January 6, 2021 was not an insurrection. Nor was it a revolution. People planned violence!!!!
Oh,
the horror . . . if I didn't know Tom Hayden planned violence in
Chicago -- if I didn't know that others did as well (am I really the
only one that read Bill Ayer's book?). That certain members of the
media were aware that violence would be taking place ahead of the riots
in Chicago (this is the 1968 DNC convention for those too young to
remember).
I'm not going
to see it as an insurrection, sorry. I actually studied political
theory -- resistance, rebellion and revolution are three different
categories. I'm never surprised when the media doesn't grasp that --
general studies majors can be like that.
But if Donald Trump is responsible for violence, I'm thrilled to see him convicted. I don't like Donald, I never have.
Supposedly,
there was explosive evidence provided yesterday at the hearings by a
White House aide under Donald named Cassidy Hutchinson. And CNN is trumpeting this witness.
I'm not seeing anything here though. All in bold below is from the CNN report.
Hutchinson
really moved the ball forward in terms of establishing that Trump was
personally aware of the potential for violence, yet forged ahead on
January 6 with his attempts to rile up his supporters to interfere with
the joint session of Congress to certify President Joe Biden's victory.
No, she really didn't. Establishing is a concrete action. She's suggesting at best.
She
said Trump was told that morning that weapons were being confiscated
from some of his supporters who came for his rally. Later, when Trump
and his team were at the Ellipse -- the large oval lawn on the south
side of the White House -- and before his speech, Trump barked out
orders to his staffers to "take the mags away" -- referring to the metal
detectors -- because the people in the crowd, "they're not here to hurt
me."
If
Donald was told "weapons were being confiscated" that does not mean he
expected people to get through with weapons. He might have thought all
the weapons were being confiscated or that they would be.
As for his call to remove metal detectors from his speech at a different location than where the riot took place later?
Diana
Ross never fails to go into the audience when she's in concert. Many
performers are terrified to do that. Diana's attitude is that they're
not going to hurt her. (And she is right.)
Donald's
attitude that the gathered wouldn't hurt him was probably an accurate
guess. If I were the Secret Service, I wouldn't have removed the
detectors -- his guess is not a good enough reason.
What
CH has 'established' is that Donald didn't believe that the supporters
(some of whom went on to riot later that day) would harm him and that he
was informed that "weapons were being confiscated." Again, that might
be taken as, he believed that weapons were being taken and, therefore,
would be taken.
Trump
also said, "I don't f**king care that they have weapons," according to
Hutchinson. This is particularly shocking, because Trump then encouraged
the same crowd to march to the Capitol while lawmakers were affirming
Biden's win. (Hundreds of Trump's diehard supporters soon stormed the
Capitol, many carrying knives, bear spray, metal poles, tasers and a few
guns.)
He
said that? That he didn't care if they had weapons? When? In what
context? Did he say it when he was saying to take the metal detectors
down? If so, that makes sense. He says take them down, Secret Service
refuses to comply with that order because it goes against everything
that they are trained to do. Was that when the exchange took place.
(I'm leaving aside issues like the witness' memory which has not been
established. She remembers quotes? Interesting.)
He
then encouraged them to march on the Capitol? So what? If he's been
told the arms are being confiscated he, again, may feel this will
continue and may be putting too much trust in the ability for guns to be
confiscated.
Or are we now pretending that Donald Trump is a genius? I can't join you in that pretense, I actually know him.
When
Hutchinson told her boss, Meadows, about early reports of weapons
getting confiscated, Meadows didn't even look up from his phone,
according to Hutchinson. Two days earlier, he told her that "things
might get real, real, bad on January 6."
I
don't see what that has to do with Donald so I'm not commenting. And
Liz Cheney is then quoted but Liz wasn't present and can't actually make
a connections of any kind.
Long section of the CNN report:
"MOGUL's
going to the Capital ... they are clearing a route now," a message sent
to the chat log at 12:29 p.m. ET on January 6 reads -- referring to the
former President's secret service code name.
"MilAide has confirmed that he wants to walk," a 12:32 p.m. message reads. "They are begging him to reconsider."
"So this is happening," a message sent at 12:47 p.m. states.
Hutchinson
also testified that some in Trump's orbit had made clear days before
January 6 that Trump wanted to travel to the US Capitol.
She
told the committee Tuesday that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told her on
January 2 -- four days before the US Capitol was attacked by Trump
supporters -- that "we're going to the Capitol" on January 6, and that
Trump himself was also planning to be there.
So?
Donald wanted to go. He wanted to go days before. He wanted to go day of. So what?
The Secret Service didn't let him go. I'm not understanding what they think they're 'establishing.'
Hutchinson
testified Tuesday that she heard a secondhand account of how Trump was
so enraged at his Secret Service detail for blocking him from going to
the Capitol on January 6 that he lunged to the front of his presidential
limo and tried to turn the wheel.
The term for that is "hearsay" and it is -- all together now -- inadmissible.
It's
not testimony. (It's also disputed by her supposed source who denies
having stated that to her. Hearsay alone made it inadmissible.)
Hutchinson states that she went into a dining room and helped clean:
"I
remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway," Hutchinson began.
She saw the President's valet in the dining room, changing the
tablecloth, ketchup dripping down the wall, and a porcelain plate
shattered on the floor.
"The
President was extremely angry at the attorney general's ... interview
and had thrown his lunch against the wall," Hutchinson said. "I grabbed a
towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall."
She
heard noises which she doesn't describe other than yelling. Donald's a
yeller? Are we really surprised? And yelling does not warrant a
criminal conviction -- not even when playing the quiet game.
Hutchinson
relayed a conversation she observed between White House Counsel Pat
Cipollone and Meadows after they discussed with Trump
Again, hearsay.
There's nothing of use in her statements.
I'd
pop popcorn to enjoy Donald being sentenced to prison time. But
there's nothing criminal in what she has testified to regarding what she
saw and heard Donald do and say. Hearsay is not evidence.
She at best offered colorful moments, nothing criminal.
That does not mean there will not be criminal wrong doing that emerges.
But
this has been going on forever -- at a time when Congress should have
been addressing real issues (including codifying Roe) -- and there's
still nothing.
Useless
morons like Jason Alexander pimp the hearings (I guess it's better than
when he goes around outing actors in the closet) and there's nothing
there. All this time later.
The
headlines around Hutchinson's testimony insisted this was major. I was
willing to look at it -- and, honestly, I was hoping it was major.
(Especially after ROE, I was hoping a witness really had something.)
But it's hearsay and hmms. There's nothing there in her testimony that's actionable.
Doesn't
mean another witness might not have something. Does mean that they've
been dragging this on for months and there's nothing so far.
If
they've got anything, it's time to put it out there. If not, they need
to close shop and own that their 'investigation' has only made Donald
more popular with a large segment of the population.
I believe we've talked about it here but maybe Ava and I covered it at THIRD.
Stevie Nicks' fanbase is tied tightly to her.
In
the 80s (70s as well but in the 80s they were more open and more
sexist), when ROLLING STONE and others savaged Stevie Nicks, it didn't
bother me. I like Stevie. I think she's a sweet person. But it didn't
bother me because I knew all that was happening was RS and others were
binding Stevie's fans tighter to her. They thought Stevie spoke to them
and for them. And she was being attacked. That bound her and her
audience even tighter.
Donald
Trump is out of office and yet the US Congress is attacking him --
that's how it looks to his supporters. It makes him more popular, it
makes their support for him stronger.
And it also influences undecideds because we haven't had this happen before.
A president leaves the White House and a year later we're investigating them? It looks vindictive to a lot of people.
If
the Committee has anything they should move to immediately disclose it
because they only look more desperate and foolish with each passing day.
And
we don't take action against a former president for circumstantial
evidence. You better believe a number of living, former presidents will
be objecting to that.
If
the witness had offered actual evidence of import, I was prepared for us
to cover the hearings -- report on them, not just pull quote from other
sources. And, again, after ROE got destroyed, I want politicians to
pay. But thus far, there is still nothing here.
The biggest cautionary note remains: Stop wanting to see something so badly that you create a mirage.
