as it did with Bannon. Could it be that they were already building a bigger case against Meadows and the contempt issue would have been just a nuisance? I find it hard to believe that what was revealed yesterday is completely "new news" to Garland. Just my hopeful speculation, of course.
At any rate, hats off to a 25 year old "executive assistant" who was disgusted and angry enough to summon the courage to testify. Imagine the pressure she felt. She did so well. Imagine the fear she will feel for years to come.
And "ketchup on the wall" will become the stuff of legend and perhaps a SNL skit. Ford's tripping, Biden's bike accident, and TFG throwing plates.
Perhaps if it could be proven that it was, Pennsylvanians would wake up to their responsibilities to vote blue. There are some really demented members of the legislature.
Exactly! I keep hearing that Putin is ill (in addition to mentally.) If these two narcissistic, pathological excuses for world leaders go down, I will believe in divine justice after all. Just imagine the "New World Order!"
I just had a friend comment that "my" side (in this case, BLM protesters) "burned whole cities" while his MAGAt side "only had one tiny violent riot" on January 6.
They did not burn whole cites ever and that is hyperbole. That being said, I wish the fools in Portland would stop using every protest as a reason for vandalism. I also noticed that one of the people tossing Molotov cocktails in Portland in the protests around George Floyd and burning things has been sentenced to prison.
The anarchist movement thrives on that kind of “protest”.
We had an event in Eugene after the Dobbs decision came out; I only know the snippets I’ve read, but EPD had a massive tactical response to “menacing” protesters; I’ve seen daytime videos of non-violent protests. I think there is something very fishy that surrounds this event. I’ll try and find links.
Not equating. For sure. Just images that tend to last. But the first two are mishaps that are attacked as weaknesses. The last IS a weakness...of character.
But when President Biden’s bike “accident” is described, I think of how the press never mentioned FDR’s crutches. Compare the rider’s condition to the general overweight of his critics. How many 70+ riders of bicycles are there in America?
I am 77 and still cycle regularly. I can not count the number of times I have fallen/crashed - often when catching feet in pedals when dismounting. 🚴🏽♀️💥🥴
Bravi to all us ancients who are still exercising regularly. We are an endangered species. Our country needs us as examples for the younger sedentary. Add to that, we have lived some useful history.
Memes appeared about ketchup within the hour and lots of jokes about ketchup on threads. Also I think they are building a larger case against Meadows and do not want a contempt charge to get in the way.
For me, the news is that Merrick Garland and his DOJ no longer seem to be comatose and MIA. The seizure of John Eastman’s electronic devices is big news.
The publicly known evidence of this Jan. 6 criminal conspiracy around Trump is becoming a flood. (Lord knows how much evidence is still under wraps)
The question is no longer, “Was there a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy in the West Wing and in Congress to block Biden’s victory and retain Dumpster as President,” because that question is answered. All that’s left is for the legal beagles to do their work. The only real question which remains: “Is Merrick Garland’s DOJ going to do its job and indict these jokers.”
This committee is serving up evidence on a plate to the DOJ. That appears to be because the DOJ wasted an eternity in the first year+. Garland and his army of lawyers decided to handle this most singular event in the way Mob cases are worked - by working from the bottom up. This led them through a swamp of hundreds and hundreds of investigations, requiring tens of thousands of hours of sifting and discerning evidence. Only now have they arrived, blinking in the bright light, at the much more serious side of the case.
We know this because Garland piously and patiently explained this to us in a rare public appearance.
We know this because had they opened any investigation into the people at the locus of the plot, a grand jury would have been convened. I don’t disagree that the DOJ would have remained deathly silent throughout, but at least some of the subjects subpoenaed to come in would have been found later on Fox News working the refs by setting up a witch hunt narrative about “Biden’s DOJ”. We would have been Hunter Biden’d to death.
This case should have broken precedent with the holy writ on Mob cases. Two investigations should have been run in tandem - one into the thug idiots and one into the idiots in suits and ties who worshipped at the altar of power.
Had that happened, we could reasonably expected indictments this summer. Look at the mountain of evidence a Committee with *no* prosecutorial power has uncovered in a short time. There is no gain saying it - this DOJ came to the party late, and not fashionably so. Now they are rushing to catch up, begging evidence of the committee. It is a disgrace.
And please - none of the “dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s” defense of the DOJ. One or two more witnesses - Meadows for sure and Cipillone or Pence or Ivanka could put a bow on this case enough to bring it forward.
I wouldn’t place a bet on any size on Trump being convicted. The evidence is incredibly strong, but it still seems to lack a smoking gun - the incontestable evidence that Trump knew he lost. It would come down to the concept of “willful blindness” legally and an army of lawyers would seed enough doubt to convince at least one juror. But a trial, and a second one in Georgia would accomplish two things - it would keep Trump off the ballot in 2024, and more importantly, millions of voters who supported the Trump regime would quit it in disgust. Some would refuse to vote in future elections, but enough would go to the Democratic side to ensure a Republican loss and a subsequent remake of the party in an acceptably legal form. The nightmare would be over.
Exactly right I would say. Fearing looking like a partisan investigation, they may allow these slippery eels a chance to escape. There is much more at risk than the next two elections. Or is it that Garland makes a better judge than a prosecutor?
Exactly. Putin is loving all of this. CINOs and White supremacists lined up behind a puppet who has fostered toxic polarity for six years. Jackpot for Putin. Unless…
… I, too, love Rowshan’s comment, “ A very young woman has revealed the face and spirit of honor, morality, and love of a democratic nation above all else.”
I think of her courage and the courage of the other women who have testified: Ruby Freeman, Shaye Moss and the young Capitol Hill police officer, Caroline Edwards. These women are working to save democracy from the likes of TFG and Co. Women, especially Black women, have saved our butts by speaking truth to power. Getting the vote out. They deserve tremendous gratitude. This young lady? I hope she sees the terror of her ways in having hung in a den of delusional terrorists.
I’ve said it for years: Putin and Trump likely have adjoining underground bunkers near the Baltic Sea. We better grab DJT while we can.
I can see fireworks over the hill from my house. A parent from Landmark College must have a pyrotechnic business— the exhorbitant display is stunning for our little, rural village.
This weekend may have many of us in deep pondering about our history and where we are in this current Constitutional Crisis and the steps each of us needs to commit to taking. My friend and I are meeting tonight to create a blueprint for writing letters to editors, online, social media (she does it, I am not adept) and elected officials. I encourage everyone to take a little breather this holiday and get ready for two years of intense work to save this democracy which is being celebrated this weekend. Let's KEEP IT and MAKE IT STRONGER! Each of us is a little drop of water flowing into stream and then the ocean. We area THE WAVE. Correction, let's make it A TSUNAMI!
Do you know Greg Olear's substack? A few weeks ago he speculated that Trump has long been a special kind of informant....I forget the exact title....who has been given immunity. Trump's run with bad apples all his life. People around him, like Epstein, Manafort, et all have fallen, but not him. I keep remembering his statement, "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue..." (and get away with it.) It's not that he's noble by any means, it's that he had a choice to save his ass by pointing out the big criminals. I wonder, I wonder.
Are you thinking of an informant? I never thought of that, I have very definite suspicions of him being an operative with putin and other dictators, with Melania's support and Russian translations. I surmise that Putin is a big faker in that he cannot speak English. As a member of the KGB, I bet he had to know English....he just wants time to think of his responses. Or he is embarrassed that he speaks poorly.
Definitely Putin speaks English. I've thought of his imperious behavior as part of his delusion of Russian supremacy...just as English is the "international" language, he wants all things Russian to prevail. Rachel Maddow was one of the earliest to connect Trump and Putin as criminal oligarchs who have each other's back, and has a book, which of course, I cannot remember now. But if Trump is a protected informant it would also explain how Comey and Mueller could not "catch" Trump despite his clear complicity.
(The type of informant that Greg Olear mentioned is so "deep state" that very few know about it, even people within the same agency.)
Quite an informative and eventful day. Thank you Cassidy for your integrity, and sad to say your bravery. No one should be threatened for telling the truth, but here we are. You stand way above the sniveling men with the brown noses. You give me hope for our democracy.
It sounds like, Karen, that many of us knowing that somehow democracy will prevail, had our moment today. When things all of a sudden come into focus instead of turning in a floating circle with pieces here and there starting to clarify in shape and intent. For me it was when Ms. Hutchinson relayed a piece of convo from a few moments in the tent. Before the rally. When Trump got fidgety and and agitated over the distress of seeing empty ground space, the Ellipse not filled to capacity with MAGAits, the wrong optic about to happen…I stood up like I knew I was about to hear a bulk of bitter truth uttered by the President of the United States that would change everything and knock over the curtain sheltering the wizard of oz and his machinery of clanking, treasonous buffoonery. When he just could not go out to a half empty rally. He just ripped the curtain back…… “I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt ME. Take the effing mags away. Let MY people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.”
Might as well have dropped the mic right there, Cassidy. I’m not even sure if she realized the magnitude of that ear and eyewitness account. I’d like to think that it is actually is one thing she heard that pushed her to witness it to all of us.
This was the plan of a seditious king and his handlers. To get his loyal peasants and minions to rise up against an establishment daring to “cancel” him. To riot, plunder, burn, maim, and kill.
I still cannot believe my ears.
As far as I am concerned, the emperor is naked. Disgusting I know. His orcs cannot get clothes to him fast enough now. This is a horrible truth for all of us to absorb. And to watch pitiful tattered attempts now to cover up the cover up. To realize the real intent of the timing now of the Clarence Clown Thomas majority. To see all the pieces coalesce into one still portrait of treason.
All because of a young woman willing to report what she heard and saw. When the king could not bear to perform to a half empty venue. This is how it started at his inauguration when he exaggerated the size of the crowd to see him crowned and at the end of his term that was an insurrection and not a transition. It always was about his insatiable ego. It had nothing to do with being an American President.
Salud to Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney, and Cassidy Hutchinson today. 🗽
Christine, I had the same reaction when he said "They're not here to hurt ME" I immediately went to the inauguration crowd that he claimed was "huge". And, it makes me puke that he didn't care that men with weapons would be heading to the capitol, following the "grand leader" ready to kill anyone in his way. The other image that makes me sick is the one of Meadows lying on his couch, scrolling through his phone as the insurrection was happening..
Yesterdays hearing was indeed, a barn burner. I just hope the committee can keep up their fine work until the DOJ takes over to indict. Surely there has to be a day of reckoning for these scum. And.....doesn't it figure that it took a young woman to bring the old white men down. Thank you Cassidy Hutchinson. Thank you Benny Thompson and Liz Cheney.
It took a young woman because of the arrogance and stupidity of these white male egocentrics who don’t recognize the intelligence and worth of any of their female underlings. She was a Republican and valued only as a hard worker, not as an equal or one capable of recognizing their machinations. She was within spitballing the Oval Office and in the family tent at the Ellipse, but Trump “didn’t know her.” Meadows had her take notes for him at all occasions and mumbled truths of what was about to happen to her, but gave no thought that she might see what was a crime. She was invisible until she wasn’t.
"She was invisible until she wasn't." So glad this young woman, a Republican woman, a smart capable woman came forward with the unadulterated truth. I just hope she has security 24/7.
No kidding! Smart, pretty, and very astute. She took mental and physical notes and she wasn’t considered a “problem” because her boss, Dump, and others were involved in other things.
You and I have always believed that justice will be served in the name of our democracy that has survived the barrage of treason, shattered place settings, and grifted sensibilities.
And out current Department of Justice will do what is best for our democracy. And we the people, all of us this time, will stare down any effort to cower or belittle us.
When I saw the image of him that they worshipped at the Texas convention, I could only think crazy cult. Foxers have never seen the chump we all saw. The Repub elite yes, the MAGAts, no. Propaganda works, until it doesn’t. Ike knew that.
True, but Rupert never showed the word salad, an ugly picture (took lots of effort I’m sure), just showed him being “presidential” and spouting their prejudices and hate. What’s not to love ????
Hold that thought until we hear about the trump-putin axis. trump never won the popular vote in either election, despite attempted rigging. In my mind, I have always called him "the so-called president."
His campaign mangler, Manafort sold ‘sensitive’ pooling data to Russian intelligence, that identified key districts in swing states. So, a Kremlin baced President.
True. He is Kremlin based in more ways than one. He adores putin and wants to be just like him and pretend he is just as powerful. I am sure he is an operative and Natasha, I mean Melania is hiding in this somehow as a Russian speaker.
I am comfortable in my faith that Garland will be successful in providing low income housing for chump among the other captive audience who so admire him. He will finally be satisfied with the crowd size!
Your last paragraph…yes! Thompson and Cheney compliment each other. Now, on the issue of Ginni T…you think Liz will recuse herself from confronting her friend? Not that Ginni would be caught dead testifying but…
Meadows is a third rate politician who was selected because trump knew he was a lackey who craved attention albeit in the service of a thug and criminal.
Meadows was a eunuch in Congress once the Dems took the majority.
Meadows sold his alleged religious soul to one of the most amoral creatures to exist on this planet!
I think former friend might be closer to accurate. Liz Cheney is in full on Valkyrie mode. No prisoners, and whomever gets between her and Trump is going to taste ashes for decades.
Oh…there are “reasons” and that’s why she won’t speak. But you know, maybe she can remain silent as her tweets, her emails, her texts are brought to light. Her involvement, her money, and her influence may just bring her down, not up.
And many of us saw that escalator descent into wreaking his hell on the world by a reality tv show host fascist wannabe dictator. His narcissistic revenge on the country fully supported by one of our hostile, foreign entities.
My opinion. He's hanging by a thread. If DeSantis inherits the Republican Party in the event of trump being disenfranchised then I hope trump hangs on. DeSantis is terrifying.
For me, Roberts lost control of his court last week. He advised strongly against not overturning Roe at that point in time. Trump’s majority were, shall we say, advised to seize that moment when Trump and company were under attack. Repub playbook. Divert, deflect, divert. divert.
It portends Thomass' obedience to the demands of autocratic old white bigoted elite wealth to muffle the voice of the vigilant press ability to shine the light into the very dark corners of those daily bedeviled with destroying our American democracy.
Isn’t it interesting that Clarence was a the “person” to write the decision on Roe? Now no matter what information the committee brings to light about Ginni’s involvement, the conservatives will always hold him up as a God.
Gail Christine referred to the timing. I am wondering if it the SCOTUS decision was meant to deflect from the January 6 Committee hearings. So then the January 6 Committee fired back with the Hutchinson hearing.
On Twitter and Instagram so many spoke of how her life will now always be in danger. That devastates. That telling the truth in America makes you a target for political assassination.
I truly believe that she has been threatened and harassed already. My thought is that is why the 1/6 committee wanted to have her testify in person, quickly. I bet she will be sent to a safe house. At least, I hope so, as she is a great weapon to have to bring these destructive, horrid people to their knees.
She is Wonder Woman for America. We needed a superhero, and, finally, here she is. 25 years old. Her incredible power might be great nutrition for all the young Americans to get out and VOTE.
I have a feeling that when the corrupt dust is sucked up and vanquished in the Light, she will be on Liz Cheney’s staff. Whether that continues with her as a member of the House of Rep or perhaps in the White House.
Yes. The testimony was excellent. But how does does a person work in such a cesspool. A young intelligent person. SteveScalise!!! Ted Cruz!!! Yes she is telling us what happened but what happened to her to be in that cesspool to make her shape her career there??? I don’t get it.
These people are dishonest mean spirited…..Among the worst America has spawned.
Would love to know if she is still devoted Republican.
Like Pence in recent interview applauding repeal Roe v Wade. Same guy. Just would not break law re counting electoral votes. Now he is cannonized!!!! Low bar for sainthood
My head nearly exploded when Hutchinson made a reference to “all the wonderful things” TFG had done as POTUS. Never have we had a more consistent psychopath in our face 24/7, right from the beginning. How on earth can people give up their own destiny to such evil?
I agree. It is one thing I would love to understand. Who he was …was so OBVIOUS. Not even a veneer of kindness or authentic concern for anything but himself. I jnderstand Germany and Germans in their devotion to Hitler now in a way I never did
Here is what Secretary of State Clinton had to say about Thomas post the Roe v Wade ruling:
"I went to law school with him He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him resentment, grievance, anger. Women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die," Clinton said.
Ah, she should have been POTUS. I saw that she might try running again. Here's a wild thought: What if Liz Cheney and Hilary are their respective parties' nominees for 2024?
I have spent time thinking about how a young, hard-working woman finds herself part of a corrupt movement, spending years maturing in maga world. What's next? Is there a recovery program for these people?
All good points. I've been wondering the same...what was going through her mind while witnessing the antics of the Trump administration during her time in the office of the chief-of-staff. Not sure when exactly she moved to that particular position. Trump burned through 3 previous chiefs-of-staff before Meadows. If she was in that job before Meadows, she had ample exposure to questionable events long before January that would/should have caused her some measure of a crisis of conscience. Did she love the job that much? Did she begin to think that, given her unique access to what was going on, she had an obligation to witness and record?? We will learn all this eventually.
Hate to say but I do not think she was as high minded as you and maybe others, give her credit for.
Opportunistic yes. A JOB! I Maybe a first job. In the WHITE HOUSE! What an" opportunity! "
The things Cassidy saw...just the olde "throw the spaghetti at the wall when you are having a little fit" for example. Did she think that's the way people who are in charge of the nuclear suitcase... they all behave that way? That's just the way powerful men are? They throw their food and have a hissy fit IN FRONT OF WHOMEVER when things get tough or things don't go their way. Did she just go into some kind of denial or what?
She is so young.
But how can I understand the others. AND
The 40 million people who think he is the messiah. so dismaying disheartening Frightening.
Was a comfort to me that Pelosi, even though she knew it was coming, was stunned at the overturn of Roe. That's how I felt.
I noticed this too. Her apparent emotions were incongruent with her testimony and the facial expressions of everyone else in the room. It was a bit creepy. But also that she is in such a powerful position at her age perhaps reflects her training and expertise at constantly maintaining a sunny, soft, demure disposition? Interesting that Meadows needed her in the room always.
Wowzolla!! If the American judicial system can’t imprison the person who defiled the highest office in the land, was impeached twice, conned and grifted all through his tenure, lied and cheated the people, and - the cream on the cupcake - very seriously and obviously encouraged murder of Congress critters ( love that) and tried to upend a democratic ( sort of) election to reinstall his own losing hairy butt, if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless.
"if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless."
I would slightly amend this sentence: "if the DOJ can't throw him in irons, the system works as designed by the people who designed the system".
Black folks will still be arrested, shot, imprisoned for 30 years for smoking weed, or stealing a loaf of bread from the 7-11, etc.
The "system's" laws were written by white men and fully support white men.
That system has enabled white crime for centuries right here in America.
If Trump gets "off" now, it will be just one more instance of a white man being enabled to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants as long as he has enough money to pay lawyers to spin the system for him.
No one is safe but the very wealthy if the Federal Society's plan to reconfigure America marches on. You cannot socially engineer society and get the desired results you wanted. There will be mayhem, blood and utter chaos.
The Federalist Society is not really trying to reconfigure America.
Rather, the Federalist Society is successfully, so far, attempting to preserve an American system that has long supported wealthy white men doing whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.
It SEEMS like reconfiguration because since 1970 or so America has attempted to shed the sins of its past.
But, That is a fairly short duration in American history and the Federalist Society seeks to return to pre-1970 America.
Mike, tremendous read...She even makes reference to the wholesale slaughter of Black Americans in a small East Texas town which I've since learned was Slocum back in the 1920's. I never ever heard of this until I researched the reference Wilkerson made.
Install their own version of sharia law! Separation of Church and state is now an illusion! Only the second amendment is sacred to these desperate creatures!
Thank you for responding. You make very good points. I was born in in 1960, just old enough to remember separate water fountains, so it does feel like they're trying to reconfigure society to me.
They are definitely trying to socially engineer society though. But that's not exactly new either.
"if the DOJ can't throw him in irons, the system works as designed by the people who designed the system"
Hey, Mike. This sentence of yours reflects my thoughts exactly but somehow couldn't express it as you have done. What this country needs is a new and improved system!
While I do admire Hutchinson’s courage in testifying, I am so angry that not one of these people came forward at the time or in the immediate aftermath, especially during the second impeachment. These are not heroes. What other stories will trickle out about TFG’s instability while in office? The nuclear codes were in the hands of a childish psychopath, and that is terrifying.
It is so easy to be brave from our home with anonymity writing our thoughts and feelings. Hutchinson is courageous to come forward now. I totally understand their fear for their life and their family of coming forward. She is a brave young woman and a heroine.
But, then? She was part of the plan and part of the problem.
She is coming forward now because she knows that the DOJ will start prosecutions with the low hanging staff who have no power and no status. Her in other words.
She is getting ahead of what the DOJ was going to do to her if she did NOT come forward.
So, yes, she is a heroine, but, yes, she is attempting to mitigate he own criminal conspiracy guilt.
Mike, here is my take on that: She is more likely an intelligent young woman raised in a conservative atmosphere who started a post-college career path, not questioning closely enough the underpinnings of the people she was working for.
But she was an observant person who paid close attention to what was going on. She was clearly understood and was repelled by the interpersonal dynamics. At that age, in the beginning of a career, but not in a position of authority, it's hard to know what to do- other than what she did do in terms of pointing out the truth to those she worked for. And then being thorough and straight-forward while being interviewed by members of the committee.
As for the timing of her testimony, I think she has been there all along (note the number of different interviews the committee had with her, as shown by location, dress, etc), as the witness who could do exactly what she did: tie the people at the White House together, demonstrate their relationships and behavior, and pull all of that together particularly on the DAY of the insurrection. Before her testimony could do that, we already had to have all the other pieces in mind. It was a brilliant structuring of building a meaningful picture of what happened that day.
As for what was in her mind, Mike S, it takes real arrogance to project something you cannot know into someone else's head. Let's give her what she is due: respect and honor for her commitment to the truth we need.
A a very well written and clear post. Thank you. I think your summary rings true, although, my own hypothesis does have potential validity independent of her age.
However, your writing of your perspective is benchmark.
Thank you, Mike. I appreciate your note. Yes, some people may indeed have the kind of motivations you referred to. But there are two problems: one is that generalizations are built from a broad range of possibilities. So one can look at a suitable large set of individuals and derive a general assumption about that group. However, one cannot apply a generalization to an individual, whether part of the original group or now. That's basic logic. There's also the fact that we are not in the realm of hypothesis here.
I keep having cognitive dissonance when these Republicans are testifying. Yes they are heroes for testifying. No they are no friend to Democracy because of not coming forward during the 4 years of madness.
What is it about humans that crave heroes so much? Weird. Why aren't people asking her that question of "Why not sooner?"
trump people experience a cognitive dissonance with all that power, propaganda and elitism. It is like they become One with the cancer. All cults are like that with a charismatic leader. I have always found him despicable and cannot understand the attraction anyone feels towards him. But then, I have never been very impressed with idol worship...except Paul McCartney when I was 7. Never shook that one.
And who would she have reported to and listened to a 24 year old administrative assistant before Jan 6? Everything is so easy viewed in hindsight from the safety of one’s couch.
Think about the fact there wasn’t a January 6 committee until now. Who was she to go to to tell this story? It needed to be told to a bi-partisan group with enough power to dig out the truth and an audience to listen.
"However this plays out, this needs to be said: For the past half-dozen years, the Republican Party and the American right—with a very few honorable exceptions— stood with Trump, defended him, and attacked his critics. Some went silent in the face of his indecency and lawlessness; many others gleefully promulgated his lies and conspiracy theories. Together they attempted to annihilate truth on his behalf, in his name, for their party, to seize and to hold power.
Some comfort themselves by saying that they went along for the ride so they could promote their policy agenda. Others were afraid to speak up. Still others did it for ratings and money. Some Trump supporters were true believers. Some rationalized their deal with the (figurative) devil; others were more transparent and more cynical.
Every Trump supporter has his story to tell, his defense to offer, his reasons why he did what he did."
My personal view is talk to 12 trump supporters and you will get 12 different reasons why they support/supported him.
Agreed, Susan. Especially when we compare it to my MD rural county. We have strong Democratic voters who are fearful here who will not allow us to put generic Democratic signs in their yards for fear of attack by the gun toting, aggressive, screaming at School Board members about CRT, loud right wing Repubs, even tho we are about evenly split with #s of Dems and Repubs, but we do also have a significant # of Independents who split a bit more conservative. When we compare this to Cassidy, she's a really heroine!
I choose not To confront the yahoos in Maine who drive their big pickups with their guns with Fuck Biden signs. I have been tempted but realize I could putting my life in danger. If it was not for the Jan 6 committee so much would
Not have come to light. Cassidy looked quite tense as she was testifying. It takes courage to do what she did. Hope she gets protection. Also remember the system is much more powerful
Than the individual. It is difficult to break ranks when you are apart of it.
The folks the DOJ have hired, mostly from white schools for kids from means, may just be too similar in background to Trump to really cut him up.
The intensity and disgust required to persevere through a prosecution of Trump is not something that most of the DOJ employees will be able to sustain.
DOJ need to hire some lawyers from Howard University School of Law to prosecute Trump. But, I bet DOJ don't have even one lawyer from that school.
As a former educator, I just have to ask. If “elite” schools produce people like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mike Pompeo, etc. what good are they? It seems to me that these “fine” schools are lacking in the capability to produce “fine” people. These people and others like them are not anyone I would want my children to emulate.
Harvard and Yale have long been bastions of far right echo chambers.
They were also all white Universities until yesterday when they let one black person in and, at the same time, declared that the reason was affirmative action so that they could enrage their far right donors.
In truth, the African Americans they let in have MUCH higher grades and SAT scores than George W. Bush or Jared Kushner or Trump.
KR, have you ever been terrified of someone more powerful than yourself? Someone who would not think twice about destroying you or your family? You didn’t see the testimony of the poll workers? Ms Hutchinson is pretty much a hero in my estimation
I'm with you all the way on that thought KR. I've said this all along. Keeping quiet to protect their careers. Then realizing that was not in their best interest because it would all come out anyway, deciding to "tell it all". Who knows, they could be keeping a lot more from the committee. Didn't she mention Engels? I thought he testified already. I don't remember him mentioning the incident in "the beast". I've been working a lot and behind on viewing the hearings so maybe I missed it?
The other day, Steve Engel (Assistant AG in the WH Office of Legal Counsel) testified.
Yesterday, Bobby Engel, whose position I didn't get, I think was the one who told 45 he wasn't going to be taken to the Capitol. 2 different Engel's, it seems.
Remember, all these witnesses have been tampered with and threatened since the 1/6 rally. ALL of them. They have all testified to these credible death threats. Most of them are still under threat from a man who tried to choke his own bodyguard, and his rabid litter. They dox the witnesses on Faux, they have been destroying lives to supress these testimonies.
Who is them? As long as we continue this them and us and black and white thinking we are perpetuating division. We are critical of people who have the courage to speak out now because they did not do it sooner when they should have according to you.
When you are the privileged class white and a male it must be hard to fully understand what it is like to be not part of that class. Women have not had the privilege white men have. Now with Roe vs Wade we again are subjugated to powerlessness over our body and the white male is untouched. Do you remember what happen at the Kavanaugh hearing? Or Clarence Thomas hearing? Were these brave women honored and supported for coming forward ? Hardly. What has changed ? Nothing. You continue to criticize because she did not testify at the charade of of the impeachment of Trump. I am angry. I am tired of being blamed for not doing it right according to the people in power white men. I admit unfortunately many white women have drunk the koolaid.
Sorry to have offended you. But I stand by my opinion of "them" Senators who voted to acquit 45. I said nothing about the brave women who testified at the SCOTUS hearings, so don't know where you are getting that I "continue to criticize."
I take it you are not a privileged white male, so do fully understand "what it is like to be not part of that class." As a privileged white woman married to a black man (not the status of a Supreme Court justice) for the past 40+ years - being in "the room where it does not happen" - I think I have a perspective on what it is like...
Finally, just FYI, not a fan of Kool-Aid so do not drink it and never have.
A few hours after Hutchinson's testimony had ended, I realized I felt uneasy about it, but could not identify why. It occurred to me that we have a hard time accepting powerful testimony from women--Anita Hill comes to mind, along with others. When a man testifies, we accept at face value (or not) their stated reasons of patriotism, conscience, or even just seeing the handwriting on the wall. But when a woman testifies, we wonder about her relationship with her boss along with all the other questions Nathan noted about political ambition, book deals, etc.
In the end, I am left with two thoughts: First, her description of Trump's mental state confirms what we have known in abstract. The painful detail she provided makes facing our blindness inescapable. That part is truly terrifying on many levels. Yet, men do not seem to have thought to mention it; they didn't really mention Trump in descriptive terms--"agitated" doesn't begin to cover it. It confirms that they were willing to ignore the inhumanity of his actions for the hollow glory of his promises. Second, the only part of her testimony that was hearsay was the incident in the car. I wish she had not mentioned it, because it made her vulnerable to contradiction, and it is already being disputed.
As one of the network commentators mentioned, men are often more forthcoming with female subordinates because they unconsciously do not see them as an equal who might become a threat in the future. The commentator further said they often are not even aware of the women's presence. In my own career I saw that fact many times and on occasion had bosses savvy enough to take advantage of it by sending me to represent them...and to listen. Plus, a quick mind coupled with a pleasant demeanor and an assistant's role would likely have been viewed as a welcome audience in the tension and terror of the Trump White House. In short, I do not doubt her testimony.
The part of her testimony that was hearsay was encouraged by the Committee, and was prefaced at several times by her full acknowledgement that it was hearsay. Testifying about hearsay evidence when encouraged to do so is different than dropping an "I heard this..." bomb. If my memory serves (I was listening to this on the radio while driving so I could neither take notes OR devote 100% of my attention to the testimony) she mentioned that while she wasn't in the vehicle at the time, there were people the committee had subpoenaed that were there.
You bring up a point so obvious that it shames me that it never occurred to me: acceptance at face value of a man's testimony vs. a woman's testimony.
I would not bet the farm that the two MAGA Secret Squirrels in the Beast with the Psycho Fat Man will speak freely or truthfully. They were dedicated to protecting him. Many had drunk his tainted cool-aid.
I do remember early in his tenure that Trump removed the usual White House Security Detail members and replaced them with his own hand-picked people. So, you might be right about that.
I am thinking that the J6 Committee has more evidence or testimony regarding trump's behaviors so the "hearsay" will probably have back-up by those who were in the Beast's car.
Thank you, KEM. I agree with you about your take of the sexism at work, both in how she was perceived by her co-workers, and, sadly, by some of the commenters here who are all too eager to cast judgement. I have been in situations similar to hers, and dismissed because of my gender- until I was proven right. As for the so-called hearsay, the committee specifically asked her to testify about what she'd been told about the incident in the car. Both they and she were clear that she was repeating what she'd been told. I think there will be more on that, probably from the people she mentioned, in later sessions. Cassie Hutchinson's testimony was the thread that tied together the events and people involved at the White House that day, linking them to the insurrection, and this was part of that thread.
Plus, Annie, since this isn't a court of law, I suspect hearsay isn't the no-no it would be otherwise.
As to sexism, it reminds me of a deposition I was covering back in the seventies where a "lady lawyer" was up against a male curmudgeon who hardly held his contempt for her daring to be his equal. While he was questioning her client, this lady lawyer quietly rose from her chair and, after pouring a cup of coffee, walked over to his side of the table and served it to him along with a small tray of cream and sugar where she offered to prepare it to his liking. It absolutely unnerved him so much that he lost his train of thought and had to start over. I had to turn my face away so that no one could see me smirking!
Yep about the status of hearsay, but it does need to be clearly noted in this context, because there are still a lot of people who aren't clear on that. And by making it super-clear ahead of time, it puts the burden back on those who, for whatever reason :-/ would attack her entire testimony based on that alone.
LOVED your story about the "lady lawyer"! Great tactic. She is someone I would love to have known.
The "lady lawyer" story happened in the era of "I am Woman; hear me roar." So men were having their fill of that in those days. What she did was remarkable; obviously, since I can vividly remember it these many years later.
I remain unconvinced of her role, either innocent bystander or active player or somewhere in between. She was a very sober witness, well prepared, poised and clear in her delivery. The comments subsequent to my first contribution have been very insightful. The last West Wing scandal back in the Clinton Era had several players and a bunch of mixed/muddied motives, lying under oath, escape from prosecution in exchange for testimony, other maneuvers typical of scandals and the scandalous behavior that they bring out in the accused. The last word has not been spoken in this one, perhaps not even from Ms. Hutchinson
The report on the Today Show this morning seemed to focus on the fact that some of Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a court of law. But she personally witnessed most of what she described.
That is exactly my concern about the car incident--that the media coverage has latched onto one very brief piece to attempt to discredit her, rather than the first hand witness she bore to other facts.
Yet, that one brief piece was, I believe, essential to the story of how uncontrolled and to a large degree uncontrollable was tfg. There always will be those who seize on that to support their belief that it was made up and that tfg wouldn't have acted like that (how can they even....?) so they can ignore the rest of her remarkable testimony.
Besides, the story about the ketchup dripping down the wall - firsthand knowledge, not hearsay - underlines the likelihood that what she was told by Ornato was true even though he now denies it. There is *nothing* in her testimony to suggest she could possibly have made up such an incredible story out of thin air.
I used to have a good reputation in Hollywood for being able to "make this shit up," but I couldn't make this shit up. If I did a script exactly as she described things, I'd have been laughed out of the room.
As bad, as awful, as you know he is and then this comes along and you know you haven't been able to image 1/1,000 of the reality.
Sadly—tragically, really—I found it all too easy to believe the reality of Ms Hutchinson’s testimony, TC. We had four years to absorb the true nature of this man; actually, we’ve had several decades of vile behavior—if we were paying attention—to acclimate ourselves to this horrific sickness.
The only question now is: what are we going to do about him and his minions?
As astounding as Ms. Hutchinson's testimony was today, it only confirmed for me (in spades) how infantile, petulant and unstable 45 really was. The part of this that blows my mind is the people around him that fully knew what was about to go down and they were FINE with it! Seditious treason across the board.
Exactly. Which makes me wonder TC how people around #45 enabled his behavior for 4+years. Is it his charm? He must be charming like a snake. Watch out or it’ll bite. ❤️🤍💙
Lindsey Graham said that he was afraid of him. I think they were all afraid of him. I suppose that he very quickly became the darling of enough of his mob that they were afraid they would not receive enough votes when they ran again. Power in DC is the most potent aphrodisiac according to a friend whose father in law was in a powerful position in the past.
Listen to the Michael Cohen podcasts or just read up on sociopaths or cult leaders or domestic abusers if you want to understand how they get away with this behavior. Trump is the same monster he has always been.
I once had to testify in court about a woman - a friend - who duped our entire community into believing she was doing great things for a local nonprofit. She fooled the lawyers, the bankers, paid her staff to keep quiet. And when we began to suspect, she announced she was just diagnosed with cancer, throwing us temporarily off the track as we empathized with her (fabricated) illness. What I learned is sociopaths have no concept of right or wrong and an absolute genius for playing any role necessary to achieve their goals. There is no affect, no remorse, because there is no there there.
Hutchinson told us. They tolerated the bad behavior because of all the wonderful things he was doing as POTUS. They got Roe overturned. They’re about to overturn regulations that are marginally keeping earth inhabitable. They want strict immigration laws because they understand the rest of the world is about to starve to death and they want iron clad walls at the borders to keep people out. There is not one hair on these creatures that is the least bit Christ like
He used the same tactics authoritarian/fascists use. Repetitive propaganda messaging (fox, twitter, rallies), divide by sowing hatred, anger and eventually violence. In his campaign, we witnessed his ability to whip of the crowd into an angry frenzy...like a pack of wolves. Hitler is trumps role model. Putin is a bit more devious in his tactics of deception because he is "poisonously" quieter.
Could you have made up the "petulant child" scene! I found the ketchup on the wall episode a perfect depiction of a 5 year old. And that's about the true age of our former president. Stunted emotional growth at age 5.
LOL.......Insult to 5 year olds!!! But, yes, yes.....so stunted emotionally ( read Mary Trump's first book for family of origin reason). Marry sociopathy to power ( and wealth) and you get easily enraged entitlement and the ketchup monster!!
I had that same thought before yesterday. If I were to write this as a script, no one would want to produce it because they would never believe it as plausible.
Trump is a product of the media idiots who gave him a tV show! Our culture ceased to evolve once the reality shows (in name only) became cash cows for the networks!
Awareness of his past, riddled with bankruptcies; suing companies whom he owed money; stiffing employees of earned income and lying whenever it suited him. Lest we not forget that he had absolutely no regard for his marriage vows as evidenced by his cheating on the first wife to woo the second, repeat second to third and finally affairs while third was pregnant!
Religionists may claim ‘g-d hates the sin but loves the sinner!’ However, trump has never admitted that he ‘sinned nor repented’!
Stay tuned … “ And yet no one in the White House either spoke up to warn us before January 6 or testified at Trump’s second impeachment trial, where he was charged with incitement of insurrection and, thanks to Republican senators, acquitted.”
Yes, I’m afraid “his people” are their people, too. But I still wonder if they don’t reek of inner shame at having voted to acquit this monstrosity of a President. History will not look kindly on their folly.
None of them feel remorse or shame. They are too empowered by a system that protects them from punishment for wrongdoing and they are fully aware that the chances that punishment or negative outcomes occur for them are tiny to nonexistent.
Yes, I did say "inner shame," which might not necessarily be reflected in their outer behavior. I'm not ready to concede that 43 members of the Senate totally lack a conscience. But many people do not follow its dictates until they have no other option. That's where I hope we are headed.
I want to see what is as close to reality as I can, real time, so I can make good real time choices. I think the time is coming when I will need to be able to see reality in order to put the effort in to correct that reality to what makes more sense to me. And, to many others.
When Rosen tells us after his J6 testimony he would still vote for TFG, I’m gonna guess, that they are all feeling like they just won the lottery with the overturning of Roe. Little else matters to them. Guns and embryos and the rape of Mother Earth.
Yes! Thank you Judith! It was Bowers not Rosen!! I better go watch the tapes again! Seems they all blend in together at this point. It’s important to be accurate. Thank you!!!
Perhaps not disband it, but many of the legislators and lawyers who have conspiratorially enabled the treasonous crimes attested to the J6 Committee should be disbarred.
“Causes of disbarment may include: a felony involving "moral turpitude," forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney's ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics.”
In CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, 25, Mark Meadows and the DISHONEST Republican TRUMP male political establishment, top down and bottom up, are now learning what it means when an honest female underling has a conscience and the courage to act on it. They hired an honest well brought up refreshingly frank and respectful young woman schooled in the best of the Catholic Church tradition ... of let your conscience be your guide. She will not lie... she will not spin... she surely knows that lies are the currency of today’s GOP. As her face today reveals, she is sad, but she is loyal to the constitution, to her tradition, to herself - and she is an American with old fashioned values. CASSIDY HUTCHINSON was inside the Trump administration in the White House... and she experienced Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel... daily. She came to understand them - on a first name basis... and it is clear that none of them messed with her, personally.
She presented as a well balanced 25 year old with a sharp wit, clear eye, a smile and an honest heart. She may be unique in the Trump White House and in Washington, DC these days .. and her behaviour may inspire an avalanche of similar testimony before this is over.
HONESTY CAN BE CONTAGIOUS... CASSIDY HUTCHINSON will be tested.. but she just may be the fulcrum upon which the rest of her party forms up.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON is unique today: she is an honest Republican in the White House of Trump - and her presence and performance challenge another Catholic, the conflicted presently troubled White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is behaving like a coward... destroying his reputation.
Let’a hope the party of Abraham Lincoln can find leadership in a 25 year old woman with courage... and class.
Sandy, thank you for this and especially the part about Cassidy being schooled in the best of the Catholic tradition. I sincerely hope you are right about that as, in my very Catholic experience, the primacy of conscience teaching is often downplayed in favor of non-critical ( as in thinking) acceptance. So, it fills me with hope to imagine that this young person " got it" and exercised her conscience as so many Catholic women have done in response toHumane Vitae, Pope Paul VI's encyclical banning contraception.! Thank you for seeing this young person`s courage and growing clarity in her life.
Remember that this is a hearing, not a trial. I see several statements of belief here, but testimony needs to stand up to cross examination and corroborating witnesses. Yes, one swears to tell the truth, and yes, we're tempted to take the testimony at face value... AND, none of the other players in the room at the time have testified, other than the DOJ witnesses, and her testimony was not used to corroborate their testimony or vice versa. The committee has elicited a very compelling story, but it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal trial and conviction, with corroborating witnesses, cross examination, more compelling power of subpoena, etc.
Do you think that no one here realizes this? Suggest spending more time before making assumptions. Especially where Sandy is concerned. This is not a discussion about procedures- at least not solely. It is a place for us to try to understand all the factors at work, including our own thoughts. We have thoughts all over the map, and sometimes we disagree, some of us are just getting to where other folks have come from... but we are just trying to work our way through things. Please don't patronize us.
who's patronizing? I'm interested not just in what people do and say, but what are the motivations, influences and constraints associated with what they do and say. The interpersonal dynamics amongst people in pressure-cooker environments is very important to understand how and why they behave the way they do. There are always elements to this kind of story that go unstated, at least initially.
Mark Meadows was a 61 y.o. former congressman, married with 2 children who resigned his congressional seat to become chief of staff to tfPOTUS. Miss Hutchinson was a 23 y.o. highly attractive young woman who had already held positions in the offices of 3(?) congressmen of some power and importance on on Capital Hill. And, he insisted that she be present in every meeting...what kind of a relationship was this? Perhaps entirely platonic...or, charged with a certain kind of energy, made even more potent by the rarified atmosphere of the West Wing. She is someone who could certainly connect the dots, and if not completely aware, was very substantially aware of what was occurring, being able to hear conversations from just outside a door, half open, drafting memos, carrying/delivering documents, arranging meetings, being present in the room for highly confidential interchanges between White House officials, Justice Department officers and employees, "Outside Staff" such as Guliani, and campaign staff. Did she have means to contact congressional members and senators like Pelosi, Cheney, Schumer, Murkowsky? Could she have been a whistle-blower? Did she even covertly attempt to forestall or derail a plot to overthrow the legitimate vote? She certainly had heard and watched Mr. Barr disavow the big Lie and resign his position in December 2020. Is she brave? no doubt, given the testimony of others who have faced down the president, either directly or in public forums. She'll probably have to change her contact information, get a new apartment or leave Washington DC altogether, go underground while the MAGA fringe is still active. Is she a hero, or the example of a patriot? Hard to say, given the circumstance under which her knowledge has come to the public ear, 18 months and a subpoena later. Does she have a book deal? Has she been in contact with the DOJ and does she have an immunity from prosecution agreement with them in return for her testimony? Is she a victim of her motivation to climb rapidly to the pinnacle of Washington political staffers? Does/did she have her own political aspirations? What does that resume look like now? One is tempted to place white and black hats on these individuals according to their conduct vis-a-vis the committee, but my strong suspicion is that its far closer to shades of gray, the only question being how gray. Surely, every single individual somehow connected to tfg's administration, campaign or party was subject to some degree of intimidation by their leader, since that is his core administrative style. But; courage is doing the right thing in spite of your fear. Character is the willingness to call out illegal behavior even knowing what it might do to one's own career prospects. Perhaps it was unclear to WHOM one could report concerns, given that the DOJ's highest officials were engaged in the conversation about the conspiracy. However, even in the absence of law enforcement, there's always the press. I suspect she understood the fact that the VP had been carved out of the herd by late December, or he would have been a part of all of those conversations. Why not quietly keep him apprised of what he was missing? Not only was she in the room for many of those meetings, she knew who was, and who wasn't in the room for essentially all of them. While I appreciate that she was willing to testify in detail, I don't think she has much to be proud of under the circumstances.
Nathan and George, you are both right about aspects of this young woman. She witnessed behaviors and events that she surely knew were alarmingly unhinged and seditious, but also struggled with the disorientation created in the throes of cognitive dissonance around a foreclosed belief system. She has been a member of a cult that gave her a sense of identity, purpose, and importance, but slowly came to realize it was built on self-serving lies, not lofty conservative principles. And she was in it up to her eyeballs. Fortunately, she was a relatively young Believer, unpracticed in the art of deception, and not yet fully captured by the cult’s dogma and rules for behavior. Kudos to her new lawyers and the J6 committee for finding and reprogramming this devastating witness.
YES! Think of it… she was 23 and put in a place of power. Power has corrupted the strongest individuals. This young woman needs to be applauded for coming out with the truth not picked over and dissected. Grown OLD men are hiding behind pardons and pleading the fifth and have millions of PAC money to hire lawyers for them. Let her write any book she wants. She was TWENTY THREE and most likely will need to go into the witness protection program. Life as she knew it, life as she planned it is very likely over for her.
Your assessment is probably more accurate than mine. Perhaps it's the nature of the beast when you take precocious young persons and place them in proximity to power. There's a level of maturity that only occurs with age and experience, once one figures out that every one of those admirable and influential people put their pants on in exactly the same manner as oneself.
I recall how I felt when I learned that a respected academic mentor had an affair with one of my professional school classmates. I was devastated, had to reckon with the dissonance between professional expertise and personal integrity. I don't question this young woman's courage to testify in front of congressional representatives, TV cameras and the public. There's a lot we don't know about her as an individual, except that she was extraordinarily close to the action. She can't be simply given a pass on the "why" of her own conduct while witnessing this sequence of events. She was in that position approximately 6 months before the election itself, so she had some time to observe and understand the interpersonal dynamics between those individuals.
"Member of a cult" is a telling phrase, when considering all the forces that Nathan listed in his comment, and the inherent sexual aspects of the power plays.
Just from watching Ms. Hutchinson live and on video, here's what I suspect about her relationship with her boss Mr. Meadows: he had her in every meeting because he was utterly dependent on her. She served as his eyes, ears, and brain. (I doubt there was House of Cards-style hanky-panky involved.)
And it's a good thing she was there, because yesterday she served as the nation's eyes, ears, and brain. Hopefully she ended her MAGA-land career yesterday, but just as hopefully she doesn't leave public service altogether.
It's not surprising that Meadows would have been, as you said, "utterly dependent on her." Most leaders rely on staff to take care of the details. And it's often men who delegate these tasks to women, who nevertheless earn far less money.
These are all very insightful comments. But hers was a position which involves a very strong code of professional loyalty and discretion, even when it gets very rough, After breaking that code, she must have been shattered. Betrayal is not in her character. She must have received powerful help in rebuilding her self-respect, confidence, and courage. What she has just done is enormous.
That powerful help undoubtedly includes Liz Cheney along with Olivia Troye and other women she worked with in Congress and the WH who left the administration when they couldn't swallow the bs anymore.
Twenty-Five-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson was an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. She was right in the maelstrom of America’s democratic form of governance.
What were you doing at 25, Eh!?
Her only source of support had been the slime of deception, greed and republican chauvinism. Totally untrustworthy. Totally threatening. Totally evil.
She finally found the support to fend off the corruption in her newly appointed attorney Jody Hunt, With his help she found the support to come forward against a deadly power that would terrify every commentator to this News Letter!
She is truly The American hero that helped finally tighten the noose around that blubber-butt monster worshipped by every republican as their ticket to a free ride and big pay day!
Stop your petty Tucker Carlson method of innuendo attacks upon her patriotism, Please.
really?...when she testified that she still had difficulty reconciling her emotions over the 2:15 tweet from tfg about his VP's "lack of courage"? 18 months later she can say she was disgusted, disappointed, saddened and she still is ambivalent about her feelings? What was I doing at age 25? studying pharmacology, pathophysiology, pathology, micropathology and a number of other topics one encounters while preparing to become a physician.
This young woman was an observer to extraordinary events, apparently didn't see herself as having any personal agency in the evolving story, rather was just a messenger, an assistant to those who really mattered. One learns in life that you can't fly close to the sun without getting burned. I stand by my questions. I haven't heard anything about when she chose to leave the White House, whether on that day or any subsequent day until Biden and company moved in.
If you’ve ever been in a cult, knowingly or unknowingly, it’s easier to understand her. The shock of disbelief can be paralyzing and takes awhile to reorient oneself to the new reality. At least she got out of that swamp, has some good support, and is able to contribute this important information at the perfect time. If she had tried to reveal it around the time of January 6th, she would most likely have been squashed.
Hey Doc....where is the Love...bedside manner seems a bit chilly from here...I do admire your matriculation and medical service to your community...Bravo sir!
I'm old enough to be her grandfather; part of me is tempted to view her as a victim, but the legal age of majority is 18, except for alcohol consumption in public at age 21. In a court of law, youth and naïvety might get you a reduced sentence, but it won't change whether your actions are one on side or another of the law. And, in the court of public opinion, the verdict can go either way depending on the degree of your complicity. Look at what 2 decades has done to Monica Lewinsky. Her most famous act was one of commission, and she now has a lifetime to live it down. While she may have been "victimized", she wasn't the victim of a crime. Her conduct was voluntary, socially unacceptable, as was the president's, and both paid a price for that conduct, perhaps more extreme and durable than a legal judgement against either. Infamy is a lifetime sentence. In order to know Ms. Hutchinson's role more fully, we'd need to know quite a bit more about her, including the impression of others who were in position to comment on her conduct over time working for at least 3 powerful male political figures. It pays to be a bit skeptical of first impressions, since things are rarely precisely as they seem at first glance.
I have been thinking that Ms Hutchinson is now in the public eye and about to be examined from every angle like Monica Lewinsky was. I hope she is strong enough to weather the storm.
I too wondered about Cassidy’s time since 1/6/21. What has she been doing? Perhaps the change in her legal advice was necessary to help her navigate this. She was very young when working at the White House, had already worked for powerful politicians, who may have impressed her that loyalty is paramount. Heady stuff for any young person. Perhaps, her testimony will induce others to speak.
I also wonder how many politicians are now concerned about the loyalty of their aides?
I agree with some of your observations, Nathan, but, reminding myself of my own personal insecurities at 25 (let alone at 23!) and the threats to her life that her testimony have surely unleashed (which she must have anticipated), I choose to focus on this young woman’s decision to come forward later-better-than-never, and conclude she is remarkable and brave!
Lots of complicated hypotheses in your note for sure. Who knows about those?
Most often, in real systems, the simpler the hypothesis the more likely it is to fit the data.
So, that said, one hypothesis that fits all the data is:
Ms. Hutchinson has been watching the Jan 06 committee creep ever closer to the truth, becoming ever more worried that her own role, as an active, dedicated member of staff would become known and prosecuted because 1) she is woman 2) she is low on the totem pole.
Ms. Hutchinson simply decided to get out ahead of the DOJ.
Ms. Hutchinson will know that the DOJ will go for the weak staff members first. That means anyone who is not white and male and rich.
She would be the top of the list of the DOJ "easy prey".
My hypothesis is that she has come forward out of a strong desire for self preservation.
She sat before the J6 Committee for four depositions before she testified at the hearing yesterday. She didn’t just “come forward” after watching the prior hearings on tv.
She dismissed her prior counsel who did not favor cooperation with the committee. The current advisor was obviously either proactive or permissive with respect to her testimony, most probably helped her prepare, both in what to say and what not to say. That's not a value statement, just an educated guess. It's a fact that cooperation with the authorities can protect a "small fish" in the pursuit of indictment and prosecution of more influential players. Youth, a subordinate position, potential for coercive behavior on the part of superiors (no interrogation or testimony to that possibility presented...), gender related power differential could all act in favor of the witness. Prisons are far more richly populated with men than women, for some very legitimate reasons, but also because juries just have a harder time attributing the same degree of malevolence to women as to men, who routinely demonstrate more brutal behavior towards others. I don't know the exact timing of her recorded testimony, but certainly a number of months transpired between 1/6 and the time the committee got around to taking her testimony in the first place. She had the opportunity to consider her course of action, find legal counsel and enter into some form of cooperative agreement with the committee. I did not hear whether or not a subpoena was issued for her testimony, either remotely or in the public hearing, but you can absolutely be assured that there was some dialogue before she took the oath to testify. Whether or not her role is of interest to the DOJ is yet another question.
Do you remember being 25? Sure doesn’t seem to be the case. Had she done any of the things you suggested, her effectiveness would have been marginal. As it has unfolded, it’s monumental b
Admittedly, that was a long time ago. I doubt I had the poise or confidence that she displayed under questioning at the hearing. There's a lot we don't know. Others knew her during previous assignments. There were other aides in the West Wing. Undoubtedly they sometimes met for drinks after work. Her character witnesses are out there, apparently haven't spoken up publicly yet.
Has even one sitting Republican member of congress condemned these actions as further detailed today? This must be the litmus test for continued tenure at the ballot box and in our regard for them as loyal or disloyal American citizens. Cowardice and self interest are the current GOP soul.
The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard in affect ensures that the guilt is proven to both political parties so that the charges are bipartisan. This was the case in Watergate where Barry Goldwater said there were just too many crimes proven during the Watergate hearings-Nixon had to resign. Throughout the course of history we are unique in not using charges of treason or insurrection against the vanquished political opponents! The impeachment proceedings had no live witnesses, were essentially a closing argument that revealed few details (compared to Watergate and the current January 6 committee) and didn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essentially now evolving Common law concept is good because treason and insurrection charges have been abused by political opponents for thousands of years, it was common in ancient Rome, the French Revolution, British revolution etc. In conclusion, the committee has yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of specific crimes, but it’s getting closer and there’s a sense that in the end they will meet this heavy burden such that indictment of Trump and his minions will be bipartisan. That the committee is only putting on evidence by Republicans and those who were part of the administration which makes it so much stronger and the committee knows it! This is an incredibly important service and function of this congressional committee! I bet the committee members knew they had to convict Trump & minions beyond a reasonable doubt with testimony under oath before he would be indicted and convicted and that’s what they set out to do. I’ll bet you this was their plan from the beginning! Brilliant!
"The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. "
Bradley, what if Trump were a Black man? Would you be proposing this new approach to charging people for a crime?
Or? Would a black President ALREADY be in jail or dead from execution?
I think what you mean is a White President must be tiptoed around because most of the laws on the books support white crime and to throw a white man in jail you have to get his community behind that?
I think the more appropriate charge would be seditious conspiracy. We certainly already have identified who the co-conspirators are, reinforced by Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony on Tuesday. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
More explosive, damning, credible testimony by another “staunch Republican” of a willful, concerted effort, led by a sitting president, to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
Has anyone heard or read any rebuttal to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter? There seems to be a deafening silence from the people who acquitted the former president twice for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”. We now have evidence that he committed the highest crimes an elected official, who swore an oath to “preserve and defend” the US Constitution, can commit. Included in the list is aiding and abetting the attempted assassination of the Vice President.
Remember when the Republican Party was the party of “personal responsibility”?
I've just checked the French and Italian reactions. The front page of Le Monde is plastered with quotes and takeaways. Corriere della Sera was quieter - the gist is, if what she's said can be proved, his goose is cooked. For instance: she wasn't in the car, how does she know he tried to grab the wheel? Well, she's named the men who were in the car. They can confirm or deny. tfg of course has blasted her on the solemnly-named TRUTH Social as being a liar, a nobody, he hardly knew her, out for revenge because she applied for a job at Mar-a-Lago and was knocked back (an accusation which in itself poses several questions).
I hope Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is protected 24/7! Witness Protection seems an option to consider!
I cannot get my head around these facts and the Republican members of Congress refusing twice to hold #45 accountable. What does it tell us about them? AND MAYBE MORE URGENTLY IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN, ABOUT THEIR VOTE FOR THE THREE SUPER QUESTIONABLE SCOTUS JUDGES APPOINTED BY #45 AND RAILROADED THROUGH THEIR HEARINGS BY THE REPUBLICANS?
I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments cannot be re-examined and possibly voided? The Roe v Wade should be a chilling example of how HIS SCOTUS judges together with the 3 other right wing judges have made the SCOTUS utterly and totally INVALID! If I had a case pending with this outfit, I’d be considering withdrawing it in protest!
"I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments"
Republicans are HAPPY about what Trump did. Republicans are not even slightly interested in Democracy anymore.
Thanks, Mike S. It has felt like he was "placed" according to the 40 year plan they have been cooking up and installing people across this land. Luckily, it has been a train wreck from the campaign to now. A LOT is going to be revealed that hopefully marks all of the rotten apples in this conspiracy against America...both here and with foreign adversaries.
Edit here from "election" to "insurrection" in the paragraph about pardons. Sorry... it's late!
You had to process an avalanche of new information, don't know how you do it.
If Trump is prosecuted by DOJ, will DOJ's attorneys be able to strike a jury that doesn't have a "sleeper agent" juror, a ringer, who won't convict Trump, regardless of the evidence?
Mostly I agree with what you’re saying then I look at Al Capone, John Gotti, and other mobsters like Trump and they were convicted so I have a tiny glimmer of hope.
Not much, but some.
Plus the next Republican president (2024?) would immediately pardon everyone convicted in the “fake” insurrection.
Prof, you were en fuego on Politics Chat yesterday! Did Trump pardon Roger Stone, or just commute his sentence? If it's a commutation, this does not shield him from further prosecution as I understand it.
He commuted sentences on 7 felony crimes.
Yipee! Only commutation!
When? I’m in Switzerland. As that before he left office or are u talking about the original pardon?
Ah. Yes. July 2020 was commuting. Dec. 2020 was pardon.
Well then —Muhaha!
You are quite correct: The distinction between pardon and commutation are that a pardon is a complete remission of penalty by a sovereign power as authorized by law[iv]. But, a commutation of a sentence is only a substitution of a lesser punishment for a greater punishment. NO OTHER LANGUAGE REGARDING FURTHER PROSECUTION.
Today had to feel like drinking from the firehose!! Mind-boggling is putting it mildly.
Please get some rest. PLEASE.
No problem. The speed and accuracy of your work speaks for itself. Your writing is a gift to the ages.
Thank you! So much is happening so fast. It must feel almost impossible to keep up.
Heather, you're always a source of great reporting and insight. Thanks for your unfailing efforts. This is the first edit I've seen from you in over 2 years, and at all hours. I'm beginning to see some light at the end of this tunnel, both from the Democrats managing to orchestrate this production and their ability to put us in the front row as this the plot unfolds.
💕
Your move, Garland.
Hey guys!
Please!
Lighten up on our United States Attorney General Merrick Garland.
He is fully engaged in the appropriate investigative imperatives that will surly bring all criminal perpetrators to the full consequences of their chosen misdeeds.
His patriotism's love of America will be honored by all who seek justice and restoration of America's Democratic ideals!
Agreed. Also, Garland, and the DOJ generally, are facing a Catch-22, IMO. Even if it's determined that prosecuting a former president is doable, the DOJ will face charges of 'partisanship', 'political bias', etc., due to the fact that a Democrat is in the White House. You needn't be omniscient to know that there would be NO prosecution with a Republican POTUS, so Garland's choices, it seems to me, are to prosecute and devil take the hindmost, or not prosecute and let a seriously dangerous cancer continue to metastasize in the body politic.
If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, I think we'd be in a different place now. I feel that all should be accountable under the Law. I am glad Garland is being cautious and it might be better if a prosecution of tRump, Giuliana and Meadows happens in a few months, closer to the midterms (?)
I absolutely agree about the Nixon pardon. It was a grave error.
I just want the prosecutions to be well done and success ful, and before it is too late! The crimes are on-going, and the longer they simmer the harder to squelch them.
How are we defining "prosecution," and where does that fit in with "indict" and "convict"? Which leads me to ask what body does the conviction?
Prosecution means indictment by federal grand juries (already empaneled) and trials in federal courts for those who plead innocent.
The mid-terms are FOUR MONTHS away. Likelier they will happen before a trial. It’s voting that we have to count on and with DeJoy and his moles still in the USPS, preferably voting in person. Which leads us to how to protect voters, election judges, and voters, particularly in vulnerable districts.
Want to help with voter protection? Volunteer with VoPro Mobilize- they are doing vital work to keep our elections working properly.
An indictment that comes after Labor Day will give Republicans even more excuse to claim that it’s all politics persecution—us, I know, they will anyway. So an indictment needs to come down right after these hearings conclude (within a couple of weeks, I hope). That is the cost of DOJ’s initial slowness in moving the investigation.
Wow!
"...slowness..."
Stop and consider the mountain of evidence that must be managed in a way that proves a just and convincing determination.
Elie Honig from Cafe wrote a timeline article back in May. His Bio: Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities. Here is his timeline (all below is an exact quote):
This is not another piece on the likelihood that Merrick Garland will eventually indict Donald Trump. The arguments are familiar by now, both ways, and whatever will be will be.
Today, we’re asking this: when?
No matter where you might fall on the “will-he-or-won’t-he?” spectrum, we can all agree that the clock matters, and it’s ticking. Every day that passes makes a potential federal prosecution of Trump less likely to happen, and more fraught for the Justice Department if it does.
It’s now early May – sixteen months since the January 6th attack, and fourteen months since Garland took office. There’s no technical reason DOJ needs to indict anytime soon — the federal crimes in play here typically carry five-year statutes of limitations — but the Department’s pace conveys a lack of urgency that is ill-matched to the gravity of the potential crimes. Put it this way: if Trump did commit a crime relating to the coup attempt, it’s the most serious political crime in our country’s history. Yet the Justice Department is going to wait a year and change (and counting) to do anything about it?
I know, I know: these things take time, and they want their case to be perfect. That’s an easy refrain, but I reject it in these circumstances. During my fourteen years as a prosecutor, I saw law enforcement move with astonishing speed when circumstances demanded it. As attorney general, Garland has the full resources of the Justice Department, including the FBI, at his disposal. If ever a case required urgency, this is it. Yes, as a prosecutor you want your case to be strong and well-supported. But you don’t spend over a year fretting over whether your proof is absolutely flawless, particularly when there’s already ample evidence in plain public view.
Let’s flip ahead on the calendar. Midterm elections are on November 8th. The Justice Department has a longstanding policy against announcing new criminal charges or taking overt investigative steps (such as executing a search warrant) shortly before an election. There’s no formal provision on the books, but AGs of both parties over the past several administrations have issued Department-wide memos reminding prosecutors to abide by this blackout practice, which applies either 60 days or 90 days before an election, depending who you ask. (I always understood the blackout period to be 60 days, but other DOJ alums place the line of demarcation 90 days out.)
Knowing Garland’s tendencies, he’ll err on the side of caution. So counting back 90 days from November 8th puts us in early August. That means either (1) we’ll see a federal indictment of Trump by late summer, or (2) we won’t see one until at least the end of 2022, if ever. (The same applies, by the way, to other pending DOJ investigations with obvious political implications: Matt Gaetz, Hunter Biden, Rudy Giuliani.)
So unless you genuinely expect to see United States v. Donald J. Trump sometime within the next three months or so, then we’re talking about DOJ allowing nearly two years to pass between commission of a crime that threatened our democracy, and criminal consequences. That’s tough to envision and, if a charge does happen, the delay will be difficult for Garland to justify.
Of course, the political world will change after midterms. History tells us the Democrats are virtually certain to lose control of the House, and potentially the Senate too. In six of the past seven midterms following election of a new president, that president’s party has gotten crushed in the House (the lone exception being 2002, when George W. Bush was still riding a post-9/11 wave of popularity). Senate results also have been grim for new presidents, though not as drastic. Given Democrats’ current razor-thin margins in the House and Senate, and President Biden’s low approval ratings, they’ll likely lose one or both houses of Congress.
A Republican-controlled Congress can make life miserable for DOJ. Don’t get me wrong: Congress should remain entirely hands-off when it comes to the Justice Department’s prosecutorial function. But do you trust a newly-empowered Republican House majority, led by Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert and Lauren Boebert, to do the right thing here?
A new Congress might call hearings and demand answers from DOJ officials about the investigation and its underpinnings. The Justice Department would be right to resist and potentially even refuse, but it’ll be an ugly sideshow. Congress could tinker with DOJ’s funding, or threaten to do so, as a retributive measure. Do you put it past the current slate of prominent House Republicans? Or, at an extreme, a Republican-controlled House could bring impeachment proceedings. Think that’s a bit much? Well, Axios recently reported that “The largest body of conservative House members — the Republican Study Committee, which represents more than 150 members — is laying the groundwork to push for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.” They could just as easily turn their sights on Garland, if sufficient political motivation arose. Again: do you trust McCarthy and company to show restraint with their newfound power?
Further complicating matters, once the 2022 midterms end, the 2024 presidential election cycle begins. Trump might announce his candidacy immediately and, even if he doesn’t, he will be the prohibitive Republican frontrunner unless and until he formally declares that he’s out. So now, consider this: can you really see Merrick Garland authorizing the first-ever indictment of a former president, who also happens to be the active presidential nominee, or presumptive nominee, of the opposing political party? And can you see that happening two years (or more) after the events at issue, just as the next election hits the political radar?
It’s possible, sure. But a post-midterm indictment would lend ammunition to the inevitable cries by Trump and his allies that any prosecution is a politically-driven witch hunt. It’s already tough enough, politically, to indict a former president. It’s even more fraught to take down the other party’s presumptive nominee after the new election season has begun.
Finally, let’s consider this reality: if Garland does charge Trump, there’s going to be an actual case to prosecute. Trump will surely seek to have it dismissed based on selective prosecution (meaning he was singled out for political reasons) or some version of presidential immunity doctrine. Those arguments are questionable, legally, but Trump will duke them out in the federal courts, and that’ll take time. And if Trump loses those arguments, we’re going to have an actual trial, folks. When exactly is U.S. v. Trump supposed to be tried? In late 2023 or early 2024, with elections right around the corner? It’s tough to imagine that the politics-averse Garland would sign on to that.
The debate surely will rage on about whether Garland has meaningfully and pragmatically set his sights on Trump. Someday, we’ll find out. No matter what happens, the delay in reaching a resolution is counterproductive and inexcusable.
Stay Informed,
Elie
I have to think DOJ has already been examining the committee’s work. They were on Jeffrey Clark when he was the topic du jour, and shortly after that got hands on Eastman’s phone. Are there rules prohibiting them from consulting with J6 on work in progress?
"...I saw law enforcement move with astonishing speed when circumstances demanded it..."
Yes you may indeed witness astonishing speed, BUT, never on this massive of scale or importance!
You should have been much more supportive than you chose to be, shame on you!
We don't know what the DOJ has been doing. And I agree with George....mountains of evidence and uncharted territory, so they want to get it right.
Yesterday someone--I think Joyce Vance, set out the factors to establish why this case is so much worse than Nixon. And merits prosecution.
Nixon's break-in and cover up of Watergate looks like literal child's play compared to the attempted overthrow of our Democracy!!!
Garland should look then to Hutchinson’s example. She has done the (belated) right thing under great pressure to stay “loyal”. Her decision to “do the right thing and show up under oath and state the truth” is the road-map. Gop does not want justice. Ford took the easy way out and allowed Nixon to go unpunished setting up the downward slide of “justice for all”. Garland has enough leads to make the case. I don’t mind if he works to make it air-tight, but for America’s Sake, show us “Justice for All”! Otherwise, we have to accept that POWER is the only game. And the gop are saying to us “bend over”.
I was in my 20's in the Watergate days. At that time, there was pretty much unanimity that it was better for our politically torn country to just let Tricky Dick slither on home; beat his poor wife Pat with ever greater frequency (the whole thing was her fault, after all); and die disrespected and forgotten. He didn't try to stage a violent coup anything like the Orange Sadist's nearly successful attempt. Then again, he WAS responsible for the deaths of 2,000,000 Vietnamese people and 58,000 US troops. But of course, that was war so it doesn't count. (Sarcasm)
And lots of blood on several others Presidents' hands, as well.
I'm tired and a little outraged at media and public figures warning of future complaints by Republicans, of political bias in any attempts by law enforcement officials to hold Traitor Trump and his minions accountable under our currently beleaguered rule of law. The idea that the criminal, anti-democracy, fascist Republican party and any of its followers might say a DOJ prosecution of Trump or any of his henchmen is partisan or biased is irrelevant. And if it were not such a serious matter, it would also be laughable. They are traitors! Many, many of them are criminals! They lie as easily as they breathe. They have no shame, no morality and no concern for the preservation of our United States of America. Their word or their opinion is less than worthless. They will criticize any and all attempts to hold them accountable. And if the news media reports their criticisms, it is shoddy, irresponsible journalism not to include in that report what the Republican party or in some instances, what that politician or henchman, did to contribute to the attempted overturning of our presidential election and/or our democracy. We've seen what Republican opinions do to our country and we've had MORE than enough of that poison.
I share your frustration with the possibility of GOP blowback from a Trump prosecution, but I would say this: if Trump is not held accountable for this undeniably treasonous act, our democracy is toast. This, any potential negative consequences of prosecution are of little to no concern.
I may not have been clear enough, Frank. I'm not concerned about Republicans complaining about a Trump prosecution. That's a given. These days they live to complain and rage. I'm annoyed with the media and non-Republican figures who don't like Trump, but who keep warning about Republicans accusing prosecutors of political bias. Who cares? What Attorney General is going to forgo prosecuting a former president who plotted to overthrow our government and who has committed more federal crimes than most mob bosses, just because it will upset that former president's followers? We all know if our rule of law is not upheld, we will have no democracy. So the media needs to stop wringing it's hands about whether it's okay to prosecute a criminal repeat offender like Trump. We have no choice if we want to protect America from future criminals trying to destroy our country.
Thank you for the clarification. I did misinterpret your post. I agree: credible media, in an attempt to appear non-partisan and balanced, have failed in their duty to report the facts, and the fact is that Trump committed unpardonable (word carefully chosen) acts that must be prosecuted. We're on the same page.
Exactly! Thanks, C C.
I totally agree. I had no intention of saying that accusations of partisanship would be warrented, just that they would be leveled.
Hear hear!
Bravo or Brava CC!
Thank you, Louis.
Optics! The so-called security decision makers were worried about the optics if more security personnel were at the Capitol! Optics, what trump has done is criminal and partisan concerns or optics are in the words of the flunky Bill Barr, our b.s.
Guys in the trees with AR-15's and that didn't trigger immediate police response??
Ketchup on the wall and that didn't trigger a mental health evaluation?
I think they were on Federal land? Hence no police response; just federal response. And who had power over the "feds"?
Sounds about white
This is the conversation I had last week with my good friend who used to live in DC and protest at the Capitol on a regular basis (she was one of the first AIDS protesters in DC in the early 80's). After the debacle of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs appearing with the President and the clearing of the mall by the police during a George Floyd murder protests where TFG made his "Bible Photo-Op" there had to be conversation among the several agencies about "managing the optics". I can certainly understand the premise of that, but in the face of what had to be considerable intel from various agencies about the plans of the insurrection, the utter lack of adequate law enforcement presence and apparent command and control failure is incomprehensible, at least to me.
While we haven't seen all the evidence yet, it's reasonable to suspect that the lack of preparation was intentional by some federal officials.
As for the Capitol police, it may have been more a case of ineptness.
Yes, the picture is coming into greater and greater focus, isn't it?
Lots of intentionality it seems. So very, very disturbing. People DID die and I am sure that Pence and Pelosi would have been seriously hurt if not killed that day. Hate to think that but nothing is out of realm of possibilty at this point. I hope they gave Cassidy some protection but not sure who is trustworthy anymore.
If optics were the main concern, I don’t understand why the DC National Guard couldn’t have been deployed inside the Capitol building, out of sight from the outside. Since the Capitol was closed to the public, it wouldn’t have been obvious, but they would have been readily available to reinforce the Capitol police. Of course, Jim Jordan, MTG, et al would have been aware of their presence and notified the White House gang. Then there was the unconscionable delay in mobilizing the Guard after the assault began. So it seems like the bottom line is that the people in charge wanted the assault to succeed.
Didn't Michael Flynn's brother play a significant role in refusing to allow the Guard to be present? that's my recollection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ellipse
Click on the picture to get an enlarged view of the Ellipse and surrounding land. I can't get an answer to whether the folks hanging out in the trees were on Federal land, but I suspect so. Being Federal land would mean it's the jurisdiction of the Park Service, which would mean the feds were in control of what authority would intervene to de-weaponize those in that space beyond the Ellipse. This would mean, like at the Capitol, local police would not have jurisdiction to intervene. Nor did the DC National Guard have authority to intervene.
From yesterday’s audio this stuck in my head :“ AR 15’s at 14th and Independence”
From my DC friend, Capitol, Metro, and Park police have concurrent jurisdictions and frequently offer mutual aid to one another. Other Federal agencies (FBI, DHS, ATF, Treasury all have a police function response protocol.
She disagrees that this was a command and control failure, but perhaps simply a badly managed one. I completely disagree.
Agree Ally, why wasn't there more preparation as there were plenty of warnings that she testified to yesterday before the 6th from agencies who would know. It made me think that the lack was deliberate.
Exactly my question, Ally. If they all knew about it why was everything left to an easily overwhelmed Capitol Police force? Who had to make the call?
I don’t know.
We're at a stage that if DOJ chose not to prosecute, that would be a political decision — driven by fear of MAGA's reaction. Garland, in the face so much evidence of a Trump-orchestrated coup, is duty bound to seek charges. And it's clear that he is.
There will be fallout, even violence. But that's a small price to pay for preserving the rule of law. Holding the insurrectionists accountable is essential to preventing or at least stalling future assaults.
I agree with all that you said except for "that's a small price to pay" about violence. It's a price, a large price but I think of our men and women who go to war courageously!
Good point.
No one said it would be easy, or should be.
I feel very strongly that if Trump is not prosecuted, our democracy is toast. Thus, any potential negative consequences of a prosecution are of little concern.
Worst thing that can happen is an indictment and trial of the defeated former president for his seditious acts, after which he is acquitted. It will be just another lost cause like the Mueller investigation or the two House impeachments. The AG knows the bar is set much higher for evidence in a courtroom than in a Congressional hearing room or in the 'court of public opinion.' The DOJ is waiting for those who had direct contact, one on one, with the likely defendant to 'flip.' The increasing threat of their own imprisonment might cause such witnesses to do exactly that, as Chairman Thompson requests at the close of each Committee session.
The threat of federal criminal charges will surely persuade some with key information to flip to avoid prison. Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, and John Eastman appear to be likely high-level candidates.
Others who likely haven't broken any laws but have refused to testify to the J6 Committee will be forced to appear before federal grand juries and reveal inside information. Pat Cipollone is a sure bet.
Sort of like some of the versions of the nursery rhyme, 'Ten Little Indians,' ... ending with 'and then there was one.' One guess.
Agree, Jack..."waiting for those who had direct contact." I am hopeful that what Heather and others have seen/heard from Ms. Hutchinson will be enough, but I was concerned about the hearsay statements not being the evidence that Garland/DOJ needs.
George, I totally agree with you. If the Attorney General does not have every i dotted and t crossed, Trump’s army of well paid lawyers will begin to pull threads and in the minds of some, the entire prosecution will unravel.There is no room for even the smallest misstatement or misstep.
Trump’s attorneys will attack every piece of evidence, that’s true. But Trump does not pay his attorneys and he gets what he pays for. Remember the obscure personal injury lawyer who defended the second impeachment trial in the senate? I just had to point this out!
I was thinking the exact same thing!!! NO lawyers will work for the cheap-o Orange Sadist any more. LOL
Barbara, I would love it if he couldn’t find any decent lawyers to defend him, but it seems like he always manages to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Remember the Bundy debacle!
The problem with the Justice Department is that they don't attract the brightest and best. How many of Bush's Liberty University hires are still there?
They need to be super careful because a loss would be humiliating.
Thank you Sara T
His DOJ does not leak and there is a reason for that. They don't want to alert those that they may strike next. Also prosecutors like air tight cases, so that greasy types like death star and some of his minions cannot slither out of things.
Garland needs to move now while we all can see the obvious.
Garland seems to be a measured, thoughtful person, who thoughts and deeds are well reasoned and appropriate. In my opinion he will do a job that reflects those qualities. I feel very pleased that he is at the helm.
Well, so we all hope and pray, Mr. Dobbs!!!!
T L Mills:
Prayer has always worked for me and all my Loved ones
I wish we knew this for certain.
Repent, apologize, and see the error of your ways, Magats and right wing Christians! If, following yesterday’s hearing, any doubters remain, the only solution for them is for lightning to strike. They should have already been hit by radical atonement — metanoia, in Greek! A very young woman has revealed the face and spirit of honor, morality, and love of a democratic nation above all else.
At my assisted living dining hall, the four women at the next table bragged that they couldn’t be bothered to watch. Foxers all I’m sure. Wonder what Tucker blathered about last night. Will Rupert ever feel the heat? He could be burning in hell and feel right at home, I’ll wager….
I am trying to imagine a brawl at an all women's assisted living uinit.
I am betting on you Jeri!!
I wish, but my demented husband is my second concern, my first is the world my daughter and grand girls will inherit.
Be positive. They will be OK.
Jeri, watch these stunning fox commentators react to Hutchinson--they used the words "compelling testimony."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqgpK8QNdI
Thank you, if Rupert turns, chump is history, if not, Katie bar the door…
Thank you for posting that link. At least some of them are getting it.
This is what they are getting. It’s time to save one’s ass. As in, the rats are not scurrying, they are jumping ship knowing the cold sea is a better option than the hell on board the ship.
Salud, Linda. 🗽
I was particularly encouraged to hear Bair say Hutchinson was providing her testimony under Oath, while Trump denied her statements on 'Truth Social.'
Wow, stunning, Pensa. Thanks.
Rupert is one of the architects and the original megaphone of this debacle, beginning in the 90s. He wasn’t allowed to openly lie in the UK or Australia so he set up shop in the US. His entire brazen operation was conducted in plain sight. And we continue to allow it.
That man is a worldwide scourge. He makes WIlliam Randolph Hearst seem like Jim Anderson in "Father Knows Best!"
His "talent" are just awful!
If they watched and had any sense of decency, they could no longer hang on to their thinking that death star is great and isn't as he has been portrayed in these hearings....vulgar, immature, traitorous.
I understand that Fox carried it yesterday and the commentators were speechless at the end yesterday afternoon.
Brett Bair was abruptly stopped after stating “compelling testimony”, noting trump’s immediate response as …Ms. Hutchinson was under oath, the former President is not……
Huh.
Do you think they will give up on Trump now and focus on supporting DeSantis? FOX.
I’m curious now. I’m still surprised that they showed the hearing. They are $$-driven…and DeSantis could entertain their demographics. Good thought, Kathy.
Recall Fox wasn't running commercials, and losing millions in revenue, so fox drones wouldn't change the channel to the hearing instead of Tucker....
Rupert Murdoch is pure filth
Please consider using religionists in place of Christian when referring to a segment of his cult.
Another commenter (LFAA orRobert Hubbell's Today's Edition) came up w/ a new moniker for those folks-CINO (Christians In Name Only.)
I like that…
Excellent, Barbara!
Oh, my first belly laugh today! Thank you, Barbara!!
We have a lot of those in my county!
CINO...Excellent, Barbara!
That they have corrupted what Christ taught appears, to me, to be both obvious and completely in line with what Christians have done throughout the centuries. I understand the danger of painting everyone with the same brush, but Christianity has also cast me, and people like me, out for simply being different.
I appreciate your sentiment, as I know some fine, upstanding people who really do good works and are open and affirming, but others who will love me but hate my "sin"; Christianity does not get a free pass from me.
I believe that the problem arises when some so called Christians use a corrupted version of Christianity (but we could use any other misguided religion) to support their politics. It is no less dangerous now than it was two thousand years ago. I have a segment of my family who has disowned me because I don’t support their Fundamentalist religion (especially the Rapture). One member of that group is extremely sick with Covid and hospitalized. I have cousins who were the joy of my childhood who have gone astray having been radicalized by their church and their church’s support of Donald Trump. It is both sad and frightening at the same time.
I share your sadness, but I can no longer belong to the church I grew up in and it makes me angry that it has been taken over by cult Republicans.
I totally get that and do not blame you at all. It is my personal choice to stay and resist. Fortunately, my church community is small and so far is not tainted .
Nor me, ran for my life after Karl Rove made churches arms of Repub party in 2004
Nor from me. I know too much of the history. When religion is in service of the state, corrupt power hungry individuals, the envious, the hateful, we have seen what has and is still happening.
Love your ending sentence Rowshan.
Thank you, Sharon.
Rs are calling it hearsay even though the witness was present at some of what she described and obviously was someone all the people in the hallway talked to and trusted. I noticed that she often called them by their first names. Last night on NBC news there was a mention that the driver of the limo and someone else are saying that death star didn't lunge at anyone. While bleating in public, some of these people have to be worried.
Will they testify under oath? They are invited.
This is precisely the problem with faith it doesn’t require evidence. The best we can hope for is Republicans like Cassidy Hutchinson and enough independents To keep our country together because I do believe Trump will be prosecuted, assuming somehow he can’t pardon himself or I mean didn’t pardon himself, and there will surely be a great upheaval in this country not so different from a second civil war in some respects.
That there is only one 'Truth' presents no problem whatsoever and is the very essence of 'Faith.' Nothing is more powerful.
I think it worth noting that the Jan 6 committee referred Meadows to the DOJ for contempt of Congress. The DOJ did not act on that as it did with Bannon. Could it be that they were already building a bigger case against Meadows and the contempt issue would have been just a nuisance? I find it hard to believe that what was revealed yesterday is completely "new news" to Garland. Just my hopeful speculation, of course.
At any rate, hats off to a 25 year old "executive assistant" who was disgusted and angry enough to summon the courage to testify. Imagine the pressure she felt. She did so well. Imagine the fear she will feel for years to come.
And "ketchup on the wall" will become the stuff of legend and perhaps a SNL skit. Ford's tripping, Biden's bike accident, and TFG throwing plates.
The Ketchup President. Always trying to ketchup with putin.
I just hope for the sake of all my Pittsburgh friends that it wasn’t Heinz.
Perhaps if it could be proven that it was, Pennsylvanians would wake up to their responsibilities to vote blue. There are some really demented members of the legislature.
Agree. Good grief.
Exactly! I keep hearing that Putin is ill (in addition to mentally.) If these two narcissistic, pathological excuses for world leaders go down, I will believe in divine justice after all. Just imagine the "New World Order!"
I will breaking out a single malt neat.
I will be breaking out a Pearsecco! Neither one will be missed and the world will be a safer place.
Oh, Hahahahahaha. Love your wit, you know, Pensa.
LOL. The ketchup jokes keep coming.
Excellent. Good laugh. Execrable pun. Reminder of Trump’s terrible diet.
OK, that one is funny!!!
I just don't think equating Ford's and Biden's everyday kind of accidents with the rage of a demented seditionist is workable.
No, but it is how people are...
I just had a friend comment that "my" side (in this case, BLM protesters) "burned whole cities" while his MAGAt side "only had one tiny violent riot" on January 6.
They did not burn whole cites ever and that is hyperbole. That being said, I wish the fools in Portland would stop using every protest as a reason for vandalism. I also noticed that one of the people tossing Molotov cocktails in Portland in the protests around George Floyd and burning things has been sentenced to prison.
The anarchist movement thrives on that kind of “protest”.
We had an event in Eugene after the Dobbs decision came out; I only know the snippets I’ve read, but EPD had a massive tactical response to “menacing” protesters; I’ve seen daytime videos of non-violent protests. I think there is something very fishy that surrounds this event. I’ll try and find links.
Hmmm, I've seen some videos of similar police vs. Dobbs protestors elsewhere. Do you suppose it's been pre-organized? Now I am getting so paranoid.
Fox’s version of events. Heard that tripe from ex-MAGAt friend.
"No, but it is how people are...."
Then we need to continue to call them out.
Frustrating. Sorry about you hearing this from a friend.
Not equating. For sure. Just images that tend to last. But the first two are mishaps that are attacked as weaknesses. The last IS a weakness...of character.
Has anyone seen Trump ride a bicycle? Can you imagine him getting up after a fall off his bike and getting back on to continue his ride?
Speaking of weakness, Mark Meadows in yesterday’s testimony came across to me as a pitifully weak man.
But when President Biden’s bike “accident” is described, I think of how the press never mentioned FDR’s crutches. Compare the rider’s condition to the general overweight of his critics. How many 70+ riders of bicycles are there in America?
me!
77...group varies in size about 20-30 week-ends some as young as 55!
viral congestive heart failure
diabetic
40lbs overweight
200 miles a week, no steep endless hills anymore...just the level flat routes
8 hrs week aggressive to exhaustion aqua therapy
happy loving living life cooking, reading, Architecture, painting & surprising the one I love often
keeping it lively at HCR news letter
I am 77 and still cycle regularly. I can not count the number of times I have fallen/crashed - often when catching feet in pedals when dismounting. 🚴🏽♀️💥🥴
Yup!
Bravi to all us ancients who are still exercising regularly. We are an endangered species. Our country needs us as examples for the younger sedentary. Add to that, we have lived some useful history.
Me! Had one bad spill in Seattle riding someone else's bike ...........4 yrs ago.
Memes appeared about ketchup within the hour and lots of jokes about ketchup on threads. Also I think they are building a larger case against Meadows and do not want a contempt charge to get in the way.
We have been through such trauma, we need humor to undergird us...I love that about Americans in the middle of a gigantic crisis.
Obama's always perfectly timed dry wit with that impish grin....
And Trump is blaming Obama for this mess by saying it started when Obama roasted him at the Press Club dinner.
He hired over a hundred new lawyers and it is time to use them. I hope he does.
Trust me. He is using them.
This can’t be an easy job for the DOJ even though we Lay Persons see it as a SLAM DUNK.
I find it hard to believe that there are 100 lawyers willing to work for him given his record of stiffing everyone including lawyers.
Thank you, Jim.
For me, the news is that Merrick Garland and his DOJ no longer seem to be comatose and MIA. The seizure of John Eastman’s electronic devices is big news.
The publicly known evidence of this Jan. 6 criminal conspiracy around Trump is becoming a flood. (Lord knows how much evidence is still under wraps)
The question is no longer, “Was there a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy in the West Wing and in Congress to block Biden’s victory and retain Dumpster as President,” because that question is answered. All that’s left is for the legal beagles to do their work. The only real question which remains: “Is Merrick Garland’s DOJ going to do its job and indict these jokers.”
I completely agree.
And it’s an absurdity that we have to say that.
This committee is serving up evidence on a plate to the DOJ. That appears to be because the DOJ wasted an eternity in the first year+. Garland and his army of lawyers decided to handle this most singular event in the way Mob cases are worked - by working from the bottom up. This led them through a swamp of hundreds and hundreds of investigations, requiring tens of thousands of hours of sifting and discerning evidence. Only now have they arrived, blinking in the bright light, at the much more serious side of the case.
We know this because Garland piously and patiently explained this to us in a rare public appearance.
We know this because had they opened any investigation into the people at the locus of the plot, a grand jury would have been convened. I don’t disagree that the DOJ would have remained deathly silent throughout, but at least some of the subjects subpoenaed to come in would have been found later on Fox News working the refs by setting up a witch hunt narrative about “Biden’s DOJ”. We would have been Hunter Biden’d to death.
This case should have broken precedent with the holy writ on Mob cases. Two investigations should have been run in tandem - one into the thug idiots and one into the idiots in suits and ties who worshipped at the altar of power.
Had that happened, we could reasonably expected indictments this summer. Look at the mountain of evidence a Committee with *no* prosecutorial power has uncovered in a short time. There is no gain saying it - this DOJ came to the party late, and not fashionably so. Now they are rushing to catch up, begging evidence of the committee. It is a disgrace.
And please - none of the “dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s” defense of the DOJ. One or two more witnesses - Meadows for sure and Cipillone or Pence or Ivanka could put a bow on this case enough to bring it forward.
I wouldn’t place a bet on any size on Trump being convicted. The evidence is incredibly strong, but it still seems to lack a smoking gun - the incontestable evidence that Trump knew he lost. It would come down to the concept of “willful blindness” legally and an army of lawyers would seed enough doubt to convince at least one juror. But a trial, and a second one in Georgia would accomplish two things - it would keep Trump off the ballot in 2024, and more importantly, millions of voters who supported the Trump regime would quit it in disgust. Some would refuse to vote in future elections, but enough would go to the Democratic side to ensure a Republican loss and a subsequent remake of the party in an acceptably legal form. The nightmare would be over.
Exactly right I would say. Fearing looking like a partisan investigation, they may allow these slippery eels a chance to escape. There is much more at risk than the next two elections. Or is it that Garland makes a better judge than a prosecutor?
I think if he hasn’t moved by now he won’t. What REALLY bothers me is why?? Who is protecting who?
There is more to come---they have not gotten to the trump-putin axis. That will tie this up with a nice little red bow that cannot be undone.
Exactly. Putin is loving all of this. CINOs and White supremacists lined up behind a puppet who has fostered toxic polarity for six years. Jackpot for Putin. Unless…
… I, too, love Rowshan’s comment, “ A very young woman has revealed the face and spirit of honor, morality, and love of a democratic nation above all else.”
I think of her courage and the courage of the other women who have testified: Ruby Freeman, Shaye Moss and the young Capitol Hill police officer, Caroline Edwards. These women are working to save democracy from the likes of TFG and Co. Women, especially Black women, have saved our butts by speaking truth to power. Getting the vote out. They deserve tremendous gratitude. This young lady? I hope she sees the terror of her ways in having hung in a den of delusional terrorists.
I’ve said it for years: Putin and Trump likely have adjoining underground bunkers near the Baltic Sea. We better grab DJT while we can.
I DO love the CINOs and am wondering how to pronounce it so I can use it verbally. Any ideas?
I tend to go with an Italian version (Chino) merely because it includes "Ch" from Christian. But pronouncing it "See No" is so accurate as well!
Ha ha! I like "See no" as in "see no" fault in Trump and Thomas. See no science or logic. See no poverty or racism. See no compassion, on and on.
Happy Fourth, Pensa. I have a view of fireworks right from my window. I am so lucky to be in Vermont.!
So glad you really got it, Hope!
I can see fireworks over the hill from my house. A parent from Landmark College must have a pyrotechnic business— the exhorbitant display is stunning for our little, rural village.
This weekend may have many of us in deep pondering about our history and where we are in this current Constitutional Crisis and the steps each of us needs to commit to taking. My friend and I are meeting tonight to create a blueprint for writing letters to editors, online, social media (she does it, I am not adept) and elected officials. I encourage everyone to take a little breather this holiday and get ready for two years of intense work to save this democracy which is being celebrated this weekend. Let's KEEP IT and MAKE IT STRONGER! Each of us is a little drop of water flowing into stream and then the ocean. We area THE WAVE. Correction, let's make it A TSUNAMI!
Helsinki should be on the list of investigations, brought us to Ukraine today, in my view…
Wake me if anything happens. I highly doubt it.
Do you know Greg Olear's substack? A few weeks ago he speculated that Trump has long been a special kind of informant....I forget the exact title....who has been given immunity. Trump's run with bad apples all his life. People around him, like Epstein, Manafort, et all have fallen, but not him. I keep remembering his statement, "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue..." (and get away with it.) It's not that he's noble by any means, it's that he had a choice to save his ass by pointing out the big criminals. I wonder, I wonder.
Are you thinking of an informant? I never thought of that, I have very definite suspicions of him being an operative with putin and other dictators, with Melania's support and Russian translations. I surmise that Putin is a big faker in that he cannot speak English. As a member of the KGB, I bet he had to know English....he just wants time to think of his responses. Or he is embarrassed that he speaks poorly.
Definitely Putin speaks English. I've thought of his imperious behavior as part of his delusion of Russian supremacy...just as English is the "international" language, he wants all things Russian to prevail. Rachel Maddow was one of the earliest to connect Trump and Putin as criminal oligarchs who have each other's back, and has a book, which of course, I cannot remember now. But if Trump is a protected informant it would also explain how Comey and Mueller could not "catch" Trump despite his clear complicity.
(The type of informant that Greg Olear mentioned is so "deep state" that very few know about it, even people within the same agency.)
Sadly, I agree. Also - what happened when he was in Ukraine?
Quite an informative and eventful day. Thank you Cassidy for your integrity, and sad to say your bravery. No one should be threatened for telling the truth, but here we are. You stand way above the sniveling men with the brown noses. You give me hope for our democracy.
It sounds like, Karen, that many of us knowing that somehow democracy will prevail, had our moment today. When things all of a sudden come into focus instead of turning in a floating circle with pieces here and there starting to clarify in shape and intent. For me it was when Ms. Hutchinson relayed a piece of convo from a few moments in the tent. Before the rally. When Trump got fidgety and and agitated over the distress of seeing empty ground space, the Ellipse not filled to capacity with MAGAits, the wrong optic about to happen…I stood up like I knew I was about to hear a bulk of bitter truth uttered by the President of the United States that would change everything and knock over the curtain sheltering the wizard of oz and his machinery of clanking, treasonous buffoonery. When he just could not go out to a half empty rally. He just ripped the curtain back…… “I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt ME. Take the effing mags away. Let MY people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.”
Might as well have dropped the mic right there, Cassidy. I’m not even sure if she realized the magnitude of that ear and eyewitness account. I’d like to think that it is actually is one thing she heard that pushed her to witness it to all of us.
This was the plan of a seditious king and his handlers. To get his loyal peasants and minions to rise up against an establishment daring to “cancel” him. To riot, plunder, burn, maim, and kill.
I still cannot believe my ears.
As far as I am concerned, the emperor is naked. Disgusting I know. His orcs cannot get clothes to him fast enough now. This is a horrible truth for all of us to absorb. And to watch pitiful tattered attempts now to cover up the cover up. To realize the real intent of the timing now of the Clarence Clown Thomas majority. To see all the pieces coalesce into one still portrait of treason.
All because of a young woman willing to report what she heard and saw. When the king could not bear to perform to a half empty venue. This is how it started at his inauguration when he exaggerated the size of the crowd to see him crowned and at the end of his term that was an insurrection and not a transition. It always was about his insatiable ego. It had nothing to do with being an American President.
Salud to Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney, and Cassidy Hutchinson today. 🗽
Christine, I had the same reaction when he said "They're not here to hurt ME" I immediately went to the inauguration crowd that he claimed was "huge". And, it makes me puke that he didn't care that men with weapons would be heading to the capitol, following the "grand leader" ready to kill anyone in his way. The other image that makes me sick is the one of Meadows lying on his couch, scrolling through his phone as the insurrection was happening..
Yesterdays hearing was indeed, a barn burner. I just hope the committee can keep up their fine work until the DOJ takes over to indict. Surely there has to be a day of reckoning for these scum. And.....doesn't it figure that it took a young woman to bring the old white men down. Thank you Cassidy Hutchinson. Thank you Benny Thompson and Liz Cheney.
It took a young woman because of the arrogance and stupidity of these white male egocentrics who don’t recognize the intelligence and worth of any of their female underlings. She was a Republican and valued only as a hard worker, not as an equal or one capable of recognizing their machinations. She was within spitballing the Oval Office and in the family tent at the Ellipse, but Trump “didn’t know her.” Meadows had her take notes for him at all occasions and mumbled truths of what was about to happen to her, but gave no thought that she might see what was a crime. She was invisible until she wasn’t.
This is an example of a time when underestimating the intelligence of a young attractive female aide was a big mistake for the bad guys.
"She was invisible until she wasn't." So glad this young woman, a Republican woman, a smart capable woman came forward with the unadulterated truth. I just hope she has security 24/7.
No kidding! Smart, pretty, and very astute. She took mental and physical notes and she wasn’t considered a “problem” because her boss, Dump, and others were involved in other things.
That sounds SO good Pam, ". . . it took a young woman to bring the old men down." I will keep her in my thoughts and prayers.
You and I have always believed that justice will be served in the name of our democracy that has survived the barrage of treason, shattered place settings, and grifted sensibilities.
And out current Department of Justice will do what is best for our democracy. And we the people, all of us this time, will stare down any effort to cower or belittle us.
Salud, Pam my compatriot! 🗽
❤️
IT WAS NEVER AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT
Aye, but it was George.
Yes it was. And, may be again.
When I saw the image of him that they worshipped at the Texas convention, I could only think crazy cult. Foxers have never seen the chump we all saw. The Repub elite yes, the MAGAts, no. Propaganda works, until it doesn’t. Ike knew that.
"Foxers have never seen the chump we all saw"
Jeri, the problem is they HAVE seen the chump we all saw.
And, they liked him.
The problem with America is Americans.
Propaganda and brainwashing work on some people. A few on fox cracked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqgpK8QNdI
That is huge for people in a cult to hear on their propaganda machine.
True, but Rupert never showed the word salad, an ugly picture (took lots of effort I’m sure), just showed him being “presidential” and spouting their prejudices and hate. What’s not to love ????
Yes…unfortunately.
Hold that thought until we hear about the trump-putin axis. trump never won the popular vote in either election, despite attempted rigging. In my mind, I have always called him "the so-called president."
The unpresidented....
Good one! I love puns.
His campaign mangler, Manafort sold ‘sensitive’ pooling data to Russian intelligence, that identified key districts in swing states. So, a Kremlin baced President.
True. He is Kremlin based in more ways than one. He adores putin and wants to be just like him and pretend he is just as powerful. I am sure he is an operative and Natasha, I mean Melania is hiding in this somehow as a Russian speaker.
A Republican president has not won a popular in decades!!
Amen!
I am comfortable in my faith that Garland will be successful in providing low income housing for chump among the other captive audience who so admire him. He will finally be satisfied with the crowd size!
Your last paragraph…yes! Thompson and Cheney compliment each other. Now, on the issue of Ginni T…you think Liz will recuse herself from confronting her friend? Not that Ginni would be caught dead testifying but…
I think Ginni falls when Meadows capitulates and testifies.
Could I live so long, not likely.
I wonder when all this will be over. Narcissists love the attention.
Meadows will never testify. Further, the probability he ever ends up with any punishment is small to none.
So right, he will drown in quicksand first.
I have to hold out hope. I just do, otherwise I would drown in despair and I am NOT going to let that happen!!
Meadows is a third rate politician who was selected because trump knew he was a lackey who craved attention albeit in the service of a thug and criminal.
Meadows was a eunuch in Congress once the Dems took the majority.
Meadows sold his alleged religious soul to one of the most amoral creatures to exist on this planet!
I think former friend might be closer to accurate. Liz Cheney is in full on Valkyrie mode. No prisoners, and whomever gets between her and Trump is going to taste ashes for decades.
She learned from the master
Wow. Good point Jeri! And 100% true.
Agree 1000%, Loree.
Just in today: "Attorney For Ginni Thomas Says There’s No Reason For Her To Speak To Jan. 6 Panel." Link below.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/attorney-ginni-thomas-says-no-041446582.html#:~:text=Attorney%20For%20Ginni%20Thomas%20Says%20There%E2%80%99s%20No%20Reason%20For%20Her%20To%20Speak%20To%20Jan.%206%20Panel
Oh…there are “reasons” and that’s why she won’t speak. But you know, maybe she can remain silent as her tweets, her emails, her texts are brought to light. Her involvement, her money, and her influence may just bring her down, not up.
Remember last week or so when she said she would meet with the January 6 Committee? We all knew that was a lie at the time.
Oh yes, she used the good ole Susan Collins bait & switch trick.
He rode down the golden elevator naked.
And many of us saw that escalator descent into wreaking his hell on the world by a reality tv show host fascist wannabe dictator. His narcissistic revenge on the country fully supported by one of our hostile, foreign entities.
Yes, Christine, everything, always, was about his fragile ego. And still Is. Wondering if he’s still the leader of his party.
My opinion. He's hanging by a thread. If DeSantis inherits the Republican Party in the event of trump being disenfranchised then I hope trump hangs on. DeSantis is terrifying.
Agree with Barbara M that DeSantis, that evil POS, holds the reins pretty tightly. He shouldn’t but he does.
Well said, Christine.
Mine was his secret squirrel phone call with Putin.
How does the timing of the SCOTUS decision and this information go together? I seriously don't understand. Not a rhetorical question.
Appreciate your filling me in Christine.
For me, Roberts lost control of his court last week. He advised strongly against not overturning Roe at that point in time. Trump’s majority were, shall we say, advised to seize that moment when Trump and company were under attack. Repub playbook. Divert, deflect, divert. divert.
Yet Roberts voted with the majority on Roe.....
❤️
It portends Thomass' obedience to the demands of autocratic old white bigoted elite wealth to muffle the voice of the vigilant press ability to shine the light into the very dark corners of those daily bedeviled with destroying our American democracy.
Agree, George. I did not see that you answered Barbara’s question.
Isn’t it interesting that Clarence was a the “person” to write the decision on Roe? Now no matter what information the committee brings to light about Ginni’s involvement, the conservatives will always hold him up as a God.
Gail Christine referred to the timing. I am wondering if it the SCOTUS decision was meant to deflect from the January 6 Committee hearings. So then the January 6 Committee fired back with the Hutchinson hearing.
B-I-N-G-O.
And Bingo was his name-o.
Salud, Barbara. 🗽
I think the timing was very deliberate.
How so? Please explain. Roe v Wade and January 6 Committee?
Brilliant!
more akin to devil worship
Well said! I really get the comparison of Trump's minions to Orcs.
That was the BINGO moment for me as well!
On Twitter and Instagram so many spoke of how her life will now always be in danger. That devastates. That telling the truth in America makes you a target for political assassination.
I truly believe that she has been threatened and harassed already. My thought is that is why the 1/6 committee wanted to have her testify in person, quickly. I bet she will be sent to a safe house. At least, I hope so, as she is a great weapon to have to bring these destructive, horrid people to their knees.
She is Wonder Woman for America. We needed a superhero, and, finally, here she is. 25 years old. Her incredible power might be great nutrition for all the young Americans to get out and VOTE.
I have a feeling that when the corrupt dust is sucked up and vanquished in the Light, she will be on Liz Cheney’s staff. Whether that continues with her as a member of the House of Rep or perhaps in the White House.
Salud, Gailee.
Agreed, Christine. Hutchinson has a bright future ahead of her, once the dust settles.
Remember, Pam. We don’t want the dust to just settle. My preference is that it is sucked up and vanquished in the Light.
Salud!
I'd like more than just dust to be "sucked up and vanquished". How 'bout all the pond scum that has been collecting since 2016?
Yes, I thought those are two republican women who would work well together.
Or she will be teaching Ethics at West Point.
that has of late and early not just now has been the case for whistleblowers who dare to speak up against the powers that be
Yes that's true, Pamela.
We have more in common with Russia than most realize.
Yes. The testimony was excellent. But how does does a person work in such a cesspool. A young intelligent person. SteveScalise!!! Ted Cruz!!! Yes she is telling us what happened but what happened to her to be in that cesspool to make her shape her career there??? I don’t get it.
These people are dishonest mean spirited…..Among the worst America has spawned.
Would love to know if she is still devoted Republican.
Like Pence in recent interview applauding repeal Roe v Wade. Same guy. Just would not break law re counting electoral votes. Now he is cannonized!!!! Low bar for sainthood
My head nearly exploded when Hutchinson made a reference to “all the wonderful things” TFG had done as POTUS. Never have we had a more consistent psychopath in our face 24/7, right from the beginning. How on earth can people give up their own destiny to such evil?
I agree. It is one thing I would love to understand. Who he was …was so OBVIOUS. Not even a veneer of kindness or authentic concern for anything but himself. I jnderstand Germany and Germans in their devotion to Hitler now in a way I never did
Here is what Secretary of State Clinton had to say about Thomas post the Roe v Wade ruling:
"I went to law school with him He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him resentment, grievance, anger. Women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die," Clinton said.
Words from an amazing woman!
Yes she is.
Ah, she should have been POTUS. I saw that she might try running again. Here's a wild thought: What if Liz Cheney and Hilary are their respective parties' nominees for 2024?
I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat!
I would also vote for Hilary in a minute. I don't think Biden should run again.
Agreed. I would love to ask her what she was referring to.
LOL, All I can think in response to your comment is how very much I don’t want to know what she was referring to.
Oh how funny. Now that I think of it...
I have spent time thinking about how a young, hard-working woman finds herself part of a corrupt movement, spending years maturing in maga world. What's next? Is there a recovery program for these people?
Maybe better for her to try to find her way as most of us did, and live in real world. Apply to grad school or search for job without a “connection”
Not given access based on world of whom you know.
All good points. I've been wondering the same...what was going through her mind while witnessing the antics of the Trump administration during her time in the office of the chief-of-staff. Not sure when exactly she moved to that particular position. Trump burned through 3 previous chiefs-of-staff before Meadows. If she was in that job before Meadows, she had ample exposure to questionable events long before January that would/should have caused her some measure of a crisis of conscience. Did she love the job that much? Did she begin to think that, given her unique access to what was going on, she had an obligation to witness and record?? We will learn all this eventually.
Hate to say but I do not think she was as high minded as you and maybe others, give her credit for.
Opportunistic yes. A JOB! I Maybe a first job. In the WHITE HOUSE! What an" opportunity! "
The things Cassidy saw...just the olde "throw the spaghetti at the wall when you are having a little fit" for example. Did she think that's the way people who are in charge of the nuclear suitcase... they all behave that way? That's just the way powerful men are? They throw their food and have a hissy fit IN FRONT OF WHOMEVER when things get tough or things don't go their way. Did she just go into some kind of denial or what?
She is so young.
But how can I understand the others. AND
The 40 million people who think he is the messiah. so dismaying disheartening Frightening.
Was a comfort to me that Pelosi, even though she knew it was coming, was stunned at the overturn of Roe. That's how I felt.
I was concerned when in the videos she was laughing or smiling. I hope it was because she was nervous!
I noticed this too. Her apparent emotions were incongruent with her testimony and the facial expressions of everyone else in the room. It was a bit creepy. But also that she is in such a powerful position at her age perhaps reflects her training and expertise at constantly maintaining a sunny, soft, demure disposition? Interesting that Meadows needed her in the room always.
I have other thoughts but....I don't think I will state them!
Right there on that train of thought with you, Sharon!
Wowzolla!! If the American judicial system can’t imprison the person who defiled the highest office in the land, was impeached twice, conned and grifted all through his tenure, lied and cheated the people, and - the cream on the cupcake - very seriously and obviously encouraged murder of Congress critters ( love that) and tried to upend a democratic ( sort of) election to reinstall his own losing hairy butt, if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless.
Diana,
"if the DOJ cant throw him in irons, the system is useless."
I would slightly amend this sentence: "if the DOJ can't throw him in irons, the system works as designed by the people who designed the system".
Black folks will still be arrested, shot, imprisoned for 30 years for smoking weed, or stealing a loaf of bread from the 7-11, etc.
The "system's" laws were written by white men and fully support white men.
That system has enabled white crime for centuries right here in America.
If Trump gets "off" now, it will be just one more instance of a white man being enabled to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants as long as he has enough money to pay lawyers to spin the system for him.
No one is safe but the very wealthy if the Federal Society's plan to reconfigure America marches on. You cannot socially engineer society and get the desired results you wanted. There will be mayhem, blood and utter chaos.
Tracy,
The Federalist Society is not really trying to reconfigure America.
Rather, the Federalist Society is successfully, so far, attempting to preserve an American system that has long supported wealthy white men doing whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.
It SEEMS like reconfiguration because since 1970 or so America has attempted to shed the sins of its past.
But, That is a fairly short duration in American history and the Federalist Society seeks to return to pre-1970 America.
More pre FDR and an activist government. Mudsills “R” us.
If you include the American south under Jim Crow it goes until 1970.
Sometime read: 'The Warmth of Other Suns" by Isabelle Wilkerson to see how America was until 1970.
Yes, how America was. Then read Wilkerson’s CASTE to see the way it is now. Racism by any name is still Racism.
Mike, tremendous read...She even makes reference to the wholesale slaughter of Black Americans in a small East Texas town which I've since learned was Slocum back in the 1920's. I never ever heard of this until I researched the reference Wilkerson made.
I think pre-1950; cannot forget about the "judicial activism" of overturning Plessey v. Ferguson.
Install their own version of sharia law! Separation of Church and state is now an illusion! Only the second amendment is sacred to these desperate creatures!
Thank you for responding. You make very good points. I was born in in 1960, just old enough to remember separate water fountains, so it does feel like they're trying to reconfigure society to me.
They are definitely trying to socially engineer society though. But that's not exactly new either.
Nixon resigned and flew away. Agree, punishment is not the consequence of every political transgression, even if it’s illegal.
"if the DOJ can't throw him in irons, the system works as designed by the people who designed the system"
Hey, Mike. This sentence of yours reflects my thoughts exactly but somehow couldn't express it as you have done. What this country needs is a new and improved system!
Sad commentary but oh so true.
If all that — it’s not just the system being useless it’s that the uSA is a goner!
The system has been broken for some time, Rupert saw to that
While I do admire Hutchinson’s courage in testifying, I am so angry that not one of these people came forward at the time or in the immediate aftermath, especially during the second impeachment. These are not heroes. What other stories will trickle out about TFG’s instability while in office? The nuclear codes were in the hands of a childish psychopath, and that is terrifying.
It is so easy to be brave from our home with anonymity writing our thoughts and feelings. Hutchinson is courageous to come forward now. I totally understand their fear for their life and their family of coming forward. She is a brave young woman and a heroine.
Yes. She is a brave woman and a heroine. Now.
But, then? She was part of the plan and part of the problem.
She is coming forward now because she knows that the DOJ will start prosecutions with the low hanging staff who have no power and no status. Her in other words.
She is getting ahead of what the DOJ was going to do to her if she did NOT come forward.
So, yes, she is a heroine, but, yes, she is attempting to mitigate he own criminal conspiracy guilt.
Mike, here is my take on that: She is more likely an intelligent young woman raised in a conservative atmosphere who started a post-college career path, not questioning closely enough the underpinnings of the people she was working for.
But she was an observant person who paid close attention to what was going on. She was clearly understood and was repelled by the interpersonal dynamics. At that age, in the beginning of a career, but not in a position of authority, it's hard to know what to do- other than what she did do in terms of pointing out the truth to those she worked for. And then being thorough and straight-forward while being interviewed by members of the committee.
As for the timing of her testimony, I think she has been there all along (note the number of different interviews the committee had with her, as shown by location, dress, etc), as the witness who could do exactly what she did: tie the people at the White House together, demonstrate their relationships and behavior, and pull all of that together particularly on the DAY of the insurrection. Before her testimony could do that, we already had to have all the other pieces in mind. It was a brilliant structuring of building a meaningful picture of what happened that day.
As for what was in her mind, Mike S, it takes real arrogance to project something you cannot know into someone else's head. Let's give her what she is due: respect and honor for her commitment to the truth we need.
Thank you for your response. I totally agree with your perception Annie.
Annie,
A a very well written and clear post. Thank you. I think your summary rings true, although, my own hypothesis does have potential validity independent of her age.
However, your writing of your perspective is benchmark.
Thank you, Mike. I appreciate your note. Yes, some people may indeed have the kind of motivations you referred to. But there are two problems: one is that generalizations are built from a broad range of possibilities. So one can look at a suitable large set of individuals and derive a general assumption about that group. However, one cannot apply a generalization to an individual, whether part of the original group or now. That's basic logic. There's also the fact that we are not in the realm of hypothesis here.
I keep having cognitive dissonance when these Republicans are testifying. Yes they are heroes for testifying. No they are no friend to Democracy because of not coming forward during the 4 years of madness.
What is it about humans that crave heroes so much? Weird. Why aren't people asking her that question of "Why not sooner?"
trump people experience a cognitive dissonance with all that power, propaganda and elitism. It is like they become One with the cancer. All cults are like that with a charismatic leader. I have always found him despicable and cannot understand the attraction anyone feels towards him. But then, I have never been very impressed with idol worship...except Paul McCartney when I was 7. Never shook that one.
🙂 Heart button malfunctioning.
I was never a groupie either. Still not. But yeah McCarthy was quite the rage back then. It seems as if all the girls had their favorite Beatle.
NOT McCarthy!!! McCartney! hahahahahah!
Annie's well written perspective does provide some valid cover for why she did not come forward earlier.
I have my doubts, however, Annie's perspective, in the absence of more data, is a perfectly valid hypothesis. Well written too.
And who would she have reported to and listened to a 24 year old administrative assistant before Jan 6? Everything is so easy viewed in hindsight from the safety of one’s couch.
Think about the fact there wasn’t a January 6 committee until now. Who was she to go to to tell this story? It needed to be told to a bi-partisan group with enough power to dig out the truth and an audience to listen.
True of so many,
Yep. Dead silent before Jan 06.
But actually, who would have believed her before Jan 06?
She is a young person who needs mentoring and ethics guidance, who will step up?
Here is a link to an Atlantic article talking about the phenomena of the trump follow:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-dangerous-deranged-seditious-president/ar-AAYZFF2?ocid=uxbndlbing#:~:text=View%20Profile-,A%20Dangerous%2C%20Deranged%2C%20Seditious%20President,-Opinion%20by%20Peter
An excerpt:
"However this plays out, this needs to be said: For the past half-dozen years, the Republican Party and the American right—with a very few honorable exceptions— stood with Trump, defended him, and attacked his critics. Some went silent in the face of his indecency and lawlessness; many others gleefully promulgated his lies and conspiracy theories. Together they attempted to annihilate truth on his behalf, in his name, for their party, to seize and to hold power.
Some comfort themselves by saying that they went along for the ride so they could promote their policy agenda. Others were afraid to speak up. Still others did it for ratings and money. Some Trump supporters were true believers. Some rationalized their deal with the (figurative) devil; others were more transparent and more cynical.
Every Trump supporter has his story to tell, his defense to offer, his reasons why he did what he did."
My personal view is talk to 12 trump supporters and you will get 12 different reasons why they support/supported him.
Excellent post, perspective and writing. Exactly why I read this board.
"My personal view is talk to 12 trump supporters and you will get 12 different reasons why they support/supported him."
All of those reasons will be invalid, confused, hyperbole, EXCEPT those honest enought to say: "Trump is where the money is".
Agreed, Susan. Especially when we compare it to my MD rural county. We have strong Democratic voters who are fearful here who will not allow us to put generic Democratic signs in their yards for fear of attack by the gun toting, aggressive, screaming at School Board members about CRT, loud right wing Repubs, even tho we are about evenly split with #s of Dems and Repubs, but we do also have a significant # of Independents who split a bit more conservative. When we compare this to Cassidy, she's a really heroine!
I choose not To confront the yahoos in Maine who drive their big pickups with their guns with Fuck Biden signs. I have been tempted but realize I could putting my life in danger. If it was not for the Jan 6 committee so much would
Not have come to light. Cassidy looked quite tense as she was testifying. It takes courage to do what she did. Hope she gets protection. Also remember the system is much more powerful
Than the individual. It is difficult to break ranks when you are apart of it.
❤️
They are all guilty of treason.
Unfortunately, I am not sure the DOJ has the right people to run the first prosecution of an American "President".
Why not?
The folks the DOJ have hired, mostly from white schools for kids from means, may just be too similar in background to Trump to really cut him up.
The intensity and disgust required to persevere through a prosecution of Trump is not something that most of the DOJ employees will be able to sustain.
DOJ need to hire some lawyers from Howard University School of Law to prosecute Trump. But, I bet DOJ don't have even one lawyer from that school.
Agreed. Their brains might know the Law but their life experience prohibits any astute realization of what has happened.
In other words. They are really smart sissies.
"really smart sissies".
Thank you for saying what I was afraid to say.
As a former educator, I just have to ask. If “elite” schools produce people like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mike Pompeo, etc. what good are they? It seems to me that these “fine” schools are lacking in the capability to produce “fine” people. These people and others like them are not anyone I would want my children to emulate.
Harvard and Yale have long been bastions of far right echo chambers.
They were also all white Universities until yesterday when they let one black person in and, at the same time, declared that the reason was affirmative action so that they could enrage their far right donors.
In truth, the African Americans they let in have MUCH higher grades and SAT scores than George W. Bush or Jared Kushner or Trump.
Nonsense on all counts.
Loree,
I cannot respond lest you kindly let me know what your reasons are for the declaration of nonsense.
In the absence of reasons,
I hereby declare my above perspective as true, unassailable and without question.
:-)
KR, have you ever been terrified of someone more powerful than yourself? Someone who would not think twice about destroying you or your family? You didn’t see the testimony of the poll workers? Ms Hutchinson is pretty much a hero in my estimation
Yes, Rivka, as I said above to Susan with my rural MD county experience this year.
KR (OH), I am also angry no one spoke up at the time or that they just saved it for their books.
Yep. Coming forward only now as DOJ gears up to prosecute from the bottom up.
I'm with you all the way on that thought KR. I've said this all along. Keeping quiet to protect their careers. Then realizing that was not in their best interest because it would all come out anyway, deciding to "tell it all". Who knows, they could be keeping a lot more from the committee. Didn't she mention Engels? I thought he testified already. I don't remember him mentioning the incident in "the beast". I've been working a lot and behind on viewing the hearings so maybe I missed it?
The other day, Steve Engel (Assistant AG in the WH Office of Legal Counsel) testified.
Yesterday, Bobby Engel, whose position I didn't get, I think was the one who told 45 he wasn't going to be taken to the Capitol. 2 different Engel's, it seems.
Remember, all these witnesses have been tampered with and threatened since the 1/6 rally. ALL of them. They have all testified to these credible death threats. Most of them are still under threat from a man who tried to choke his own bodyguard, and his rabid litter. They dox the witnesses on Faux, they have been destroying lives to supress these testimonies.
So agree, KR. The second impeachment should have been the time for them to show up for democracy.
Who is them? As long as we continue this them and us and black and white thinking we are perpetuating division. We are critical of people who have the courage to speak out now because they did not do it sooner when they should have according to you.
When you are the privileged class white and a male it must be hard to fully understand what it is like to be not part of that class. Women have not had the privilege white men have. Now with Roe vs Wade we again are subjugated to powerlessness over our body and the white male is untouched. Do you remember what happen at the Kavanaugh hearing? Or Clarence Thomas hearing? Were these brave women honored and supported for coming forward ? Hardly. What has changed ? Nothing. You continue to criticize because she did not testify at the charade of of the impeachment of Trump. I am angry. I am tired of being blamed for not doing it right according to the people in power white men. I admit unfortunately many white women have drunk the koolaid.
Sorry to have offended you. But I stand by my opinion of "them" Senators who voted to acquit 45. I said nothing about the brave women who testified at the SCOTUS hearings, so don't know where you are getting that I "continue to criticize."
I take it you are not a privileged white male, so do fully understand "what it is like to be not part of that class." As a privileged white woman married to a black man (not the status of a Supreme Court justice) for the past 40+ years - being in "the room where it does not happen" - I think I have a perspective on what it is like...
Finally, just FYI, not a fan of Kool-Aid so do not drink it and never have.
A few hours after Hutchinson's testimony had ended, I realized I felt uneasy about it, but could not identify why. It occurred to me that we have a hard time accepting powerful testimony from women--Anita Hill comes to mind, along with others. When a man testifies, we accept at face value (or not) their stated reasons of patriotism, conscience, or even just seeing the handwriting on the wall. But when a woman testifies, we wonder about her relationship with her boss along with all the other questions Nathan noted about political ambition, book deals, etc.
In the end, I am left with two thoughts: First, her description of Trump's mental state confirms what we have known in abstract. The painful detail she provided makes facing our blindness inescapable. That part is truly terrifying on many levels. Yet, men do not seem to have thought to mention it; they didn't really mention Trump in descriptive terms--"agitated" doesn't begin to cover it. It confirms that they were willing to ignore the inhumanity of his actions for the hollow glory of his promises. Second, the only part of her testimony that was hearsay was the incident in the car. I wish she had not mentioned it, because it made her vulnerable to contradiction, and it is already being disputed.
As one of the network commentators mentioned, men are often more forthcoming with female subordinates because they unconsciously do not see them as an equal who might become a threat in the future. The commentator further said they often are not even aware of the women's presence. In my own career I saw that fact many times and on occasion had bosses savvy enough to take advantage of it by sending me to represent them...and to listen. Plus, a quick mind coupled with a pleasant demeanor and an assistant's role would likely have been viewed as a welcome audience in the tension and terror of the Trump White House. In short, I do not doubt her testimony.
The part of her testimony that was hearsay was encouraged by the Committee, and was prefaced at several times by her full acknowledgement that it was hearsay. Testifying about hearsay evidence when encouraged to do so is different than dropping an "I heard this..." bomb. If my memory serves (I was listening to this on the radio while driving so I could neither take notes OR devote 100% of my attention to the testimony) she mentioned that while she wasn't in the vehicle at the time, there were people the committee had subpoenaed that were there.
You bring up a point so obvious that it shames me that it never occurred to me: acceptance at face value of a man's testimony vs. a woman's testimony.
I would not bet the farm that the two MAGA Secret Squirrels in the Beast with the Psycho Fat Man will speak freely or truthfully. They were dedicated to protecting him. Many had drunk his tainted cool-aid.
I do remember early in his tenure that Trump removed the usual White House Security Detail members and replaced them with his own hand-picked people. So, you might be right about that.
I am thinking that the J6 Committee has more evidence or testimony regarding trump's behaviors so the "hearsay" will probably have back-up by those who were in the Beast's car.
Oh, I am sorry, the car is named the Beast. How easily I mixed them up! :-)
😆
Oh, too funny! Thanks for the laugh!
🤣👍
Thank you, KEM. I agree with you about your take of the sexism at work, both in how she was perceived by her co-workers, and, sadly, by some of the commenters here who are all too eager to cast judgement. I have been in situations similar to hers, and dismissed because of my gender- until I was proven right. As for the so-called hearsay, the committee specifically asked her to testify about what she'd been told about the incident in the car. Both they and she were clear that she was repeating what she'd been told. I think there will be more on that, probably from the people she mentioned, in later sessions. Cassie Hutchinson's testimony was the thread that tied together the events and people involved at the White House that day, linking them to the insurrection, and this was part of that thread.
Plus, Annie, since this isn't a court of law, I suspect hearsay isn't the no-no it would be otherwise.
As to sexism, it reminds me of a deposition I was covering back in the seventies where a "lady lawyer" was up against a male curmudgeon who hardly held his contempt for her daring to be his equal. While he was questioning her client, this lady lawyer quietly rose from her chair and, after pouring a cup of coffee, walked over to his side of the table and served it to him along with a small tray of cream and sugar where she offered to prepare it to his liking. It absolutely unnerved him so much that he lost his train of thought and had to start over. I had to turn my face away so that no one could see me smirking!
Yep about the status of hearsay, but it does need to be clearly noted in this context, because there are still a lot of people who aren't clear on that. And by making it super-clear ahead of time, it puts the burden back on those who, for whatever reason :-/ would attack her entire testimony based on that alone.
LOVED your story about the "lady lawyer"! Great tactic. She is someone I would love to have known.
Absolutely agree, Annie.
The "lady lawyer" story happened in the era of "I am Woman; hear me roar." So men were having their fill of that in those days. What she did was remarkable; obviously, since I can vividly remember it these many years later.
I agree that this is a hearing, not a trial. But I listen with one ear towards what DOJ could potentially use when charges are brought.
Yes, I have to keep reminding myself it's not a trial, even though they're sworn to tell the truth.
I remain unconvinced of her role, either innocent bystander or active player or somewhere in between. She was a very sober witness, well prepared, poised and clear in her delivery. The comments subsequent to my first contribution have been very insightful. The last West Wing scandal back in the Clinton Era had several players and a bunch of mixed/muddied motives, lying under oath, escape from prosecution in exchange for testimony, other maneuvers typical of scandals and the scandalous behavior that they bring out in the accused. The last word has not been spoken in this one, perhaps not even from Ms. Hutchinson
The report on the Today Show this morning seemed to focus on the fact that some of Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a court of law. But she personally witnessed most of what she described.
That is exactly my concern about the car incident--that the media coverage has latched onto one very brief piece to attempt to discredit her, rather than the first hand witness she bore to other facts.
Yet, that one brief piece was, I believe, essential to the story of how uncontrolled and to a large degree uncontrollable was tfg. There always will be those who seize on that to support their belief that it was made up and that tfg wouldn't have acted like that (how can they even....?) so they can ignore the rest of her remarkable testimony.
Besides, the story about the ketchup dripping down the wall - firsthand knowledge, not hearsay - underlines the likelihood that what she was told by Ornato was true even though he now denies it. There is *nothing* in her testimony to suggest she could possibly have made up such an incredible story out of thin air.
I used to have a good reputation in Hollywood for being able to "make this shit up," but I couldn't make this shit up. If I did a script exactly as she described things, I'd have been laughed out of the room.
As bad, as awful, as you know he is and then this comes along and you know you haven't been able to image 1/1,000 of the reality.
Sadly—tragically, really—I found it all too easy to believe the reality of Ms Hutchinson’s testimony, TC. We had four years to absorb the true nature of this man; actually, we’ve had several decades of vile behavior—if we were paying attention—to acclimate ourselves to this horrific sickness.
The only question now is: what are we going to do about him and his minions?
Ready
Aim
Fire
And a mass grave in the swamp they slithered out of.
His minions and his followers.
Exactly right.
But we will likely never know the extent of the depravity. Decades and decades of it.
As astounding as Ms. Hutchinson's testimony was today, it only confirmed for me (in spades) how infantile, petulant and unstable 45 really was. The part of this that blows my mind is the people around him that fully knew what was about to go down and they were FINE with it! Seditious treason across the board.
I think sometimes our brains try to protect us from too much of the reality all at once so we don’t face plant into the damn hot sizzlin’’ griddle.
Salud, TC. Thank you for all your insight on That’s Another Fine Mess. 🗽
👍🏼
Exactly. Which makes me wonder TC how people around #45 enabled his behavior for 4+years. Is it his charm? He must be charming like a snake. Watch out or it’ll bite. ❤️🤍💙
Lindsey Graham said that he was afraid of him. I think they were all afraid of him. I suppose that he very quickly became the darling of enough of his mob that they were afraid they would not receive enough votes when they ran again. Power in DC is the most potent aphrodisiac according to a friend whose father in law was in a powerful position in the past.
Listen to the Michael Cohen podcasts or just read up on sociopaths or cult leaders or domestic abusers if you want to understand how they get away with this behavior. Trump is the same monster he has always been.
I once had to testify in court about a woman - a friend - who duped our entire community into believing she was doing great things for a local nonprofit. She fooled the lawyers, the bankers, paid her staff to keep quiet. And when we began to suspect, she announced she was just diagnosed with cancer, throwing us temporarily off the track as we empathized with her (fabricated) illness. What I learned is sociopaths have no concept of right or wrong and an absolute genius for playing any role necessary to achieve their goals. There is no affect, no remorse, because there is no there there.
Ooh, Nancy, I just posted a similar comment about moral codes before seeing this one from you. Same or similar thing, I'd say.
I think most of us here are measuring him and people like him against our own moral code. We have to keep remembering he has none
Hutchinson told us. They tolerated the bad behavior because of all the wonderful things he was doing as POTUS. They got Roe overturned. They’re about to overturn regulations that are marginally keeping earth inhabitable. They want strict immigration laws because they understand the rest of the world is about to starve to death and they want iron clad walls at the borders to keep people out. There is not one hair on these creatures that is the least bit Christ like
He is a vile viper that will attack and poison you if you do not drool in adoration.
I always thought it might be some form of mass hypnosis. Subliminal whatever.
Rupert
He used the same tactics authoritarian/fascists use. Repetitive propaganda messaging (fox, twitter, rallies), divide by sowing hatred, anger and eventually violence. In his campaign, we witnessed his ability to whip of the crowd into an angry frenzy...like a pack of wolves. Hitler is trumps role model. Putin is a bit more devious in his tactics of deception because he is "poisonously" quieter.
Could you have made up the "petulant child" scene! I found the ketchup on the wall episode a perfect depiction of a 5 year old. And that's about the true age of our former president. Stunted emotional growth at age 5.
LOL.......Insult to 5 year olds!!! But, yes, yes.....so stunted emotionally ( read Mary Trump's first book for family of origin reason). Marry sociopathy to power ( and wealth) and you get easily enraged entitlement and the ketchup monster!!
Ketchup Monster! Better tell Heinz and Hunt's!
I had that same thought before yesterday. If I were to write this as a script, no one would want to produce it because they would never believe it as plausible.
“Regularly pulled the tablecloth, with dishes, off the table…” WTF.
Exactly right.
Or say, "I'll take an ounce of whatever your smoking!"
Respectfully disagree. Think “house of cards” series.
House of Cards came close. We stopped watching because the evil was too visceral. And unbelievable at the time. Now.....
Trump is a product of the media idiots who gave him a tV show! Our culture ceased to evolve once the reality shows (in name only) became cash cows for the networks!
Awareness of his past, riddled with bankruptcies; suing companies whom he owed money; stiffing employees of earned income and lying whenever it suited him. Lest we not forget that he had absolutely no regard for his marriage vows as evidenced by his cheating on the first wife to woo the second, repeat second to third and finally affairs while third was pregnant!
Religionists may claim ‘g-d hates the sin but loves the sinner!’ However, trump has never admitted that he ‘sinned nor repented’!
His amoral core has rotted decades ago!
Stay tuned … “ And yet no one in the White House either spoke up to warn us before January 6 or testified at Trump’s second impeachment trial, where he was charged with incitement of insurrection and, thanks to Republican senators, acquitted.”
Is it possible to reverse one’s vote to acquit Trump? I wonder how many of those 43 senators felt shame and remorse today.
Doubt it, Maureen. It probably just fired up his base, because he referred to them as “my people”.
Yes, I’m afraid “his people” are their people, too. But I still wonder if they don’t reek of inner shame at having voted to acquit this monstrosity of a President. History will not look kindly on their folly.
Shame is no longer a motivator. The callous hardened a long time ago
For them to feel shame, one would expect them to act normal. I don't think they are normal at all. They priorities are all screwed up.
I know. It made me think of Moses. What a sick, sick man.
Maureen,
None of them feel remorse or shame. They are too empowered by a system that protects them from punishment for wrongdoing and they are fully aware that the chances that punishment or negative outcomes occur for them are tiny to nonexistent.
Yes, I did say "inner shame," which might not necessarily be reflected in their outer behavior. I'm not ready to concede that 43 members of the Senate totally lack a conscience. But many people do not follow its dictates until they have no other option. That's where I hope we are headed.
OK. I respect your hope.
I want to see what is as close to reality as I can, real time, so I can make good real time choices. I think the time is coming when I will need to be able to see reality in order to put the effort in to correct that reality to what makes more sense to me. And, to many others.
You know McConnell didn’t. Bull he cares about our county…that’s his big lie!
He doesn't even like tfg-- he just likes power and money.
And I bet he won't be Majority leader if 45 gets to be 47.
Bet your right Lynell. Lord, will the next one be even more evil. Can’t even imagine that.
When Rosen tells us after his J6 testimony he would still vote for TFG, I’m gonna guess, that they are all feeling like they just won the lottery with the overturning of Roe. Little else matters to them. Guns and embryos and the rape of Mother Earth.
I think that was Rusty Bowers, Arizona Secretary of State. Maybe Rosen said it too but I don't recall hearing it from him or reading about it later.
Yes! Thank you Judith! It was Bowers not Rosen!! I better go watch the tapes again! Seems they all blend in together at this point. It’s important to be accurate. Thank you!!!
Not many, the cult still rules the fools
Only because the truth is out.....
Is it possible to 'disband' a party?
Perhaps not disband it, but many of the legislators and lawyers who have conspiratorially enabled the treasonous crimes attested to the J6 Committee should be disbarred.
“Causes of disbarment may include: a felony involving "moral turpitude," forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney's ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disbar
Rose, thank you for this information. The bar of each state would have to put this in motion. Hopefully residents of those states will demand it.
Only the Republican party can disband the Republican party. So far, they're doing a magnificent job of it.
I do love your application of the “disband” term here, Gailee! No longer a party, but a band, in the term’s Oxford definitions of 1.
a group of people who have a common interest or purpose.
"guerrilla bands" or 3. a herd or flock.
yes. thank you for the oxford definitions. ( i don't know why but i seem to be in e. e. mood right now.)
In CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, 25, Mark Meadows and the DISHONEST Republican TRUMP male political establishment, top down and bottom up, are now learning what it means when an honest female underling has a conscience and the courage to act on it. They hired an honest well brought up refreshingly frank and respectful young woman schooled in the best of the Catholic Church tradition ... of let your conscience be your guide. She will not lie... she will not spin... she surely knows that lies are the currency of today’s GOP. As her face today reveals, she is sad, but she is loyal to the constitution, to her tradition, to herself - and she is an American with old fashioned values. CASSIDY HUTCHINSON was inside the Trump administration in the White House... and she experienced Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel... daily. She came to understand them - on a first name basis... and it is clear that none of them messed with her, personally.
She presented as a well balanced 25 year old with a sharp wit, clear eye, a smile and an honest heart. She may be unique in the Trump White House and in Washington, DC these days .. and her behaviour may inspire an avalanche of similar testimony before this is over.
HONESTY CAN BE CONTAGIOUS... CASSIDY HUTCHINSON will be tested.. but she just may be the fulcrum upon which the rest of her party forms up.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON is unique today: she is an honest Republican in the White House of Trump - and her presence and performance challenge another Catholic, the conflicted presently troubled White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is behaving like a coward... destroying his reputation.
Let’a hope the party of Abraham Lincoln can find leadership in a 25 year old woman with courage... and class.
👍🏼
Sandy, thank you for this and especially the part about Cassidy being schooled in the best of the Catholic tradition. I sincerely hope you are right about that as, in my very Catholic experience, the primacy of conscience teaching is often downplayed in favor of non-critical ( as in thinking) acceptance. So, it fills me with hope to imagine that this young person " got it" and exercised her conscience as so many Catholic women have done in response toHumane Vitae, Pope Paul VI's encyclical banning contraception.! Thank you for seeing this young person`s courage and growing clarity in her life.
I so appreciate your words today. Carol
Carol Stanton, thanks, please, let’s talk, Sandy .. 973.379.4446 iPhone WhatsApp or SIGNAL or direct
Sandy. Bless you for describing Cassidy Hutchinson in the way that is probably the closest any of us can come to who she is.
Thank you, Annie. Sandy
Remember that this is a hearing, not a trial. I see several statements of belief here, but testimony needs to stand up to cross examination and corroborating witnesses. Yes, one swears to tell the truth, and yes, we're tempted to take the testimony at face value... AND, none of the other players in the room at the time have testified, other than the DOJ witnesses, and her testimony was not used to corroborate their testimony or vice versa. The committee has elicited a very compelling story, but it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal trial and conviction, with corroborating witnesses, cross examination, more compelling power of subpoena, etc.
Do you think that no one here realizes this? Suggest spending more time before making assumptions. Especially where Sandy is concerned. This is not a discussion about procedures- at least not solely. It is a place for us to try to understand all the factors at work, including our own thoughts. We have thoughts all over the map, and sometimes we disagree, some of us are just getting to where other folks have come from... but we are just trying to work our way through things. Please don't patronize us.
who's patronizing? I'm interested not just in what people do and say, but what are the motivations, influences and constraints associated with what they do and say. The interpersonal dynamics amongst people in pressure-cooker environments is very important to understand how and why they behave the way they do. There are always elements to this kind of story that go unstated, at least initially.
Um. Exactly.
Good words.
Mark Meadows was a 61 y.o. former congressman, married with 2 children who resigned his congressional seat to become chief of staff to tfPOTUS. Miss Hutchinson was a 23 y.o. highly attractive young woman who had already held positions in the offices of 3(?) congressmen of some power and importance on on Capital Hill. And, he insisted that she be present in every meeting...what kind of a relationship was this? Perhaps entirely platonic...or, charged with a certain kind of energy, made even more potent by the rarified atmosphere of the West Wing. She is someone who could certainly connect the dots, and if not completely aware, was very substantially aware of what was occurring, being able to hear conversations from just outside a door, half open, drafting memos, carrying/delivering documents, arranging meetings, being present in the room for highly confidential interchanges between White House officials, Justice Department officers and employees, "Outside Staff" such as Guliani, and campaign staff. Did she have means to contact congressional members and senators like Pelosi, Cheney, Schumer, Murkowsky? Could she have been a whistle-blower? Did she even covertly attempt to forestall or derail a plot to overthrow the legitimate vote? She certainly had heard and watched Mr. Barr disavow the big Lie and resign his position in December 2020. Is she brave? no doubt, given the testimony of others who have faced down the president, either directly or in public forums. She'll probably have to change her contact information, get a new apartment or leave Washington DC altogether, go underground while the MAGA fringe is still active. Is she a hero, or the example of a patriot? Hard to say, given the circumstance under which her knowledge has come to the public ear, 18 months and a subpoena later. Does she have a book deal? Has she been in contact with the DOJ and does she have an immunity from prosecution agreement with them in return for her testimony? Is she a victim of her motivation to climb rapidly to the pinnacle of Washington political staffers? Does/did she have her own political aspirations? What does that resume look like now? One is tempted to place white and black hats on these individuals according to their conduct vis-a-vis the committee, but my strong suspicion is that its far closer to shades of gray, the only question being how gray. Surely, every single individual somehow connected to tfg's administration, campaign or party was subject to some degree of intimidation by their leader, since that is his core administrative style. But; courage is doing the right thing in spite of your fear. Character is the willingness to call out illegal behavior even knowing what it might do to one's own career prospects. Perhaps it was unclear to WHOM one could report concerns, given that the DOJ's highest officials were engaged in the conversation about the conspiracy. However, even in the absence of law enforcement, there's always the press. I suspect she understood the fact that the VP had been carved out of the herd by late December, or he would have been a part of all of those conversations. Why not quietly keep him apprised of what he was missing? Not only was she in the room for many of those meetings, she knew who was, and who wasn't in the room for essentially all of them. While I appreciate that she was willing to testify in detail, I don't think she has much to be proud of under the circumstances.
Nathan and George, you are both right about aspects of this young woman. She witnessed behaviors and events that she surely knew were alarmingly unhinged and seditious, but also struggled with the disorientation created in the throes of cognitive dissonance around a foreclosed belief system. She has been a member of a cult that gave her a sense of identity, purpose, and importance, but slowly came to realize it was built on self-serving lies, not lofty conservative principles. And she was in it up to her eyeballs. Fortunately, she was a relatively young Believer, unpracticed in the art of deception, and not yet fully captured by the cult’s dogma and rules for behavior. Kudos to her new lawyers and the J6 committee for finding and reprogramming this devastating witness.
YES! Think of it… she was 23 and put in a place of power. Power has corrupted the strongest individuals. This young woman needs to be applauded for coming out with the truth not picked over and dissected. Grown OLD men are hiding behind pardons and pleading the fifth and have millions of PAC money to hire lawyers for them. Let her write any book she wants. She was TWENTY THREE and most likely will need to go into the witness protection program. Life as she knew it, life as she planned it is very likely over for her.
indeed...
Thanks, Sharon.
I am already queued-up to purchase an Advanced Copy of her book for a lot of my community and family!!!!
Your assessment is probably more accurate than mine. Perhaps it's the nature of the beast when you take precocious young persons and place them in proximity to power. There's a level of maturity that only occurs with age and experience, once one figures out that every one of those admirable and influential people put their pants on in exactly the same manner as oneself.
I recall how I felt when I learned that a respected academic mentor had an affair with one of my professional school classmates. I was devastated, had to reckon with the dissonance between professional expertise and personal integrity. I don't question this young woman's courage to testify in front of congressional representatives, TV cameras and the public. There's a lot we don't know about her as an individual, except that she was extraordinarily close to the action. She can't be simply given a pass on the "why" of her own conduct while witnessing this sequence of events. She was in that position approximately 6 months before the election itself, so she had some time to observe and understand the interpersonal dynamics between those individuals.
Brrrrrrr....
WOW!
Maureen!
Wonderfully well rounded...spot on in my humble understanding
Thank you
Don't you just love this news letter's community composed primarily of those who care about others!?
I do, indeed, and thank you for the compliment. I guess being a psychologist leads me to often view political actors through that lens.
"Member of a cult" is a telling phrase, when considering all the forces that Nathan listed in his comment, and the inherent sexual aspects of the power plays.
Just from watching Ms. Hutchinson live and on video, here's what I suspect about her relationship with her boss Mr. Meadows: he had her in every meeting because he was utterly dependent on her. She served as his eyes, ears, and brain. (I doubt there was House of Cards-style hanky-panky involved.)
And it's a good thing she was there, because yesterday she served as the nation's eyes, ears, and brain. Hopefully she ended her MAGA-land career yesterday, but just as hopefully she doesn't leave public service altogether.
It's not surprising that Meadows would have been, as you said, "utterly dependent on her." Most leaders rely on staff to take care of the details. And it's often men who delegate these tasks to women, who nevertheless earn far less money.
These are all very insightful comments. But hers was a position which involves a very strong code of professional loyalty and discretion, even when it gets very rough, After breaking that code, she must have been shattered. Betrayal is not in her character. She must have received powerful help in rebuilding her self-respect, confidence, and courage. What she has just done is enormous.
All this and death threats ad nauseum...WOW!
A very special woman.
That powerful help undoubtedly includes Liz Cheney along with Olivia Troye and other women she worked with in Congress and the WH who left the administration when they couldn't swallow the bs anymore.
Nathan:
Twenty-Five-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson was an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. She was right in the maelstrom of America’s democratic form of governance.
What were you doing at 25, Eh!?
Her only source of support had been the slime of deception, greed and republican chauvinism. Totally untrustworthy. Totally threatening. Totally evil.
She finally found the support to fend off the corruption in her newly appointed attorney Jody Hunt, With his help she found the support to come forward against a deadly power that would terrify every commentator to this News Letter!
She is truly The American hero that helped finally tighten the noose around that blubber-butt monster worshipped by every republican as their ticket to a free ride and big pay day!
Stop your petty Tucker Carlson method of innuendo attacks upon her patriotism, Please.
really?...when she testified that she still had difficulty reconciling her emotions over the 2:15 tweet from tfg about his VP's "lack of courage"? 18 months later she can say she was disgusted, disappointed, saddened and she still is ambivalent about her feelings? What was I doing at age 25? studying pharmacology, pathophysiology, pathology, micropathology and a number of other topics one encounters while preparing to become a physician.
This young woman was an observer to extraordinary events, apparently didn't see herself as having any personal agency in the evolving story, rather was just a messenger, an assistant to those who really mattered. One learns in life that you can't fly close to the sun without getting burned. I stand by my questions. I haven't heard anything about when she chose to leave the White House, whether on that day or any subsequent day until Biden and company moved in.
If you’ve ever been in a cult, knowingly or unknowingly, it’s easier to understand her. The shock of disbelief can be paralyzing and takes awhile to reorient oneself to the new reality. At least she got out of that swamp, has some good support, and is able to contribute this important information at the perfect time. If she had tried to reveal it around the time of January 6th, she would most likely have been squashed.
Your words ring true.
Still she did testify which is more than I can say for the "older" folks......
Hey Doc....where is the Love...bedside manner seems a bit chilly from here...I do admire your matriculation and medical service to your community...Bravo sir!
I'm old enough to be her grandfather; part of me is tempted to view her as a victim, but the legal age of majority is 18, except for alcohol consumption in public at age 21. In a court of law, youth and naïvety might get you a reduced sentence, but it won't change whether your actions are one on side or another of the law. And, in the court of public opinion, the verdict can go either way depending on the degree of your complicity. Look at what 2 decades has done to Monica Lewinsky. Her most famous act was one of commission, and she now has a lifetime to live it down. While she may have been "victimized", she wasn't the victim of a crime. Her conduct was voluntary, socially unacceptable, as was the president's, and both paid a price for that conduct, perhaps more extreme and durable than a legal judgement against either. Infamy is a lifetime sentence. In order to know Ms. Hutchinson's role more fully, we'd need to know quite a bit more about her, including the impression of others who were in position to comment on her conduct over time working for at least 3 powerful male political figures. It pays to be a bit skeptical of first impressions, since things are rarely precisely as they seem at first glance.
I have been thinking that Ms Hutchinson is now in the public eye and about to be examined from every angle like Monica Lewinsky was. I hope she is strong enough to weather the storm.
I too wondered about Cassidy’s time since 1/6/21. What has she been doing? Perhaps the change in her legal advice was necessary to help her navigate this. She was very young when working at the White House, had already worked for powerful politicians, who may have impressed her that loyalty is paramount. Heady stuff for any young person. Perhaps, her testimony will induce others to speak.
I also wonder how many politicians are now concerned about the loyalty of their aides?
Let the torturous mind games commence for the guilty......
I agree with some of your observations, Nathan, but, reminding myself of my own personal insecurities at 25 (let alone at 23!) and the threats to her life that her testimony have surely unleashed (which she must have anticipated), I choose to focus on this young woman’s decision to come forward later-better-than-never, and conclude she is remarkable and brave!
Nathan,
Lots of complicated hypotheses in your note for sure. Who knows about those?
Most often, in real systems, the simpler the hypothesis the more likely it is to fit the data.
So, that said, one hypothesis that fits all the data is:
Ms. Hutchinson has been watching the Jan 06 committee creep ever closer to the truth, becoming ever more worried that her own role, as an active, dedicated member of staff would become known and prosecuted because 1) she is woman 2) she is low on the totem pole.
Ms. Hutchinson simply decided to get out ahead of the DOJ.
Ms. Hutchinson will know that the DOJ will go for the weak staff members first. That means anyone who is not white and male and rich.
She would be the top of the list of the DOJ "easy prey".
My hypothesis is that she has come forward out of a strong desire for self preservation.
She sat before the J6 Committee for four depositions before she testified at the hearing yesterday. She didn’t just “come forward” after watching the prior hearings on tv.
Thanks, Phyllis. You took the words out of my ...keyboard.
I don’t buy your cynicism here. Self-preservation would have kept her away from yesterday’s microphone.
for the most part living life today seems to be monopolized by a preoccupation with self-preservation, Eh!?
She dismissed her prior counsel who did not favor cooperation with the committee. The current advisor was obviously either proactive or permissive with respect to her testimony, most probably helped her prepare, both in what to say and what not to say. That's not a value statement, just an educated guess. It's a fact that cooperation with the authorities can protect a "small fish" in the pursuit of indictment and prosecution of more influential players. Youth, a subordinate position, potential for coercive behavior on the part of superiors (no interrogation or testimony to that possibility presented...), gender related power differential could all act in favor of the witness. Prisons are far more richly populated with men than women, for some very legitimate reasons, but also because juries just have a harder time attributing the same degree of malevolence to women as to men, who routinely demonstrate more brutal behavior towards others. I don't know the exact timing of her recorded testimony, but certainly a number of months transpired between 1/6 and the time the committee got around to taking her testimony in the first place. She had the opportunity to consider her course of action, find legal counsel and enter into some form of cooperative agreement with the committee. I did not hear whether or not a subpoena was issued for her testimony, either remotely or in the public hearing, but you can absolutely be assured that there was some dialogue before she took the oath to testify. Whether or not her role is of interest to the DOJ is yet another question.
Do you remember being 25? Sure doesn’t seem to be the case. Had she done any of the things you suggested, her effectiveness would have been marginal. As it has unfolded, it’s monumental b
Admittedly, that was a long time ago. I doubt I had the poise or confidence that she displayed under questioning at the hearing. There's a lot we don't know. Others knew her during previous assignments. There were other aides in the West Wing. Undoubtedly they sometimes met for drinks after work. Her character witnesses are out there, apparently haven't spoken up publicly yet.
At least two have:
Olivia Troye, former Mike Pence Aide: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/fmr-pence-aide-cassidy-hutchinson-s-testimony-shows-her-courage-143047237509
Olivia Troye and Alyssa Barrett Griffin, former top aide in WH (per Jake Tapper): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQmXcIipr8M
And then there's this from.... Faux News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqgpK8QNdI
Until this investigation, she wouldn’t have been listened to had she spoken up. She was just a young women who could be ignored or not believed.
Like Anita Hill.
I see a book deal with movie rights in the future.
Easy for you to say from the safety of your home.
Has even one sitting Republican member of congress condemned these actions as further detailed today? This must be the litmus test for continued tenure at the ballot box and in our regard for them as loyal or disloyal American citizens. Cowardice and self interest are the current GOP soul.
TRUST!!!!
A REPUBLICAN!!!!
ARE YOU CRAZY!!!????
Pardon my candor, but it may be a “pussy” to bring The Don down, namely Cassidy. I have a pussy hat and I have decided to name it “Catsidy”.
❤️❤️🤣
The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard in affect ensures that the guilt is proven to both political parties so that the charges are bipartisan. This was the case in Watergate where Barry Goldwater said there were just too many crimes proven during the Watergate hearings-Nixon had to resign. Throughout the course of history we are unique in not using charges of treason or insurrection against the vanquished political opponents! The impeachment proceedings had no live witnesses, were essentially a closing argument that revealed few details (compared to Watergate and the current January 6 committee) and didn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essentially now evolving Common law concept is good because treason and insurrection charges have been abused by political opponents for thousands of years, it was common in ancient Rome, the French Revolution, British revolution etc. In conclusion, the committee has yet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of specific crimes, but it’s getting closer and there’s a sense that in the end they will meet this heavy burden such that indictment of Trump and his minions will be bipartisan. That the committee is only putting on evidence by Republicans and those who were part of the administration which makes it so much stronger and the committee knows it! This is an incredibly important service and function of this congressional committee! I bet the committee members knew they had to convict Trump & minions beyond a reasonable doubt with testimony under oath before he would be indicted and convicted and that’s what they set out to do. I’ll bet you this was their plan from the beginning! Brilliant!
"The important lesson today and from Watergate is that to charge a President for insurrection or treason, instead of the standard of probable cause for indictment as is for all citizens, the charge must first be proven by live witnesses during an official proceeding under-oath to in affect a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE such indictment charges can be brought. "
Bradley, what if Trump were a Black man? Would you be proposing this new approach to charging people for a crime?
Or? Would a black President ALREADY be in jail or dead from execution?
I think what you mean is a White President must be tiptoed around because most of the laws on the books support white crime and to throw a white man in jail you have to get his community behind that?
Which, is pretty sad.
I think the more appropriate charge would be seditious conspiracy. We certainly already have identified who the co-conspirators are, reinforced by Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony on Tuesday. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
More explosive, damning, credible testimony by another “staunch Republican” of a willful, concerted effort, led by a sitting president, to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
Has anyone heard or read any rebuttal to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter? There seems to be a deafening silence from the people who acquitted the former president twice for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”. We now have evidence that he committed the highest crimes an elected official, who swore an oath to “preserve and defend” the US Constitution, can commit. Included in the list is aiding and abetting the attempted assassination of the Vice President.
Remember when the Republican Party was the party of “personal responsibility”?
I've just checked the French and Italian reactions. The front page of Le Monde is plastered with quotes and takeaways. Corriere della Sera was quieter - the gist is, if what she's said can be proved, his goose is cooked. For instance: she wasn't in the car, how does she know he tried to grab the wheel? Well, she's named the men who were in the car. They can confirm or deny. tfg of course has blasted her on the solemnly-named TRUTH Social as being a liar, a nobody, he hardly knew her, out for revenge because she applied for a job at Mar-a-Lago and was knocked back (an accusation which in itself poses several questions).
There is also the ”question” (hah!) of his credibility vs. Ms. Hutchinson’s.
Jail for life or a noose. Nothing less. Sorry, but it's that damned simple. Furious.
And I want Flynn brought back on active duty, court martialed and broken. Or shot for treason--I'm available, 24/7.
Well I totally agree about Flynn. He is an operative, as trump is, I am pretty sure. But Flynn needs to be courtmartialed and jailed, publicly, asap.
I hope Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is protected 24/7! Witness Protection seems an option to consider!
I cannot get my head around these facts and the Republican members of Congress refusing twice to hold #45 accountable. What does it tell us about them? AND MAYBE MORE URGENTLY IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN, ABOUT THEIR VOTE FOR THE THREE SUPER QUESTIONABLE SCOTUS JUDGES APPOINTED BY #45 AND RAILROADED THROUGH THEIR HEARINGS BY THE REPUBLICANS?
I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments cannot be re-examined and possibly voided? The Roe v Wade should be a chilling example of how HIS SCOTUS judges together with the 3 other right wing judges have made the SCOTUS utterly and totally INVALID! If I had a case pending with this outfit, I’d be considering withdrawing it in protest!
Ingrid:
"I still cannot understand that when a president of the uSA turns out to be not just incompetent but willing to embark on illegal activities that his appointments"
Republicans are HAPPY about what Trump did. Republicans are not even slightly interested in Democracy anymore.
Trump was merely their out-of-control monkey out front whilst they attempted to destroy our democracy and Rule of Law from the dark.
Bing. A more correct sentence does not appear on today's board.
Thanks, Mike S. It has felt like he was "placed" according to the 40 year plan they have been cooking up and installing people across this land. Luckily, it has been a train wreck from the campaign to now. A LOT is going to be revealed that hopefully marks all of the rotten apples in this conspiracy against America...both here and with foreign adversaries.