Would the J6 committee solicit public, shocking, testimony without confirmation? I say no.

[MLAA]

Engel had previously testified to the J6 committee. While we don’t know everything he said, I don’t believe the committee would have Cassidy Hutchinson testify about the attacking the Secret Service Agent without confirmation. Her testimony without that incident was still overwhelmingly powerful.


https://www.newsweek.com/cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-bobby-engel-trump-steering-wheel-1720148

[Effete Snob]

1. We do know what he said - We've known for weeks

He corroborated Hutchinson:

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.

[MLAA]

4. I didn't think we knew about 'grabbing the steering wheel and grabbing the agent'.

That is one of the points being disclaimed by by folks not under oath.

[Effete Snob]

14. The two testimonies are consistent

The objective report of what Engels said was that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and Engel disagreed.

Now, let's be real for a moment.

Basically what is being asked is "forget everything you know about Donald Trump".

Imagine you are driving a car. Donald Trump is the passenger. He wants to go to the Capitol. You are refusing to take him there.

Apply everything you know to how you think his "differing view" will find expression.

Ah, yes, Engel said "We're not going" and Trump said, "Ah, very well. Do you have any Grey Poupon?"

[MLAA]

6. Corrected my post to say we don't know 'everything' he said. Thanks for adding your link.

[Raven123]

2. Frankly if either corroborated, I would have expected to hear that yesterday

Unless the J6 Committee is dangling that for a reason.

[Tetrachloride]

3. I submit that the J6 Committee knew Trump circle would attack

this point.

So it seems the Committee put forth a public trap that everyone can understand: testify under oath or you are exposed as a coward and likely a bullshit liar.

[C_U_L8R]

5. I don't think they would undermine their own work

Everything so far has been thoughtfully vetted. Besides the tantrums in the car and dining room do not change a thing about the guilt Trump and his conspirators. I think these tantrums happened many more times than anyone has reported. Maybe more will come forward. That's why Trump is so freaked out.

[kentuck]

7. Wasn't it heresay evidence?

But neither of the SS agents had denied it up to this point.

It is documented that he was "irate". How did this "irateness" manifest itself in the limo?

Since it is third party information, no one should put a lot of stock in it.

Of course, we could assume that is she said one false thing out of a hundred true things, they would try to discredit her entire testimony.

Just as Trump's lawyer tried to do by saying that it was he that wrote the note where the word "illegally" was scratched out as unacceptable by Donald Trump.

[MLAA]

10. I thought Ms Hutchinson said her Ornoto told the story while Engel was sitting next to him

looking shook up and Engel did not contradict Ornato.

[kentuck]

16. My recollection also.

[EarlG]

8. Indeed

So far we've got a senior White House official testifying under oath about a story that was directly recounted to her.

Then we've got an unnamed source saying that a Secret Service member said that the person who told her the story never said that.

So, testimony under penalty of perjury at a nationally televised hearing vs. an unnamed source saying someone else didn't say something.

Those two things are not equal.

[MLAA]

11. Right on.

[Walleye]

12. Yes a source saying they are willing to testify, it's not the same as actually testifying under oath

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Agreed... can't understand why The MAGAt hasn't been arrested yet.

[3catwoman3]

13. No, they would not. That would be really stupid, and the J6...

…committee members are far from stupid. Quiet, serious, dignified, organized. They have their ducks in a row, as far as I can tell.

🦆 🦆 🦆 🦆 🦆

[MLAA]

15. And the fact that they've managed to corral this many Republican ducks is quite an

accomplishment that they would risk tarnishing by using a single source based, albeit highly attention getting, tidbit before the public.