Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
"The January 6th Committee is panicking as their lies are finally being revealed in the mainstream media."
30 Jun 2022 6:40 am
"This is only a sampling of the perspiring hyperbole we were delivered following Cassy's appearance. There were a couple of problems seen initially in all of this effusive coverage. First, did any of her claims make sense to these journalists? Do they really believe Trump had access to the driver's cabin in the presidential limousine and that he tried to choke out a Secret Service agent? Did anyone question the story of guns being visible in the mall where Trump spoke, and no one took action to prevent him from speaking? The lack of pragmatic analysis is stark here.
Secondly, what do any of the Hutchinson stories have to do with the thrust and intent of this hearing? Supposing everything she said was accurate, these anecdotes in no way illustrate intent of fostering the riot or overturning the election. Trump grabbing the wheel of the limo does not prove an insurrection was in play. Our democracy is not threatened by an angered president staining a wall with ketchup after tossing some china in frustration.
The J-6 Commission has also exposed itself as inept as a result of yesterday's testimony. The presence of guns as described is said to be a bombshell revelation, but how are Hutchinson's words of hearsay regarded as so trenchant and important today? It means that after a full year of investigation – with copious hours of video footage from security cameras, cell phones, and police body cams – no one had previously picked up on all these guns at the scene before yesterday.
Instead of delivering hard proof, as claimed, this leads only to more questions. Why was no one with visible weapons arrested, as they were violating the open-carry law in D.C.? How would the president have been permitted to give his speech with guns present in the area? And how is any of this fresh news coming out from an assistant inside the White House when no one else actually on scene gave no such report?
As for Hutchinson's account of the limousine ride, this is deeply flawed testimony as well. Again, she was not in attendance, so already, there are issues with her tale. Then you have her mislabeling the vehicle in question; she declared repeatedly Trump was riding in The Beast when that day he was in the Presidential Limo. Say this is nitpicking if you like, but this is a woman giving a third-hand account from over a year prior and getting a significant detail wrong.
That her account has been boldly disputed across the news spectrum, including by our own Julio Rosas last night, is just the start of the problems. Why is it that this supposedly serious committee rushed Hutchinson out before the cameras in this fashion? When the agents and the Secret Service are willing to go public with a disputed version of events, it exposes the show trial dramatics at play with this outfit...
Instead of delivering hard proof, as claimed, this leads only to more questions. Why was no one with visible weapons arrested, as they were violating the open-carry law in D.C.? How would the president have been permitted to give his speech with guns present in the area? And how is any of this fresh news coming out from an assistant inside the White House when no one else actually on scene gave no such report? ...
Secondly, what do any of the Hutchinson stories have to do with the thrust and intent of this hearing? Supposing everything she said was accurate, these anecdotes in no way illustrate intent of fostering the riot or overturning the election. Trump grabbing the wheel of the limo does not prove an insurrection was in play. Our democracy is not threatened by an angered president staining a wall with ketchup after tossing some china in frustration.
The J-6 Commission has also exposed itself as inept as a result of yesterday's testimony. The presence of guns as described is said to be a bombshell revelation, but how are Hutchinson's words of hearsay regarded as so trenchant and important today? It means that after a full year of investigation – with copious hours of video footage from security cameras, cell phones, and police body cams – no one had previously picked up on all these guns at the scene before yesterday.
Instead of delivering hard proof, as claimed, this leads only to more questions. Why was no one with visible weapons arrested, as they were violating the open-carry law in D.C.? How would the president have been permitted to give his speech with guns present in the area? And how is any of this fresh news coming out from an assistant inside the White House when no one else actually on scene gave no such report?
As for Hutchinson's account of the limousine ride, this is deeply flawed testimony as well. Again, she was not in attendance, so already, there are issues with her tale. Then you have her mislabeling the vehicle in question; she declared repeatedly Trump was riding in The Beast when that day he was in the Presidential Limo. Say this is nitpicking if you like, but this is a woman giving a third-hand account from over a year prior and getting a significant detail wrong.
That her account has been boldly disputed across the news spectrum, including by our own Julio Rosas last night, is just the start of the problems. Why is it that this supposedly serious committee rushed Hutchinson out before the cameras in this fashion? When the agents and the Secret Service are willing to go public with a disputed version of events, it exposes the show trial dramatics at play with this outfit...
Instead of delivering hard proof, as claimed, this leads only to more questions. Why was no one with visible weapons arrested, as they were violating the open-carry law in D.C.? How would the president have been permitted to give his speech with guns present in the area? And how is any of this fresh news coming out from an assistant inside the White House when no one else actually on scene gave no such report? ...