American Politics XII: We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

[The Jamesian Republic]

That whole segment of testimony has me a bit skeptical. I guess he could have done that in the suburban but I’m not sure.

Did you not watch the video I linked to in my earlier post, from the Jan 6th Committee

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-p ... on-1720126

I assume it is genuine

I saw something in the car but I couldn’t tell if it was him.

[Gravlen]

This is incorrect. According to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), her testimony regarding Trump’s statements would be admissible in a criminal case against Trump. It would absolutely stand up in court.

And to be clear, the testimony about what Ornato told Hutchinson he saw/heard is indeed hearsay, but still likely admissible in a criminal trial, for example by way of rule 803 (1)

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but I read that entire thing and I found nothing that that from my understanding would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. 98% of her testimony is literally her saying what she heard someone else tell her. the only thing she directly witnessed was a discombobulated SS agent.

I don't think Congress has the same rules as a court does, but I'm still reasonably certain that witness doesn't get called in an actual court room.

I mean, I just provided the rules which allows such testimony in a criminal trial.

Here's a former federal prosecutor on the issue:

Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type. A political statement by the president of the United States would be presumptively protected by the First Amendment.

But now we have Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump said he didn’t “f---ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me” and that they would be going to the Capitol later. This is precisely the sort of “smoking gun” evidence needed to prove that the person speaking meant to incite imminent violence.

The DOJ will understandably be concerned that the Supreme Court — particularly the current court — would find that Trump’s speech was constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But this evidence should be enough to make them at least consider an incitement prosecution. Before Hutchinson’s testimony, an incitement prosecution would likely fail to clear the high First Amendment hurdle. Now, it is at least a close call and something DOJ should seriously consider.

And to be clear, Hutchinson’s testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a “party opponent” are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ’s “party opponent” in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump’s statements could be used against him in court.

Hutchinson also provided testimony that gets DOJ closer to what they would need to prosecute Trump for obstructing an official proceeding. That charge requires “corrupt” intent. She testified that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his official vehicle (“The Beast”) when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol. She also testified that when an agent physically blocked Trump from seizing the wheel, Trump himself placed his hand on the agent’s “clavicles,” just under his neck.

Trump’s failed attempt to go to the Capitol, in itself, would not be a criminal offense. But the episode inside The Beast would be powerful evidence of Trump’s intent. Up until now, the picture that emerged of Trump was of someone who engaged in “inaction” while the Capitol was under attack, declining to call off his supporters or to call in police or troops. In itself, that is dereliction of duty, not a crime.

But episodes like trying to wrest the steering wheel show that Trump wanted to be at the Capitol and would have been there if he hadn’t been kept from doing so. He wanted to be there, hands on, for the attack itself. That sheds a powerful light on his state of mind.

Juries are typically instructed to infer a defendant’s state of mind from his words and actions. In this situation, Trump’s actions speak loudly, and they can be used as evidence of Trump’s state of mind when he engaged in earlier actions.

Prosecutors will still need to put together a case that shows that Trump was involved in a conspiracy or scheme that obstructed the Jan. 6 certification proceeding. That’s not the simple task that many would have you believe. But it’s easier than establishing intent.

Hutchison’s testimony is a game changer. Until now, the only readily provable crimes based on what is known publicly were potentially narrow criminal charges against crooked lawyers. Now it looks like an (otherwise unlikely) incitement prosecution is possible, and there may be the “smoking gun” needed for an obstruction charge.

The committee was smart to lock in public testimony from Hutchinson when it had the chance, given the potentially unlawful pressure against her to change her tune. Committee members have to hope that others follow in her footsteps. But they already have much of what they need.

[Kannap]

That whole segment of testimony has me a bit skeptical. I guess he could have done that in the suburban but I’m not sure.

Did you not watch the video I linked to in my earlier post, from the Jan 6th Committee

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-p ... on-1720126

I assume it is genuine

It's a piss poor video, to be fair. I can see that there's movement of some kind but I can't tell who's moving or what they're doing.

[Galloism]

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but I read that entire thing and I found nothing that that from my understanding would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. 98% of her testimony is literally her saying what she heard someone else tell her. the only thing she directly witnessed was a discombobulated SS agent.

I don't think Congress has the same rules as a court does, but I'm still reasonably certain that witness doesn't get called in an actual court room.

I mean, I just provided the rules which allows such testimony in a criminal trial.

Here's a former federal prosecutor on the issue:

Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type. A political statement by the president of the United States would be presumptively protected by the First Amendment.

But now we have Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump said he didn’t “f---ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me” and that they would be going to the Capitol later. This is precisely the sort of “smoking gun” evidence needed to prove that the person speaking meant to incite imminent violence.

The DOJ will understandably be concerned that the Supreme Court — particularly the current court — would find that Trump’s speech was constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But this evidence should be enough to make them at least consider an incitement prosecution. Before Hutchinson’s testimony, an incitement prosecution would likely fail to clear the high First Amendment hurdle. Now, it is at least a close call and something DOJ should seriously consider.

And to be clear, Hutchinson’s testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a “party opponent” are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ’s “party opponent” in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump’s statements could be used against him in court.

Hutchinson also provided testimony that gets DOJ closer to what they would need to prosecute Trump for obstructing an official proceeding. That charge requires “corrupt” intent. She testified that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his official vehicle (“The Beast”) when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol. She also testified that when an agent physically blocked Trump from seizing the wheel, Trump himself placed his hand on the agent’s “clavicles,” just under his neck.

Trump’s failed attempt to go to the Capitol, in itself, would not be a criminal offense. But the episode inside The Beast would be powerful evidence of Trump’s intent. Up until now, the picture that emerged of Trump was of someone who engaged in “inaction” while the Capitol was under attack, declining to call off his supporters or to call in police or troops. In itself, that is dereliction of duty, not a crime.

But episodes like trying to wrest the steering wheel show that Trump wanted to be at the Capitol and would have been there if he hadn’t been kept from doing so. He wanted to be there, hands on, for the attack itself. That sheds a powerful light on his state of mind.

Juries are typically instructed to infer a defendant’s state of mind from his words and actions. In this situation, Trump’s actions speak loudly, and they can be used as evidence of Trump’s state of mind when he engaged in earlier actions.

Prosecutors will still need to put together a case that shows that Trump was involved in a conspiracy or scheme that obstructed the Jan. 6 certification proceeding. That’s not the simple task that many would have you believe. But it’s easier than establishing intent.

Hutchison’s testimony is a game changer. Until now, the only readily provable crimes based on what is known publicly were potentially narrow criminal charges against crooked lawyers. Now it looks like an (otherwise unlikely) incitement prosecution is possible, and there may be the “smoking gun” needed for an obstruction charge.

The committee was smart to lock in public testimony from Hutchinson when it had the chance, given the potentially unlawful pressure against her to change her tune. Committee members have to hope that others follow in her footsteps. But they already have much of what they need.

Obviously, he could get up, under oath, and state his rebuttal that no such interaction occurred.

Which would then subject him to a very juicy cross examination.

[Tarsonis]

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but I read that entire thing and I found nothing that that from my understanding would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. 98% of her testimony is literally her saying what she heard someone else tell her. the only thing she directly witnessed was a discombobulated SS agent.

I don't think Congress has the same rules as a court does, but I'm still reasonably certain that witness doesn't get called in an actual court room.

I mean, I just provided the rules which allows such testimony in a criminal trial.

No youvprovided a list of exceptions to thr hearsay rule. I'm guessing you didn't read those either, because I specifically told you I read through all the lists you provided, and none of them apply to her testimony. I guess you missed that.

Here's a former federal prosecutor on the issue:

Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type. A political statement by the president of the United States would be presumptively protected by the First Amendment.

this isn't political speech it's a deposition.

But now we have Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump said he didn’t “f---ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me” and that they would be going to the Capitol later. This is precisely the sort of “smoking gun” evidence needed to prove that the person speaking meant to incite imminent violence.

The DOJ will understandably be concerned that the Supreme Court — particularly the current court — would find that Trump’s speech was constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But this evidence should be enough to make them at least consider an incitement prosecution. Before Hutchinson’s testimony, an incitement prosecution would likely fail to clear the high First Amendment hurdle. Now, it is at least a close call and something DOJ should seriously consider.

And to be clear, Hutchinson’s testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a “party opponent” are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ’s “party opponent” in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump’s statements could be used against him in court.

Hutchinson also provided testimony that gets DOJ closer to what they would need to prosecute Trump for obstructing an official proceeding. That charge requires “corrupt” intent. She testified that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his official vehicle (“The Beast”) when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol. She also testified that when an agent physically blocked Trump from seizing the wheel, Trump himself placed his hand on the agent’s “clavicles,” just under his neck.

Trump’s failed attempt to go to the Capitol, in itself, would not be a criminal offense. But the episode inside The Beast would be powerful evidence of Trump’s intent. Up until now, the picture that emerged of Trump was of someone who engaged in “inaction” while the Capitol was under attack, declining to call off his supporters or to call in police or troops. In itself, that is dereliction of duty, not a crime.

But episodes like trying to wrest the steering wheel show that Trump wanted to be at the Capitol and would have been there if he hadn’t been kept from doing so. He wanted to be there, hands on, for the attack itself. That sheds a powerful light on his state of mind.

Juries are typically instructed to infer a defendant’s state of mind from his words and actions. In this situation, Trump’s actions speak loudly, and they can be used as evidence of Trump’s state of mind when he engaged in earlier actions.

Prosecutors will still need to put together a case that shows that Trump was involved in a conspiracy or scheme that obstructed the Jan. 6 certification proceeding. That’s not the simple task that many would have you believe. But it’s easier than establishing intent.

Hutchison’s testimony is a game changer. Until now, the only readily provable crimes based on what is known publicly were potentially narrow criminal charges against crooked lawyers. Now it looks like an (otherwise unlikely) incitement prosecution is possible, and there may be the “smoking gun” needed for an obstruction charge.

The committee was smart to lock in public testimony from Hutchinson when it had the chance, given the potentially unlawful pressure against her to change her tune. Committee members have to hope that others follow in her footsteps. But they already have much of what they need.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Did you not watch the video I linked to in my earlier post, from the Jan 6th Committee

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-p ... on-1720126

I assume it is genuine

It's a piss poor video, to be fair. I can see that there's movement of some kind but I can't tell who's moving or what they're doing.

I posted it to dispel the idea that Trump was punching his way through bullet proof glass, not to suggest this is the actual footage of him going for the driver.

[Gravlen]

I mean, I just provided the rules which allows such testimony in a criminal trial.

No youvprovided a list of exceptions to thr hearsay rule. I'm guessing you didn't read those either, because I specifically told you I read through all the lists you provided, and none of them apply to her testimony. I guess you missed that.

Go back and you’ll find where I pointed out a rule which can apply. Here, I’ll provide it again:

for example by way of rule 803 (1)

Here's a former federal prosecutor on the issue:
[box]Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type. A political statement by the president of the United States would be presumptively protected by the First Amendment.

this isn't political speech it's a deposition.

If you’re not understanding the context may I suggest reading the whole piece. It’s about criminally prosecuting Trump.

no we don't have any of that. Hutchinson wasn't witness to any of those events, she wasnt in the car, she was told those events happened. If this had been criminal court she never would have gotten the testimony out because the Sefense would be filing objections every 5 seconds

Again, context. It’s about her own experiences and what she was told immediately after the event.

That someone would object a lot doesn’t matter. It’s not the quantity…

[Gravlen]

I mean, I just provided the rules which allows such testimony in a criminal trial.

Here's a former federal prosecutor on the issue:

Courts have routinely set this bar very high in the context of political speech because the First Amendment broadly protects speech of that type. A political statement by the president of the United States would be presumptively protected by the First Amendment.

But now we have Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump said he didn’t “f---ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me” and that they would be going to the Capitol later. This is precisely the sort of “smoking gun” evidence needed to prove that the person speaking meant to incite imminent violence.

The DOJ will understandably be concerned that the Supreme Court — particularly the current court — would find that Trump’s speech was constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But this evidence should be enough to make them at least consider an incitement prosecution. Before Hutchinson’s testimony, an incitement prosecution would likely fail to clear the high First Amendment hurdle. Now, it is at least a close call and something DOJ should seriously consider.

And to be clear, Hutchinson’s testimony would not be hearsay if offered by the DOJ at court against Trump. Statements by a “party opponent” are not considered hearsay, according to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). In this case, Trump would be the DOJ’s “party opponent” in a criminal prosecution of Trump, and her testimony regarding Trump’s statements could be used against him in court.

Hutchinson also provided testimony that gets DOJ closer to what they would need to prosecute Trump for obstructing an official proceeding. That charge requires “corrupt” intent. She testified that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his official vehicle (“The Beast”) when Secret Service agents refused to take him to the Capitol. She also testified that when an agent physically blocked Trump from seizing the wheel, Trump himself placed his hand on the agent’s “clavicles,” just under his neck.

Trump’s failed attempt to go to the Capitol, in itself, would not be a criminal offense. But the episode inside The Beast would be powerful evidence of Trump’s intent. Up until now, the picture that emerged of Trump was of someone who engaged in “inaction” while the Capitol was under attack, declining to call off his supporters or to call in police or troops. In itself, that is dereliction of duty, not a crime.

But episodes like trying to wrest the steering wheel show that Trump wanted to be at the Capitol and would have been there if he hadn’t been kept from doing so. He wanted to be there, hands on, for the attack itself. That sheds a powerful light on his state of mind.

Juries are typically instructed to infer a defendant’s state of mind from his words and actions. In this situation, Trump’s actions speak loudly, and they can be used as evidence of Trump’s state of mind when he engaged in earlier actions.

Prosecutors will still need to put together a case that shows that Trump was involved in a conspiracy or scheme that obstructed the Jan. 6 certification proceeding. That’s not the simple task that many would have you believe. But it’s easier than establishing intent.

Hutchison’s testimony is a game changer. Until now, the only readily provable crimes based on what is known publicly were potentially narrow criminal charges against crooked lawyers. Now it looks like an (otherwise unlikely) incitement prosecution is possible, and there may be the “smoking gun” needed for an obstruction charge.

The committee was smart to lock in public testimony from Hutchinson when it had the chance, given the potentially unlawful pressure against her to change her tune. Committee members have to hope that others follow in her footsteps. But they already have much of what they need.

Obviously, he could get up, under oath, and state his rebuttal that no such interaction occurred.

Which would then subject him to a very juicy cross examination.

Indeed.

And about what happened in the car, well, Ornato could be a credible rebuttal witness.

[Zurkerx]

That whole segment of testimony has me a bit skeptical. I guess he could have done that in the suburban but I’m not sure.

Did you not watch the video I linked to in my earlier post, from the Jan 6th Committee

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-p ... on-1720126

I assume it is genuine

Her testimony, contrary to what some people think, is pretty strong given her close proximity to other people like Meadows and the fact her office is close to the Oval Office and Meadows. After all, those people are more than welcome to come testify under oath that Hutchinson's testimony is wrong, which given the reaction from the GOP, Trump and his allies, they don't dispute most of her claims: they just downplayed them. That said, the agents involved plan on testifying that Trump did not attempt to lunge or attack the Secret Service Agents although they do not dispute his irate attitude and his demands to go to the Capitol.

But this shouldn't be the big story. Instead, the bigger stories should be 1.) Trump is heard asking the Secret Service to remove metal detectors because it kept his crowd size small 9he was well-aware they were armed too), 2.) Meadows asked for a pardon and was instructed to contact Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, the former who was coordinating getting the protests organized, and 3.) he and others were well aware of the potential for violence beforehand and knew of violence that day and did nothing.

And others but those are the big ones.

[Galloism]

Indeed.

And about what happened in the car, well, Ornato could be a credible rebuttal witness.

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

[Fartsniffage]

Indeed.

And about what happened in the car, well, Ornato could be a credible rebuttal witness.

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

Does he eat breakfast 300 yards away from 4,000 Cubans who are trained to kill him?

[HISPIDA]

Indeed.

And about what happened in the car, well, Ornato could be a credible rebuttal witness.

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

fuckin' love that movie.

it follows barely any legal procedure and is almost entirely anachronistic, but i love that movie.

[Myrensis]

The idea of Trump trying to wrest control of the car was always a bit suspect.

It's difficult to imagine him "lunging" for anything, other than possibly a naked Ivanka.

[Ifreann]

The idea of Trump trying to wrest control of the car was always a bit suspect.

It's difficult to imagine him "lunging" for anything, other than possibly a naked Ivanka.

"Large toddler grabbing for a candy bar" is how I think it would have gone.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... dependent/

Former Jan. 6 committee counsel running for Senate in Missouri as independent

[Galloism]

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

Does he eat breakfast 300 yards away from 4,000 Cubans who are trained to kill him?

I bet if you asked him he'd say yes.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed.

And about what happened in the car, well, Ornato could be a credible rebuttal witness.

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

You can’t handle the truth!

[The Black Forrest]

The idea of Trump trying to wrest control of the car was always a bit suspect.

It's difficult to imagine him "lunging" for anything, other than possibly a naked Ivanka.

You don’t have to “lunge” to grab the steering wheel. I have had a cousin (little) do that when he was mad he wasn’t getting his way. From the stories of his constant temper tantrums?….it’s possible….a “normal” adult doesn’t do what he does….multiple times…..

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Pretty sure they'd get him to admit to the code red on the stand.

Does he eat breakfast 300 yards away from 4,000 Cubans who are trained to kill him?

What the heck does this have to do with breakfast, code red and 4,000 Cubans trained to kill him? My English Not Very Good. Lol.

[Umeria]

Does he eat breakfast 300 yards away from 4,000 Cubans who are trained to kill him?

What the heck does this have to do with breakfast, code red and 4,000 Cubans trained to kill him? My English Not Very Good. Lol.

It's a reference to the movie "A Few Good Men"

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

What the heck does this have to do with breakfast, code red and 4,000 Cubans trained to kill him? My English Not Very Good. Lol.

It's a reference to the movie "A Few Good Men"

Thanks, and?

[Tarsonis]

No youvprovided a list of exceptions to thr hearsay rule. I'm guessing you didn't read those either, because I specifically told you I read through all the lists you provided, and none of them apply to her testimony. I guess you missed that.

Go back and you’ll find where I pointed out a rule which can apply. Here, I’ll provide it again:

for example by way of rule 803 (1)

But she didn't perceive it. She was told about it. That's the problem.

this isn't political speech it's a deposition.

If you’re not understanding the context may I suggest reading the whole piece. It’s about criminally prosecuting Trump.

Again, context. It’s about her own experiences and what she was told immediately after the event.

That someone would object a lot doesn’t matter. It’s not the quantity…

And that might work for a congressional hearing, but what she was told is irrelevant. She could testify Trump killed his entire security detail and ordered a drone strike on the capital building if that's what she was told, regardless of its accuracy. That's the problem with hearsay.

Look if it works out and they nail the son if a bitch, fantastic. But I see this as being a potential landmine they just put under their own feet.

[Zurkerx]

At the end of the hearing, Rep. Cheney pointed out that some within Trump's orbit were intimidating witnesses and showed two messages. It's being reported that Cassidy Hutchinson, the witness in yesterday's hearing, was one of those witnesses that Trump allies tried to intimidate.

The Jan. 6 committee warned of potential witness tampering by Trump loyalists at the close of Tuesday’s hearing. According to Punchbowl News, one of the examples of witness intimidation provided by the committee was sent to former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

At the close of Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) revealed that the committee was aware of multiple instances in which witnesses testifying before the committee have been pressured by President Trump’s allies in attempts to manipulate their testimony.

Cheney read a statement from a witness who said they would “stay in good graces in Trump World” if they continued to be a “team player.” The witness was also told to keep in mind that Trump does read transcripts while giving their deposition. In a second example, a witness was called before their deposition and told that “he knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

It is not clear which of the examples discussed by the committee was provided by Hutchinson, or when the message was sent. Hutchinson sat for interviews with the committee on four occasions prior to appearing publicly on Tuesday.

In her public testimony Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, revealed to the committee that Meadows was anticipating something “real, real bad” on Jan. 6, and that on the day of the Capitol riot President Trump had insisted security be relaxed in order to allow armed protesters to enter the crowd of his Ellipse rally. Hutchinson told the committee that she overheard Trump say something to the effect of, “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking [magnometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.” Trump would go on to encourage rally-goers to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson also testified to Trump’s anger when aides and Secret Service agents informed him he would not be transported to the Capitol to participate in protests. Hutchinson described a conversation with Secret Service official Anthony Ornato, in which he told her that the president ”lunged” at a Secret Service agent driving the presidential vehicle. “I’m the f-ing president, take me to the Capitol now,” an incensed Trump allegedly told staff attempting to transport him back to the White House.

It's unclear which of those two messages were towards Hutchinson but this isn't the first time we're aware of Trump or any of his allies trying to intimidate witnesses, especially in past investigations. It's a reminder how much Trump and his allies fear the Committee's work, especially since they have no way to rebuttal effectively thanks to the Committee's unique approach.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

At the end of the hearing, Rep. Cheney pointed out that some within Trump's orbit were intimidating witnesses and showed two messages. It's being reported that Cassidy Hutchinson, the witness in yesterday's hearing, was one of those witnesses that Trump allies tried to intimidate.

The Jan. 6 committee warned of potential witness tampering by Trump loyalists at the close of Tuesday’s hearing. According to Punchbowl News, one of the examples of witness intimidation provided by the committee was sent to former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

At the close of Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) revealed that the committee was aware of multiple instances in which witnesses testifying before the committee have been pressured by President Trump’s allies in attempts to manipulate their testimony.

Cheney read a statement from a witness who said they would “stay in good graces in Trump World” if they continued to be a “team player.” The witness was also told to keep in mind that Trump does read transcripts while giving their deposition. In a second example, a witness was called before their deposition and told that “he knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

It is not clear which of the examples discussed by the committee was provided by Hutchinson, or when the message was sent. Hutchinson sat for interviews with the committee on four occasions prior to appearing publicly on Tuesday.

In her public testimony Hutchinson, a former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, revealed to the committee that Meadows was anticipating something “real, real bad” on Jan. 6, and that on the day of the Capitol riot President Trump had insisted security be relaxed in order to allow armed protesters to enter the crowd of his Ellipse rally. Hutchinson told the committee that she overheard Trump say something to the effect of, “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking [magnometers] away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.” Trump would go on to encourage rally-goers to march to the Capitol.

Hutchinson also testified to Trump’s anger when aides and Secret Service agents informed him he would not be transported to the Capitol to participate in protests. Hutchinson described a conversation with Secret Service official Anthony Ornato, in which he told her that the president ”lunged” at a Secret Service agent driving the presidential vehicle. “I’m the f-ing president, take me to the Capitol now,” an incensed Trump allegedly told staff attempting to transport him back to the White House.

It's unclear which of those two messages were towards Hutchinson but this isn't the first time we're aware of Trump or any of his allies trying to intimidate witnesses, especially in past investigations. It's a reminder how much Trump and his allies fear the Committee's work, especially since they have no way to rebuttal effectively thanks to the Committee's unique approach.

Threatening witnesses is a crime isn't it?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

I feel like people aren't worried enough about West Virginia v. EPA.