January 6 Select Committee Hearings.

[WWFS]

Even if she quoted heresay inaccurately, it is by far the least important evidence given that day. The other evidence including Stone taking the Fifth numerous times is far more compelling.

I don't disagree with that statement one bit.

However, it gives cover to Trump and his minions. Does it also bring her other testimony into question? Does it give the DoJ cause to back off a bit?

[Bern]

Tony Arnato, who was Deputy Chief of Staff, now says categorically that he never told her that story. Apparently, Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service in Charge on that day, is willing to testify that it never happened.

There were only 3 people in that room; Hutchinson, Ornato, and Engel. Two of them say it didn't happen.

Regardless of who is telling the truth, it has to hurt her entire testimony.

There were other people in the beast as well. This was the only hearsay testimony she gave and at the end of the day, it isn't material. There is ample evidence of Trump being unhinged that day.

[Chambokl]

The Secret Service is now disputing the incident inside "the Beast", and have said the agents involved are willing to testify under oath.

I know she was only relaying what someone told her happened, but (especially in today's America), doesn't that shine a different light on her entire testimony?

I have no doubt it's enough for Trump, his supporters, and the entire GOP to discredit her testimony completely.

Look at post #154 . . . we will see shat happen.

[Ignatius Reilly]

There were other people in the beast as well. This was the only hearsay testimony she gave and at the end of the day, it isn't material. There is ample evidence of Trump being unhinged that day.

I'm with WWFS on this.

If proven wrong it puts her entire testimony in question. And for no reason, because as you say it was immaterial.

But.... if she was willing to lie about the beast, then she could just as easily be lying about.... everything else she said.

One ray of hope is what Chambokl reminded us of above. No one who is saying she is lying has done so under oath (have they?).

Anyways, with no hearings scheduled for today, you might as well watch this:

[Jeffc]

I don't know why she would lie and put herself in danger but I get that she may have.

And so far, one is under oath, the other is not.

Lots of republicans said they would co-operate until it was time to do so.

[Benz]

There were other people in the beast as well. This was the only hearsay testimony she gave and at the end of the day, it isn't material. There is ample evidence of Trump being unhinged that day.

Were there other people in the vehicle?
If so, there must be video of each person entering the vehicle before it drove away.

Let's remember that it was a Suburban, not the Cadillac 'beast'.

[Bern]

I'm with WWFS on this.

If proven wrong it puts her entire testimony in question. And for no reason, because as you say it was immaterial.

But.... if she was willing to lie about the beast, then she could just as easily be lying about.... everything else she said.

One ray of hope is what Chambokl reminded us of above. No one who is saying she is lying has done so under oath (have they?).

Anyways, with no hearings scheduled for today, you might as well watch this:

I think the only people who will be swayed by this "lie" are the die-hard Trumpers. If you get these guys under oath and have them deny what happened in the beast that day then we may have something that could give people pause. If they take the stand under oath and plead the fifth then we have our answer.

[Benz]

Anyways, with no hearings scheduled for today, you might as well watch this:

One of my favourite movies. I've seen it at least ten times.

[Marty Canuck]

Were they not protecting him by not allowing him to go to the Capitol?

Sorry, I meant in context of providing incriminating evidence against a former president.I definitely understand they would not let the POTUS stroll into an angry mob.

[Marty Canuck]

I don't disagree with that statement one bit.

However, it gives cover to Trump and his minions. Does it also bring her other testimony into question? Does it give the DoJ cause to back off a bit?

Trump will use it for all the leverage he can. That is what he does. The committee had to know this?

[Benz]

Would the Secret Service not have at least a video recording everything that happened inside a vehicle carrying the President?

[Bern]

Would the Secret Service not have at least a video recording everything that happened inside a vehicle carrying the President?

I suspect they do, as well as footage of what is happening on the road.

[hackerhare]

I don't know why would lie and put herself in danger but I get that she may have.

And so far, one is under oath, the other is not.

Lots of republicans said they would co-operate until it was time to do so.

Maybe she lied to draw out the Trump loyalists to testify. Not a bad tactic.

[Pingeye2_fan]

Trump will use it for all the leverage he can. That is what he does. The committee had to know this?

I like how the right started to try and poke holes in her story, they posted detailed illustrations of the presidential limousine explaining how it wouldn’t have been possible.
Unfortunately for the MAGA clowns he was in an SUV.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Just for the record, I don't think Hutchinson was lying.

Here's an interesting interview with the British film director who was making a documentary about Trump on Jan 6. Jan6 cttee has been watching the footage and been interviewing him.

I like how he mentions that Jan6 cttee was very professional. It was probably a stark contrast to the Trump WH. It also gives me more faith that Cheney knew what she was doing when she introduced the testimony about the beast.