I may be mistaken--but I was under the impression that this was the third time that Ms. Hutchinson had testified before the committee. If that's true, then the desire to "improve" the testimony until she got it "right" for Adam Schiff could be her downfall. Of course there is the immediately apparent physical question--could someone riding in the back seat of the Presidential limousine actually "lunge" for the steering wheel.?
The problem with all this is the credibility of the committee was already weak due to its kangaroo court structure (excluding the other side), the lack of credibility of some of the members, and the slick presentation makes it look more like a show trial than a serious search for truth. And it is against a backdrop of many years of repeated false reports and hoaxes about things that Trump said and did. Recall for example the deceptively edited video the Impeachment prosecutors presented at the second impeachment hearing that Trump's lawyers blew out of the water. So if this turns out to be BS then it confirms all the suspicions about the integrity of this whole committee hearing and the media's gullible coverage (again). That's why this matters--well beyond just her credibility.
I think the Committee put a couple of holes in its foot. Hutchinson's hearsay account of Trump's return to the White House is apparently at odds with eye witness accounts. Her statement that Trump said the Secret Service should let armed supporters into his Ellipse speech is apparently not hearsay, but Trump notoriously spouts off, so the real question is whether he actually told the Secret Service to back off. On this point, the Committee should have called the Secret Service, not Hutchinson.
The whole issue of guns at the protest is murky. There may have been some in the area, but none, I believe, in the Capitol, so Trump's alleged welcome of an armed mob needs further evidence. And as I said in an earlier comment, Trump's allegedly vociferous desire to join his supporters at the Capitol may well be exculpatory, for it seems unlikely he would want to be on the scene if he knew an armed mob would storm the Capitol. Indeed, if the Secret Service knew there would be guns at the Capitol, I think they would have physically restrained a president who wanted to go there. Again, the Committee should have called the Secret Service. It should also not withhold evidence and select evidence that quite clearly supports only its version of the case.
The January 6 events are damning to Donald Trump, but the Committee proceedings highlights the problems with kangaroo courts.
Off topic, but parallel to it, and very interesting interview: "If everything you're saying is true, why haven't I heard about it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXQSA0Bin4
Who cares???
I may be mistaken--but I was under the impression that this was the third time that Ms. Hutchinson had testified before the committee. If that's true, then the desire to "improve" the testimony until she got it "right" for Adam Schiff could be her downfall. Of course there is the immediately apparent physical question--could someone riding in the back seat of the Presidential limousine actually "lunge" for the steering wheel.?
The problem with all this is the credibility of the committee was already weak due to its kangaroo court structure (excluding the other side), the lack of credibility of some of the members, and the slick presentation makes it look more like a show trial than a serious search for truth. And it is against a backdrop of many years of repeated false reports and hoaxes about things that Trump said and did. Recall for example the deceptively edited video the Impeachment prosecutors presented at the second impeachment hearing that Trump's lawyers blew out of the water. So if this turns out to be BS then it confirms all the suspicions about the integrity of this whole committee hearing and the media's gullible coverage (again). That's why this matters--well beyond just her credibility.
I think the Committee put a couple of holes in its foot. Hutchinson's hearsay account of Trump's return to the White House is apparently at odds with eye witness accounts. Her statement that Trump said the Secret Service should let armed supporters into his Ellipse speech is apparently not hearsay, but Trump notoriously spouts off, so the real question is whether he actually told the Secret Service to back off. On this point, the Committee should have called the Secret Service, not Hutchinson.
The whole issue of guns at the protest is murky. There may have been some in the area, but none, I believe, in the Capitol, so Trump's alleged welcome of an armed mob needs further evidence. And as I said in an earlier comment, Trump's allegedly vociferous desire to join his supporters at the Capitol may well be exculpatory, for it seems unlikely he would want to be on the scene if he knew an armed mob would storm the Capitol. Indeed, if the Secret Service knew there would be guns at the Capitol, I think they would have physically restrained a president who wanted to go there. Again, the Committee should have called the Secret Service. It should also not withhold evidence and select evidence that quite clearly supports only its version of the case.
The January 6 events are damning to Donald Trump, but the Committee proceedings highlights the problems with kangaroo courts.
Jim Dueholm
I said this elsewhere on the 'stacks. They tried a half-court 3-point double-pump hook shot, but it turned out to be an airball. "Unexpectedly!"
Off topic, but parallel to it, and very interesting interview: "If everything you're saying is true, why haven't I heard about it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXQSA0Bin4