When you start every response that way, yes. I don't believe lawyers and I severely distrust those who were clearly coached by one in advance. She didn't provide one actual quote. Not even the cursing. If this were a real trial, I can only imagine the tatters that would remain with a competent defense attorney.
How about you, David. Do you believe she gave honest and accurate testimony?
Good Lord, the libs were on him out of the gate and never gave him a chance.
I tend to believe typical Joe's are honest in these types of things. Accurate? I am sure some things will be inaccurate. For instance, she quotes someone as saying "the beast" when Trump was in one of the Presidential SUVs not the Caddy. Did she misquote them or was the person she quoted in error? Doesn't matter much IMO.
It's almost like you'd want her to project an unsupportable certainty or something. Can you quote the first thing your wife said to you today with that level of surety? How about 18 mos from now?
Do you believe her testimony would have held up to scrutiny by a good defense attorney?
Pedantic passing conversations I would agree with. But I can quote you the F-bomb statements my boss made on the steps of Top Golf from 3 years ago and I wouldn't need to qualify it. There was pretty graphic statements supposedly made, yet no direct quotes and zero corroboration? Really?
Who has she worked for during her relatively short career? What motivation does she have to lie?
We may find out some day? Kind of a shame the QOP wouldn’t work out a deal to have some competent, unimplicated types, on the committee.
You “tend to believe typical Joe’s are honest in these types of things.” But do you believe *her* testimony was honest? Especially in light of the fact people who were actually present say they are prepared to testify otherwise?
Who she worked for doesn't matter much. As for motivation, I'd suspect that she's about to get a nice book advance.
Corroboration? Some has been. Would be nice if folks would agree to testify. I’d love to see Tony Orodano (sp?) up there, Cippilone, Meadows, et al.
You blame the QOP for creating a committee based with members who only voted to impeach the president on prior testimony? A committee that has a far lefty in Schiff was worried that some far right counter would have been inappropriate? Sorry man, but thats a false narrative and you're better than that.
Let them testify! That’s exactly what this spectacle is for!
LOL - if you asked for a pardon then you are DQed from serving on the committee. That is too high of a bar for you?
I do think Trump was incompetent. He did reprehensible things. Hate? Maybe in the heat of the moment, more pity and embarrassed for the US now.
Yes, yes! Let them testify! Have you heard whether they will be called to testify? I fear your abject hatred of DJT is leading you to give the benefit of the doubt to hearsay testimony. I want to believe you’re intellectually better than that.
Get Tony up there to refute her! The show isn’t going well for the QOP - that stings I am sure, blaming the witness for a political miscalculation on their part isn’t really the best strategy IMO.
This has been fun, @davidallen! I wish we’d see this side of you more often. But I’m old and ready for bed. Goodnight everybody!
Most of them have refused. You’re aware of that no?
No, David, I have not heard they refuse to be interviewed again. I’ve heard exactly the opposite, that they are prepared to testify under oath. Where are you hearing they are refusing?
Meadows for instance has been referred to the DoJ for ignoring a Subpoena. Flynn took the 5th to a ridiculous number of questions. Do a bit of research…
Skip the writing and scroll to the video/interview on CNN. This is what I’ve heard.
If they refuse, it is contempt of congress. Hasn't happened. The Ds just aren't calling them.
Forgive me. I must not be following things closely enough. What does Flynn have to do with the Hutchinson testimony? Meadows, I believe, is publicly calling her a liar. I thought we were calling for sworn testimony from the SS agents who she named. Aren’t they the relevant witnesses who can confirm or deny her statements, which are the cause of all the fuss?
Bring them in! Silly points to try and use to impeach substantive testimony IMO. You realize that the claim by Herschmann is about whether she dictated more from Meadows or from him right? Read his statement….Skip the writing and scroll to the video/interview on CNN. This is what I’ve heard.
Watch or read her testimony. Rudy and Flynn get their moments. As does Ghomert (another one who refused to testify). You seem to be just listening to the QOP sound bites.
I am always clever Dan. That isn’t something I could turn off even if I wanted to.
What is the protocol for testimony by sitting members? I’ll take my answer off the air.
Ahhhh. Misunderstood. Ornato was part of the Administration, he was not active Secret Service on Jan 6th. If I recall he is someone they have been negotiating with to get on the record testimony. I haven’t seen much on Secret Service agents being called. You seem really focused on 2 minutes of hours of testimony.
