ENGEL'S TESTIMONY WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED

[Effete Snob]

June 8, 2022

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

Engel told Jan. 6 select committee investigators that the two men discussed Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol and took different views on the topic. Engel noted that they went back to the White House instead of heading to Capitol Hill. The contents of Engel’s testimony have not been previously reported. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi declined to comment.

[MustLoveBeagles]

1. K&R

[JenniferJuniper]

2. Does any really believe Cheney would have gone down

the wheel-grabbing, clavicle grasping route if there wasn't first-hand backup testimony?

Maybe not Engel as he's apparently a massive Trumpie, but from someone who can support what we heard today?

These guys are good.

[grantcart]

3. Republicans should do everything possible to re elected her

If she isn't in Congress she will be on prime time on a major news network burning them to the ground every night.

[SoCalDavidS]

5. Unfortunately, The Only Chance She Has Of Winning, Is If A LOT Of Democrats Vote For Her In Primary

Although she could run as an Independent, but that too would take A LOT of Democratic votes in November.

[WarGamer]

7. Wyoming has a "Sore Loser Law"

If she loses the Primary... she's the new 10PM host on CNN

[SoCalDavidS]

8. 10 PM Is Don Lemon's Slot

And she doesn't have enough personality to host her own show.

Perhaps a guest commentator of some sort, but no way a host. Far too dull.

[WarGamer]

9. You're right... I was just saying she's unemployed (temporarily) if she loses the Primary.

[Deuxcents]

4. I agree. This is too important to slip up or go rouge

Besides, these hearings testimony/evidence is back up by all the committee members. Are some are lawyers. Having said that, I think they check n check again.

[Cha]

13. Apparently some do believe just taht..

and not just repubs.

Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[duforsure]

14. I agree 100%

They have testimony from others backing her story up.

[uponit7771]

15. +1,

[Diablo del sol]

6. But ABC and NBC National News said (left impression) that she was lying

FFS, when will we ever learn.

[Cha]

11. Of course they Did.. that's what the m$$$$m

Does. Click Bait!

Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[Mr.Bill]

12. That's because ABC and NBC

are not necessarily "we".

[Kaleva]

16. Cassidy reported what she was told by Tony

I've seen no report by reputable media that Cassidy claimed she witnessed the event..

[Cha]

10. TY!

Save Our Democracy💙 in 2022 & 2024!

[mcar]

17. Good to know.

I knew there was no way the J6 committee would have included anything they didn't know ahead of time was true.

Shame on the MSM for treating RW GOP unnamed sources as truth tellers.

[Mr. Ected]

18. Why does the media allow witness testimony under oath in front of Congress for 3 hours

To be rebutted by a neanderthal with a cellphone, tapping out some words from the toilet, in real time with the actual proceeding?

This is why we can't have nice things.

Trump, march your ass to Washington and testify under oath in front of Congress and the American people. Betcha can't do it.

[867-5309.]

19. That doesn't say anything about lunging for the wheel or assault

It does corroborate his wanting to go to the Capitol, though.

[Effete Snob]

20. It's not word for word

Imagine you are driving a car and your passenger is Donald Trump.

Now imagine that you and Trump have "different views" on where you should drive that car.

Are you familiar with the character of this man?

I do not believe that having a "different view" of where to drive the car was anything but dramatic.

Get real.

[867-5309.]

21. Engel and Ornato reportedly are willing to testify under oath

he didn't lunge for the wheel or assualt anyone. We'll see if that comes to pass.

I just don't want these tabloid details to be disproven and take attention from the more critical aspects and undermine Hutchinson.

[Effete Snob]

22. Engel already has testified under oath

I guess that's what some aren't picking up.

Engels can "reportedly" say anything, but there no actual reports quoting him. There is a very euphemistic description of his testimony, but the actual testimony has not been released by the committee.

He already testified under oath and the committee has not released his testimony to the public.

Did you notice how the committee only recently made things available to DoJ, and that the hearing ended with a statement about witness intimidation?

That's because Engels, and others, have already testified about these details under oath.

It's so bizarre that, in response to pointing out that he already testified under oath, there are people who respond with Engels being "reportedly willing to testify under oath."

Again, with feeling, he ALREADY HAS testified under oath. The Committee has not released the details of that testimony so that he, and others who have been intimidated, can publicly pretend to have been loyal soldiers. It is extremely unlikely that his sworn testimony contradicts Hutchinson.

Would a diagram help?

[867-5309.]

25. But we don't know what Engels said about those details

And it's being reported he will testify they are untrue as laid out by Hutchinson. Maybe this report is (hopefully) inaccurate, but if he does that's something of a problem.

Also keep in mind the report in the OP is based on a leak and we don't know the source.

[Effete Snob]

27. We do know the committee heard what he said, and then proceeded with Hutchinson

I haven't seen anyone provide a link to anything that Engel himself is saying now.

Just "reports' and "sources".

Even IF Engel were making public statements to that effect, the committee didn't make the point about witness intimidation for shits & giggles.

[Roland99]

23. Engel was and is a Qultist. He's measuring his words carefully

Or was that Ornato. Can’t keep the traitors’ names straight!

[Effete Snob]

24. What words?

You have a quote of what he said?

The report is a euphemistic description of what he testified.

When you say "He's measuring his words carefully", can you point me in the direction of what, specifically, he said?

Because if you are referring to the description in the OP - those are not his words.

[Roland99]

26. Reports from the committee that his closed door testimony wasn't contradicting

And that Hutchison provided more details

So it sounded like Engel was measuring his words. Probably not telling the whole truth. Holding back details. Being vague