DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus January 6th Insurrection Fallout pt5

As told by republicans and trump loyalists.

Ornato and Engle are both sworn to trump and would take a bullet for him.

Let's see if they will swear under oath?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ornato-and-engel-may-not-want-to-testify

In addition the SS said they will make others available to testify under oath.

What reason would Hutchinson have for lying?? Pretty easy to tell when a 26 year old who was a trump loyalist to the bone would lie.

Everyone who has worked with her (republicans) says she is credible.

Cipollone will collaborate her testimony. What then?

Kangaroo court straight off the fox hannity playbook.

Hutchinson said what she said under oath. Getting the SS agents in question to do the same should clear any doubt up (either way). Should be simple enough to do. Bring 'em in.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but dems need to help Liz Cheny get reelected. This is going to turn into a battle for everything America has stood for since its inception. A small minority is out to create a Christo-Fascist state ruled by them. The rest of us get to choose rather we sit idly by and allow it or stop it because it's obvious now that they have no limits to what they will do to achieve their goals. Trump's MAGA machine is acting like the mafia, the court is off the rails, and it's obvious that if they make it to elections in 22 and 24 without being stopped, they plan to seize power permanently. Liz is fighting that fight now and making a major impact. We need more people like her and Katie Porter on the front lines.

She was crystal clear on what she heard first hand and what she had 'heard' 2nd hand - what happened in the vehicle and the SS was third hand. Whether Trump laid a hand on the driver or not ... the bigger, actually important question is did Trump try to insist on going to the capital building? Why? Why did he want to lead a mob of angry, armed protesters who he had been told carried knives, hand guns and AR15's ?

What about the other damning testimony Hutchinson saw/witnessed first hand? No comeback on that front - just an instant smear campaign that she wasn't good at her job which was refuted by Republicans that worked with her.

Let's hope Cipollone grows a spine. Let's hope Meadows finally becomes such a coward he spills the beans (no point hoping he grows a spine because that is NEVER going to happen).

How about the other little details and tidbits - I mean it's not actually important regards to Jan 6th but it'd be nice to have someone verify that petulant Trump threw plates and food around on more than one occasion. Hutchinson didn't make that Ish up.

But like the pardons and other Ish - suddenly none of that will actually matter no matter which Republicans verify. smh

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Everyone knows it. There is no hiding from the hearings republicans testimony. Mulvaney came out and backed Hutchinson.

Damage control by fox and friends is not going to cut it.

People who watched know Hutchinson is telling the truth. She has absolutely zero motivation to lie.

As the hearings continue every rock that the loyalists try to hide under will get turned over. The sun and light will blind them. The days of trump and his criminal behavior along with his corrupt allies are drawing to a close.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media...-declares-donald-trump-unfit-for-office/


Washington Examiner Declares Donald Trump Unfit for Office

WENDELL HUSEBØ29 Jun 20223,227
3:13

The Washington Examiner on Wednesday declared former President Donald Trump unfit for office based on Cassidy Hutchinson’s January 6 Committee testimony on Tuesday.

“Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again,” the establishment magazine’s editorial board alleged. “Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.”

The Examiner’s opinion was formed upon Hutchinson’s secondhand testimony that Trump tried to commandeer the “the Beast” after his January 6 rally. “Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career,” the publication wrote.
The Examiner failed to note that hours after Hutchinson leveled accusations against Trump, NBC News reported that Bobby Engel, Trump’s Secret Service man on duty on January 6, would testify under oath to contradict Hutchinson’s story of Trump’s alleged attempt to commandeer the Beast. The Secret Service also told Politico on Wednesday the committee did not attempt to confirm Hutchinson’s allegations with the agency before her testimony.

Nevertheless, the Examiner praised Hutchinson as a credible source for her resume alone, having worked for a number of Republicans on the Hill in Washington, DC, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). The magazine’s opinion piece failed to disclose that high-profile Hill jobs are mostly filled by influential donors or well-connected family members, not simply because of character, work ethic, or political depth.

“In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that,” the opinion piece said before claiming Hutchinson’s testimony was credible because it was “very precise.”

“She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated,” the article alleged.

The Examiner is not the first media outlet to praise Hutchinson and condemn Trump. CNN also peddled Hutchinson’s revelations as “a bombshell.”

“Aides to former President Donald Trump were left speechless amid the first half of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony on Tuesday, acknowledging to CNN that her testimony was ‘a bombshell’ with potentially huge repercussions for Trump,” CNN reported.

CNN’s story was condemned by those in the Trump orbit on Wednesday. Director of communications for Trump, Taylor Budowich, tweeted that the CNN article is a joke. “There is literally no one left speechless—the testimony was not believable and its credibility has been destroyed several times over—but Fake News CNN won’t let the facts get in their way of peddling a narrative,” Budowich said.

Trump supporters are just like Hitler's circle. Here is a recent rebuttal - yes, made by RINO, but she's becoming more and more a HERO to many real Republicans. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...mp;cvid=4127b95a00eb42dfa0b364944ac6697c - at Reagon center, she is given a standing ovation. What are Trump supporters going to do when he's put in jail were he belongs.

Here is the deal.

Everyone knew the "Emperor (Trump) had no clothes." I figured that out long ago.

Now we need to face the reality that comes with it. A lot of the supporters will follow him no matter what. They have a greater disdain for democrats that blinds them to the truth.

So no matter what the truth is some will never never concede. That is the Trump way and one of his many character flaws.



I do hold resentment against the Democratic Party for paving the way to get an unelectable Hillary Clinton nominated in 2016. The bottom line is that she could barely beat a socialist that was not even from her own party.

That prize of the glass ceiling came crashing down and now we have to deal with larger issues because of a slanted Supreme Court.

If you think about it, the Dems helped create this mess that we have to deal with.

And the first item on the agenda would be to ban the twitter thumbs of all the crazy politicians on the left and right that keep pouring gas on the fire.

It will only get worse now that the EPA has no say in anything. You'll get a shredded tree with every purchase. Maybe free mulch is a positive?

That's not really what the court said, but since you haven't read the opinion you will believe it.

Yeah, all those damned kangaroo republican conservatives that keep testifying. They're suddenly all a bunch of RINO's and lairs now and Trump and his cronies are the beacon of truth.

I didn't need purple for that did I?

I think you can rent a sense of humor at Sunbelt. Relax Karen.

I need to go find the article but it appears that a reporter has unearthed an attempt by Trump Minions to threaten Hutchinson..

Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimony
Hugo Lowell
Thu, June 30, 2022, 8:52 PM·3 min read

Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The message in question was the second of the two warnings that the select committee disclosed at the end of its special hearing when Hutchinson testified about how Donald Trump directed a crowd he knew was armed to march on the Capitol, the sources said.

“[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” read the message. The redaction was Meadows, the sources said.

The message was presented during closing remarks at the special hearing with Hutchinson by the panel’s vice-chair, Liz Cheney, who characterized the missive as improper pressure on a crucial witness that could extend to illegal witness tampering or intimidation.

The exact identity of the person who sent Hutchinson the message – beyond the fact that they were an associate of Meadows – could not be confirmed on Thursday, but that may be in part because the select committee may wish to interview that person, the sources said.

That appears to indicate that the person who sent the message was a close associate of the former White House chief of staff who may themselves be a fact witness to what Trump and Meadows were doing and thinking ahead of the Capitol attack.

Neither a spokesman for Meadows nor Hutchinson responded to a request for comment on Thursday evening.

The other message was also directed at Hutchinson, the sources said; the quote displayed on the slide was one of several calls from Trump allies that Hutchinson recounted to House investigators.

“What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in the good graces in Trump World,” the slide read.

“And they reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceeded through my depositions and interviews with the committee.”

The identity of the people who called Hutchinson, warning her presumably not to implicate the former president, could not be established beyond the fact that they were people close to Trump, though the select committee is understood to be aware of all of the people.

Politico, which first reported that the message to Hutchinson came from an associate of Meadows, also reported that it came before her second interview with the select committee. Hutchinson changed lawyers before her fourth deposition that preceded her public testimony.


https://news.yahoo.com/mark-meadows-associate-threatened-ex-005216087.html

The New York Times
Trump Group Pays for Jan. 6 Lawyers, Raising Concerns of Witness Pressure
Luke Broadwater, Maggie Haberman, Annie Karni and Alan Feuer
Fri, July 1, 2022, 7:58 AM·9 min read

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump's political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.

The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.

She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.

It is not known whether Hutchinson’s change in counsel led directly to her willingness to appear at a televised hearing and provide a more detailed, wide-ranging account of what she witnessed, but some members of the panel believe that it played a role, according to two people familiar with the committee’s work.

Trump claimed that Hutchinson’s new lawyer could have prompted her to make false statements. “Her story totally changed!” he complained on his social media site, Truth Social.

The episode raised questions about whether Trump and his allies may, implicitly or explicitly, be pressuring witnesses to hold back crucial information that might incriminate or cast a negative light on the former president. Trump and his advisers have been accused before of trying to influence witnesses in past investigations involving him. The committee is known to ask witnesses frequently during closed-door interviews whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony.

Hutchinson has told the Jan. 6 committee that she was among the witnesses who have been contacted by people around Trump suggesting that they would be better off if they remained loyal to the former president. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and the vice chairwoman of the panel, quoted two witnesses making such claims Tuesday and suggested that the committee was looking into the possibility that the former president or his allies were trying to obstruct its inquiry, saying that, “most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.”

Unlike witness tampering, which is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Aides to former President Bill Clinton reported being overwhelmed with legal bills because of the various inquiries into his and his family’s personal and business affairs, and were dismayed when a legal-defense fund set up by Clinton’s allies to help the first family pay its multimillion-dollar legal debts did not help them. Clinton later pledged to help raise money to cover his former aides’ legal expenses, but did not make any major effort to do so.

In the case of Trump, several former aides have requested that he pay their lawyers’ fees, many of them citing financial hardship and the exorbitant cost of representation in connection with a major congressional investigation. Still, given Trump’s potential criminal exposure and interest in the inquiry’s outcome, the practice has come under added scrutiny.

According to financial disclosures, in May alone, Trump’s “Save America” political action committee paid about $200,000 to law firms. That including $75,000 to JPRowley Law, which represents Cleta Mitchell, a pro-Trump lawyer who has filed suit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, and $50,000 to Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, which has represented Steve Bannon, a close ally of the former president who refused to meet with the panel and has been charged with criminal contempt. The managing partner at the firm representing Bannon declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether those payments were for covering legal fees connected to the Jan. 6 inquiry, but people familiar with the matter said the PAC has paid for the representation of several former officials and aides in the investigation, including some high-profile ones such as Stephen Miller, who served as a senior adviser to Trump. Trump’s PAC paid a portion of Miller’s legal bills.

A spokesperson for Trump also declined to comment.

More than a dozen witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee have also received free legal advice and had attorney’s fees paid for by the American Conservative Union’s “First Amendment Fund,” which consults with Trump’s team about whose fees to cover from its “seven-figure” finances, according to Matt Schlapp, the organization’s chairman.

“We have pro bono lawyers who talk with the lawyers for the people who want help,” Schlapp said Thursday. “Almost everybody has received payment.”

He said Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general who is on the board of one of Trump’s political organizations, was working with the legal group and has “spent a lot of late nights counseling younger staffers and giving us a lot of advice.”

Trump has come under scrutiny before for appearing to meddle in inquiries into his conduct. In 2017, a lawyer for Trump in the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign dangled the prospect of pardons to two people under investigation, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.

In 2018, after Trump stopped paying for the legal fees of his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, when he was under investigation by the Southern District of New York, Cohen eventually pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the special counsel investigating possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school who specializes in legal ethics, said there would be no issue if a third party paid the legal fees for a truly independent lawyer to represent a client. But he said things become more problematic if the entity paying the fee chooses or steers the lawyer toward the client and that lawyer has competing loyalties when it comes to the fee payer and the client’s best interests.

It is also problematic, he added, if the person or entity paying the fee has their own vested interest in how the client’s case turns out.

“The obvious example is organized crime, where the crime boss tells the lieutenant that, ‘Joe, here, is going to be your lawyer,’” Gillers said. “The lawyer’s loyalty, of course, is to the boss, not the lieutenant.”

Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer who is representing Judd Deere, a former White House press secretary, said he expected to receive some payment from Schlapp’s fund, which has a process for applying for assistance. There have been no strings attached to the help, he said.

“No one has attempted to influence me or my client,” Bartolomucci said.

Staffed with more than a dozen federal prosecutors, the Jan. 6 committee ran into some initial roadblocks last year as it began its investigation, when some of Trump’s top allies refused to cooperate. Investigators then took a page out of organized crime prosecutions, moving their inquiry down the hierarchy and quietly turning at least six lower-level former staff members to Trump into witnesses who provided information about their bosses’ activities.

Hutchinson had already been issued a subpoena when she approached Trump’s team seeking help with her legal representation, according to two people familiar with the matter. Trump had initially balked at covering some of the costs of legal representation for a number of former aides, but he acquiesced as some senior advisers told him he would draw negative news coverage if he failed to do so.

In some instances, lawyers who advised Trump sought unsuccessfully to have legal fees, or related costs, covered by entities supporting Trump. That included Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer who encouraged him to try to subvert the results of the election. Giuliani’s allies complained publicly that Giuliani had high legal bills that he was left on his own to pay. There has been no move to cover his costs.

One of Trump’s allies may also be financing the legal defense of one of the extremists accused of helping to orchestrate the storming of the Capitol.

A dispute over those legal fees has emerged in one of the most prominent criminal cases connected to the Capitol attack — that of Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers leader who has been charged with seditious conspiracy with eight of his subordinates.

Last week, prosecutors filed court papers that, citing published news articles, said Rhodes’ legal fees, and those of some of his co-defendants, were being paid by a nonprofit organization called Defending the Republic, which is run by Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump lawyer.

Powell is best known for having filed a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits claiming that Trump lost the election because of a purported plot to hack into voting machines and secretly change ballots. She was also involved in a brazen effort with Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, to persuade the former president to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to stay in office.

Though prosecutors did not accuse Powell of an ethical breach, they did ask Judge Amit P. Mehta to examine whether she was in fact paying the fees and if there might be any conflict of interest.

For months, the committee has suggested that Trump or those close to him might be attempting to influence potential witnesses. Its members have suggested, for instance, that Trump may have had a hand in the refusal of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, to cooperate with the investigation.

On Tuesday, Cheney displayed what she said were two examples of unnamed people associated with Trump attempting to influence witnesses. In one, Hutchinson told the panel she was told to “protect” certain individuals to “stay in good graces in Trump World.” In the other example, Hutchinson was encouraged to remain “loyal.”


https://news.yahoo.com/trump-group-pays-jan-6-115820147.html

Reuters
Jan. 6 committee may make criminal referral on witness tampering -Cheney
Thu, June 30, 2022, 8:33 AM·2 min read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack may make a criminal referral to the Justice Department recommending that anybody who tried to influence testimony be prosecuted, Representative Liz Cheney said in an interview broadcast on Thursday.

The witness-tampering issue emerged during the Jan. 6 select committee's sixth hearing on Tuesday, when Cheney revealed that some witnesses reported receiving veiled threats from allies of former President Donald Trump to do "the right thing."

"It gives us a real insight into how people around the former president are operating and to the extent to which they believe that they can affect the testimony of witnesses before the committee," Cheney, a committee vice chair and one of two Republicans on the panel of nine, told ABC News.

"It's something we take very seriously. And it's something that people should be aware of. It's a very serious issue, and I would imagine the Department Justice would be very interested in and we'll take that very seriously as well," she said.

The panel is investigating the events surrounding the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. seat of government last year as lawmakers convened to certify Democrat Joe Biden's victory over Trump, a Republican, in the November 2020 election.

Evidence gathered by the committee could be crucial in the Justice Department's criminal investigation of the riot and any plan to subvert the outcome of the election.

Jan. 6 committee member Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, echoed Cheney's concerns, noting that Trump has raised hundreds of millions of dollars.

"Some of that money is being used to pay for lawyers for witnesses, and it's not clear that that arrangement is one that is without coercion potential for some of those witnesses," Lofgren said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday night.

"So let's just say this: It's a concern, and anyone who is trying to dissuade or tamper with witnesses should be on notice that that's a crime and we are perfectly prepared to provide any evidence we have to the proper authorities."

https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-committee-may-criminal-123331460.html

Accounts of Trump angrily demanding to go to Capitol on January 6 circulated in Secret Service over past year

Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn’t get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.

The sources tell CNN that stories circulated about the incident – including details that are similar to how former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described it to the House select committee investigating January 6 – in the months immediately afterward the US Capitol attack and before she testified this week.

While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson’s testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony.

Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as “demanding” and that the former President said something similar to: “I’m the f**king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.” The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.

“He had sort of lunged forward – it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don’t know,” the source said. “Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat – for what reason, nobody had any idea.”

The employee said he’d heard about the incident multiple times as far back as February 2021 from other agents, including some who were part of the presidential protective detail during that time period but none of whom were involved in the incident.

The source added that agents often recounted stories of Trump’s fits of anger, including the former President throwing and breaking things.

“Not just plates,” the source added, a reference to how Hutchinson testified this week that she saw ketchup on the wall and a porcelain plate shattered on the floor of the White House dining room after Trump had thrown his lunch at the wall upon hearing about then-Attorney General William Barr telling a media outlet there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

The other Secret Service source, who spoke to the driver and another agent who wasn’t there, said he heard about Trump verbally lashing out at his detail but not about any physical altercation. Neither source told CNN they had heard about Trump trying to grab at the steering wheel.

Three of the people present for the encounter in the presidential SUV, a modified armored version of a Chevrolet Suburban were Trump, detail leader Robert “Bobby” Engel, and the driver whose identify is not publicly known at this time.

Hutchinson herself didn’t see the incident firsthand. She testified at the select committee hearing on Tuesday that she was told about it by then-White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato. She said Ornato told her the story in front of Engel.

She testified that Ornato told her that Engel repeatedly informed Trump on their way back to the White House after Trump’s Ellipse speech that it wasn’t safe to go to the Capitol.

According to Hutchinson, Ornato recounted Trump screaming, “I’m the f**king President. Take me up to the Capitol now.” Trump then “reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel,” Hutchinson recalled Ornato saying. She added that, according to Ornato, Trump used his other hand to “lunge” at Engel.

Hutchinson also testified that Trump and her boss, the then-President’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, were aware of the possibility of violence on January 6, 2021, and that Trump supporters had weapons when they gathered on the Ellipse that day.

Engel and Ornato have both testified to the committee behind closed doors, but their statements were not used in the hearing Tuesday.

Neither Engel nor Ornato have commented publicly on Hutchinson’s testimony.

A separate Secret Service official previously told CNN that Engel denied that Trump grabbed at the steering wheel or lunged toward an agent on his detail, and that Ornato denied telling Hutchinson the same. The official did not dispute that Trump directed his agents to take him to the Capitol.

Ornato has a close relationship with Trump and his team, having previously served as head of his protective detail and then being granted an unusual leave from his Secret Service duties to be detailed to the White House as deputy chief of staff for operations.

Hutchinson’s account of the alleged incident was among the most shocking portions of Tuesday’s hearing – adding to an already damning portrait of how Trump was desperate to get to the Capitol at the time.

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a member of the committee, said that the agents can come to the panel and dispute the claims under oath.

“No one is denying that the President wanted to go to the Capitol where this armed mob was attacking the Congress and trying to overturn the election,” Lofgren said in an interview on CNN’s AC360 on Wednesday night. “That is the main point shocking as the story about the limousine lurch was. The real legal import was that he wanted to go up there and nobody is disputing that.”

Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida, another Democratic member of the committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press NOW” that “Mr. Ornato did not have as clear of memories from this period of time as I would say Ms. Hutchinson did.”

“But we are always happy folks who have recalled things to come back and talk to us,” she added.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/poli...gjgplPkLgnWcnUmdTzOBCTCFJiLMjjuScs-3RxM4

so the Oath Keepers believed that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and make them a Trump's personal federalized militia...

Aye, just with this overall situation, remember when republican voters were all about the Deep State stuff?

imma need yall to explain this one. and without whatabouts.

i really feel like conservative males are trying their best to turn this country into a Tom Clancy TV series on Amazon.

how crap must your life be to take LARPing to this level? like...people who fantasizes and act out these emotions in violent actions have absolutely no business talking to anyone about morals, values, tradition, etc.

they literally can not live in a world with minimum chaos. they has to be SOMETHING that must be violently overthrown, some fringe ideology that somehow explains everything that only they understand...an can stop. so sore of final raid boss like a freaking computer game.

conservative males literally control the country, allowed to walk around with firearms, work anywhere, and control the most resources in this country.

and they still angry, still not happy. yall need to figure this crap out, cause clearly there's a massive divide in white america that yall try your best to ignore like a suburban household in an HOA.

what are you guys angry about? really mad that a white guy got replaced by another white guy in the oval office?

Been saying it for years,, the REAL deep state was what we now refer to as MAGA heads or Trumpians. Violent folks that want to overthrow the federal government for their agenda.

These are the very same folks that think religion (theirs not everyones) should run the country.. Kinda like the extremists that attacked American on 9/11. That's what they want religious state..

What is LARPing?

Live Action Role Playing.... like, the folks that dress up as knights and wizards at a Renaissance Fair, or play dress-up with light sabers or other movie props at a convention, or put on a cowboy hat to attend a concert when they *never* wear a cowboy hat at any other time, or put on sports gear/clothing to attend a sporting event they aren't participating in.

Thanks, you learned me something

It looks like trump might announce a 2024 run as early as this month. Wonder if he thinks the DOJ won't go after him if he declares-or he could ruffle up his base by saying all the scrutiny around 1/6 is political. No matter what, 2020 elections were just a dry run for '24

https://dnyuz.com/2022/07/01/trump-eyes-early-2024-announcement-as-jan-6-scrutiny-intensifies/

Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies
July 1, 2022in News
Trump Eyes Early 2024 Announcement as Jan. 6 Scrutiny Intensifies

Republicans are bracing for Donald J. Trump to announce an unusually early bid for the White House, a move designed in part to shield the former president from a stream of damaging revelations emerging from investigations into his attempts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election.

While many Republicans would welcome Mr. Trump’s entry into the race, his move would also exacerbate persistent divisions over whether the former president is the party’s best hope to win back the White House. The party is also divided over whether his candidacy would be an unnecessary distraction from midterm elections or even a direct threat to democracy.


Mr. Trump has long hinted at a third consecutive White House bid and has campaigned for much of the past year. He has accelerated his planning in recent weeks just as a pair of investigations have intensified and congressional testimony has revealed new details about Mr. Trump’s indifference to the threat of violence on Jan. 6 and his refusal to act to stop an insurrection.

Mr. Trump has also watched as some of his preferred candidates have lost recent primary elections, raising hopes among his potential Republican competitors that voters may be drifting from a politician long thought to have an iron grip on the party.

Rather than humble Mr. Trump, the developments have emboldened him to try to reassert himself as the head of the party, eclipse damaging headlines and steal attention from potential rivals, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a rising favorite of donors and voters. Republicans close to Mr. Trump have said he believes a formal announcement would bolster his claims that the investigations are politically motivated.

Mr. Trump would enter the race as the clear front-runner, with an approval rating among Republicans around 80 percent, but there are signs that a growing number of the party’s voters are exploring other options.

“I don’t think anyone is inevitable,” said Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman who also served eight years as Mississippi’s governor.


The timing of a formal announcement from Mr. Trump remains uncertain. But he recently surprised some advisers by saying he might declare his candidacy on social media without warning even his own team, and aides are scrambling to build out basic campaign infrastructure in time for an announcement as early as this month.

That timing would be extraordinary — presidential candidates typically announce their candidacies in the year before the election — and could have immediate implications for Republicans seeking to take control of Congress in November. Mr. Trump’s presence as an active candidate would make it easier for Democrats to turn midterm races into a referendum on the former president, who since losing in 2020 has relentlessly spread lies about the legitimacy of the election. Some Republicans fear that would distract from pocketbook issues that have given their party a strong advantage in congressional races.

“Republicans want to win badly in 2022, and it is dawning on many of them that relitigating the 2020 election with Trump’s daily conspiracy diatribes are sure losers,” said Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist and former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party.

The former president’s team remains divided over whether he should even run again. Those opposed to a third White House bid have expressed concerns ranging from doubts about Mr. Trump’s remaining political potency to questions about whether he can articulate a clear rationale for running and avoid a repeat of 2020.

Others are urging Mr. Trump to take his time. Donald Trump Jr., his eldest son, has taken a more central role in Mr. Trump’s inner circle of political advisers and has told others that he wants his father to install a more expansive campaign team around him in preparation for a run.

One of the most compelling arguments against an early announcement had been federal campaign finance laws. If and when Mr. Trump announces, he would be ineligible to use any of the $100 million that he has parked in his political action committee to directly support his presidential run. His campaign would also be constrained by a strict $2,900-per-person donation cap for the primaries, meaning he could tap his largest donors only once over the next period of roughly two years to directly fund a candidacy.

But Mr. Trump’s command over small-dollar donors has remained strong, leaving some on his team unconcerned about the fund-raising limits.

The debate over timing comes as investigations into the behavior of Mr. Trump and his associates are gathering steam. The Justice Department is looking into efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office after his defeat. Prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., have convened a grand jury as part of an investigation into whether the former president and his team tried to influence the vote count there. Each is separate from the House committee scrutinizing his conduct in the run-up to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Among those urging Mr. Trump to announce soon is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Graham said the former president would be blamed for — or credited with — whatever happened in the November elections and suggested that an early announcement would focus Mr. Trump’s attention on policy.

“It’s up to him if he runs or not,” Mr. Graham said in an interview. “But the key to him being successful is comparing his policy agenda and policy successes with what is going on today.”

Other Republican leaders have sought to dissuade Mr. Trump from an early announcement.

Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, had urged Mr. Trump to wait until after the midterms, worried that news about his campaign could derail the party’s midterm messaging. One R.N.C. official noted that when Mr. Trump opened a campaign, the party would stop paying his legal bills related to an investigation by the New York attorney general. Still, Ms. McDaniel has recently resigned herself to the idea that he will announce before the elections, according to people familiar with the conversations.

But even Trump aides who are supportive of another campaign worry that the former president’s path to a third nomination has become more difficult than he’s willing to acknowledge.

Some close to Mr. Trump have grown concerned about potential legal and political consequences from the congressional hearings into the Capitol riot. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, testified this week that Mr. Trump had known that some of his supporters were carrying weapons that day and had still encouraged his team to let them through security checkpoints. Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican who is on the committee, said the panel had evidence of witness tampering.

Mr. Trump signaled his concern about the potential political consequences of the testimony, reacting in real time to the hearing by posting a dozen messages on his Truth Social website attacking Ms. Hutchinson and denying her most explosive testimony.

Few Republican officeholders have spoken publicly about the hearings, and most have either said nothing about the congressional investigation or dismissed it as a partisan sham. But there have been signs that Republicans recognize its potential power.

“Ms. Hutchinson would be the star member of a women’s Republican club — a committed conservative, no reason to say anything but the truth,” said Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted to convict in Mr. Trump’s second impeachment and has been a target of Mr. Trump’s since. He was one of the few lawmakers who spoke on the record. “It gives power to a testimony that allows Americans to judge for themselves.”

Mick Mulvaney, one of Mr. Trump’s four White House chiefs of staff, told CBS News he could no longer defend Mr. Trump after hearing Ms. Hutchison’s claims. In an interview afterward, he said he heard from two dozen political appointees from the Trump administration who had thanked him for his comments and told him they agreed.

Mr. Mulvaney declined to say whether he would vote for Mr. Trump if he was the nominee in 2024. Nonetheless, people close to Mr. Trump took note of the televised statements and made calls this week looking for someone who could attack and therefore undermine Mr. Mulvaney in South Carolina, the former adviser’s home state, said one political operative with knowledge of the calls.

The past two months of weekly primary contests have proved that Mr. Trump’s policies have reshaped the Republican Party. But the red-capped constituency has also repeatedly demonstrated its independence from the patriarch of the Make America Great Again movement. While Republican primary voters backed some of Mr. Trump’s favored candidates, particularly in Senate primaries, they rejected his picks in Georgia, Idaho, Nebraska and elsewhere.

“There’s some evidence that some Republican voters are trying to slow-walk from Donald Trump,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist. Jennings said he was not surprised by Mr. Trump’s eagerness to jump into the presidential race. “If you’re in his shoes, you have to try to put that fire out. Because the more it burns, the more it burns.”

In interviews with two dozen Republican voters, party activists and elected officials, few said the Jan. 6 hearings were playing a role in their interest in other candidates. But several noted that they were looking for a nominee who was less divisive.

​​“There will be a number of Republicans who many Republicans feel cannot only unite the party but would govern with strong, conservative policies,” said Jason Shepherd, a former Newt Gingrich aide who is a Georgia Republican Party state committeeman. If Mr. Trump wins the nomination, Mr. Shepherd said, Republicans will not hesitate to back him in the general election.

Nicole Wolter, the chief executive of a suburban Chicago manufacturing firm and a member of the board of the National Association of Manufacturers, has an office decorated with photos of her visiting the White House during Mr. Trump’s years as president.

But, Ms. Wolter said in an interview last month in her office in Wauconda, Ill., Mr. Trump has become too toxic to the voters in suburbs for Republicans to win the general election.

“There’s just too many people who don’t really like him,” Ms. Wolter said. “We want everyone to kind of rally around him and be able to get the independents, and I just think that if he ran, he wouldn’t be able to pull that off.”

Post-presidency polls have consistently shown that Mr. Trump remains the most powerful figure inside his party. But potential competitors have not been scared off.

Last week, a survey of Republicans in New Hampshire, an early presidential primary state, showed a statistical tie between Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Mr. Trump last year that he wouldn’t compete against him for the presidential nomination, has continued to lay the groundwork for a 2024 bid.

Mr. Pompeo has told others that he can beat Mr. Trump in the Iowa caucuses, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Jonathan Martin and Shane Goldmacher reporting.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/patriot-front-hate-group-descends-on-boston/40490990#

partiot front group marches thru Boston;

I saw on tik tok last night these clowns were trying to stand in front of their cars to hide their license plates. Of course, the person on tik tok already seemed to know where they parked and had all their license plates on a earlier video and shared them all.

It is obvious that the word insurrection has been used purposefully, this wasn't. However if they can continue to push the narrative and tie Trump to an insurrection they can invoke 14A Section 3. Two impeachments didn't work, now it is this.

Repeat a lie loudly enough, often enough, and people will believe it.... especially those that want to.

You're right. It didn't succeed. It should be called a failed insurrection attempt.

Newp, it wasn't a failed insurrection either. But you keep calling out BS on "both sides" like you do.

They are pushing the insurrection narrative to use 14A Section 3 to keep mean orange man from getting back into the swamp. You agree with it because you hate mean orange man, but I bet you like to wring your hands about "democracy" too.

This is a pure political pony show and it should scare you, but it won't.

Objectivity certainly isn't a strong suit of yours to be pointing out a lack of it by others. This "you hate trump" narrative doesn't excuse everything that has been uncovered and several Republicans have testified to. And it's not just trump but some of the yes men he surrounded himself with. I know it's much simpler to ignore all of that and use a one liner about "you hate trump" than actually look at all the facts that surround Jan. 6th. But that's a you problem. And you certainly aren't alone.

If Republicans have an ounce of common sense there's no way they would nominate trump again. He's a cancer at this point even to much of the Republican base. I would expect them to nominate someone like DeSantis who has a little bit of a kinder way of saying all the things trump does with no filter. As far as I'm concerned I would love if they nominated trump again. Maybe you're right and they didn't learn a damned thing in 2020. And now the country knows even more about the real trump and his cronies than they knew then.

Are you referring to the Hollywood produced pony show that is careful to only show what Pelosi wants it to "uncovering'?

Please, if you can see a political railroad job that obvious maybe you should go back to Sesame Street.

If you can't see all of the Republicans brought into testify and hear their actual testimony, that's a you problem. Making excuse to dismiss them by deflecting away from that is only refusing to admit reality. That would mean William Barr is lying. It would mean that trump's advisors are lying and I could go on. You'll have to come back from the land of Oz before you can talk about silly excuses like the one's you're using to try and dismiss the testimony from actual republicans instead of blaming the people who called them in to testify.

And you expect that anyone testifying hasn't been cleared by Pelosi first? The answers and outcome are known before anyone sees the public light.

Let Trump have a say who is on the committee and give his people cross privileges and maybe it would be legitimate, this is a farce.

You are joking right? That's just a wow moment.

Republicans had their chance and they nominated Big Lie politicians that are supporters and promote the completely false narrative that the election was stolen from Trump. If you can't nominate adults you don't get to sit at the adult table.

If you think all these Republicans testifying about what transpired and led up to Jan 6th are all part of the deep state or are some sort of never trump brigade ... you'd be dead wrong. Oh well.

Mccarthy acted in bad faith. Some of the republicans mccarthy wanted on the committee were put there for the sole purpose of disruptinting the investigation. Gym Jordan for one. There was a second one nbut forget his his name. Plus, both of those 2 were potentially going to be implicated. OF course pelosi said no. Had mccaerthy made reasonable nominations they would have been accepted. Now they are crying about it.

I am sure, that should trump be willing to come forward and testify under oath that they would let him.
But he is afraid to, as are his cronies

Brooks was the second.

You can't say crap like this and expect anyone to take anything you say seriously. Your a Trumpian Maga QOPer hiding on a fan board trying to say you're a registered dem. There isn't a dem in the country thinking what you posted in this post. NONE. You have a right to what you want to believe, but don't expect thinking Americans who can see this ALL with their own eyes to buy that crap. Unlike you, most of us think this is the worst thing we've ever seen in American politics. It was an attempted and failed coup in the form of an insurrection. But make no mistake, Trump Coup 2.0 is underway in state and local governments, trying to rig the election process on those levels. Trump's big lie coup is long from over, and the fascist alt-right is determined to turn this country into New Gilead.