46 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-29-22

  1. I turned the tv at noon yesterday and all I saw was Jan 6 clown show so turned it off.
    So just who is this Cassidy, who paid her for her testimony and how much?

    Herschmann is a widely respected attorney who came came out of quasi-retirement to protect Trump against those around the president who were giving him bad advice.
    “Anyone that has ever worked with Eric Herschmann knows that the handwriting on that note is his,” political strategist Arthur Schwartz wrote on Twitter. “Cassidy lied through her teeth and Liz Cheney knew she was lying.”
    The credibility of the explosive claims that Hutchinson made during her testimony was further weakened on Tuesday afternoon when reports surfaced indicating that the Secret Service was expected to push back on claims that she made.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. She was so traumatized that she wanted a job at Mar Largo days after, but she didn’t get one, so she’s on her revenge tour.

    Just another clown.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. You mean her and her Dem/media handlers lied?



    It’s all so predictable.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Another take (which I suspect many — most? — of us here are logically more in tune with, but don’t dare speak out too often for the obvious reasons)


    ~ Democrats want to use the Jan. 6 investigation to paint the entire Republican Party as a gang of insurrectionist nuts. The committee is steeped in partisanship. But that doesn’t mean Republicans should look away from the considerable evidence it is producing about Mr. Trump’s behavior that would surely be relevant to voters if he runs in 2024. ~

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The death of Stenger Monday night came on the eve of another hearing before the House panel investigating January 6 that was added at the last minute. Cassidy Hutchinson, who was an aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, is slated to testify amid “recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony.”
    Stenger defended himself last year while testifying in the Senate investigation, and implied that the riots may have been fueled by “professional agitators.”
    “There is an opportunity to learn lessons from the events of January 6,” he said. “Investigations should be considered as to funding and travel of what appears to be professional agitators.” Interesting?

    Here’s the thing. The committee has Secret Service testimony that would seemingly corroborate or dispute what Cassidy Hutchinson said today, but it wasn’t played. Unclear why.

    There are just too many “untruths” for me to believe anything delivered as “truth” by the propagandized media and the sham of a committee “investigating” “They” will lie, cheat, steal and murder to accomplish “their” agenda.

    I am not a Trump fan. His narcissistic behavior gets in the way of what he is attempting to accomplish. I have not viewed him as selling out this nation which the current admin and their ilk seem to be doing…..as did Obama and his spend in the WH.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Something you used to only see in Communist/Marxist countries. Very sad to see such things in our country.


  7. Because I’m a “both sides” kind of person and think it’s important to always go there 🙂 … this is a lengthy and, I think, a calm, fair-minded account (from a politically conservative source) of the testimony yesterday. Just a short excerpt is here, but worth reading if, like me, you missed hearing much of that testimony and are still playing catch-up.

    We’ll all see where things from here in the coming days.


    Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony against Trump Is Devastating

    Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, provided compelling testimony Tuesday that former president Donald Trump is singularly culpable for the Capitol riot.

    The testimony in a session of the House January 6 committee — a session abruptly called, reportedly due to concerns about Ms. Hutchinson’s safety — was devastating because it was directly about the former president. The day’s lone witness pulled back the curtain that countless advisers and aides kept around the mercurial Trump for four years. There are significant questions about aspects of her account, particularly where it involved hearsay — things she had been told about the president’s actions, as opposed to the things she herself witnessed. We also have to reserve judgment, even allowing that she seems impressive, because the highly partisan, unapologetically anti-Trump committee merely presents its side of the story, and has gone to unseemly lengths to exclude cross-examination and alternative perspectives. All in all, though, Hutchinson showed the nation, moment by moment, what he was like on a day when, undeniably, Trump was at his worst.

    It was worse than America thought. Even Americans with extraordinarily low expectations about the former president’s previously undisclosed, behind-the-scenes behavior during the hours when the riot unfolded. …

    … She remembered Cipollone continuing to light into Meadows: “We’ve got to do something, they’re calling for the vice president to be f***ing hung.” Referring with resignation to the conversation they’d just had with Trump, Meadows told Cipollone, “You heard him. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong.”

    That is the background that we did not know, up until now, for Trump’s infamous tweet at 2:24 p.m.:

    “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.”

    The tweet launched a flurry of resignations — Matthew Pottinger, the deputy national-security adviser, told the committee he decided there and then to quit by day’s end. More followed, most prominently Education secretary Betsy DeVos and Transportation secretary Elaine Chao. …

    … Now, it is all well and good to remind everyone, again, that the January 6 committee has foolishly undermined its credibility by failing to provide a fair process. No, there was no cross-examination of Hutchinson. Maybe it will turn out that — as Trump’s characteristically indecorous social-media outbursts during the testimony suggested — Hutchinson is a “total phony,” a “leaker” and “bad news” . . . although she has worked for many top Republicans, is well-liked by many more, and appears to have continued getting promoted over the years because she does a good job.

    We should understand, in any event, that what Cheney did with Hutchinson Tuesday is what prosecutors do with witnesses in grand juries every day: drawing out the witness’s testimony with no obligation to provide the defense perspective. To be sure, no one gets convicted at the grand-jury stage, but an awful lot of people get indicted this way, and on far less evidence than the country heard today.

    Moreover, when we say the committee lacks due-process legitimacy, that means it lacks legitimacy as an ultimate finder of fact. It does not mean that we can blithely dismiss any evidence the committee discloses. It does not mean that, because we’d prefer that the evidence not be true, we can dismiss it out of hand because we don’t like the Democrats or the committee process. These witnesses are testifying under oath. There is significant risk to them if they are found to have committed perjury.

    For now, all we can responsibly do is ask ourselves whether the evidence presented under these deficient procedures seems coherent and credible. Whether it will ultimately hold up when finally challenged — as it very well may be in, say, an eventual criminal trial — is another story. I’ll just say this: When I was a prosecutor, I obtained very good information from sources that were a lot more suspect than the January 6 committee — terrorists, hitmen, fraudsters. Yes, I still had to prove it in court, in the crucible of adversarial challenge and cross-examination. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have elicited it in court unless I had first been convinced that it was true. …

    … Things will not be the same after this.



  8. There was this, too, from the above piece — and among the more jarring points of her testimony:


    ~ The magnetometers were vital for security. Despite its being obvious that the “mags” would detect weapons, many fanatics went through them anyway. Police thus seized knives, clubs, toxic sprays, brass knuckles, and so on. But that is not what most alarmed security forces. They worried about the mobs outside the Ellipse — the fanatics who chose not to go through the mags because they were armed with deadlier weapons: Glock pistols, AR-15s, other firearms. Cheney played communications traffic among the security forces, along with video depicting gunmen who were spotted in trees and elsewhere out on the Mall.

    The president of the United States, nevertheless, was “furious,” Hutchinson related, because the armed mob was being kept away. It spoiled the optics he had in mind.

    “Take the f***ing mags away,” he screamed at his aides and security personnel. Told that this could not be done because it was too dangerous, because there were too many lethal weapons, Trump lost it. “They’re not here to hurt me,” he countered. It didn’t matter that they were obviously there to hurt others, and that those others were patently the people inside the Capitol, the ones Trump was accusing of stealing the election. The mobs, even if armed, were his people, Trump insisted. “Take the f***ing mags away. They’re not here to hurt me. They can come in. Then they can march on the Capitol.”

    Hutchinson was on the scene. This gale of rage happened, she testified, just two or three minutes before the president went to the podium. … ~


  9. Who cares about the “jarring testimony” of a woman already proven to have lied under oath in these farce proceedings? The Secret Services has already denied her story and called it false, as well as the agents on the detail. Her attempts to get employed by Trump after being “traumatized” is laughable. She doesn’t pass the smell test.

    This is a Democrat run, scripted, and televised clown show. The only Republicans involved in this are two frauds Kinzinger and Cheney, who are on their way out thanks to voters, Never Trump clowns from the start.

    But I do agree their are things we should be looking at about Jan6, but none of those things will happen at their made for TV show trials.

    Things like why The Biden DoJ, FBI, Capital police, the House and Senate leadership all ignored warnings of potential violence and even offers of additional security.

    Or why Capital Police allowed some protesters access to the grounds.

    Or why they shot an unarmed Ashley Babbitt for trying to climb thru a broken window?

    Or why the Jan6 Clown Committee won’t allow cross examination, or disclosure of all documents and video.

    Or why the judge overseeing it all allowed hundreds of Americans to be stripped of their civil rights and why they still rot in DC prisons.

    Or maybe admit whether or not this was a fed operation, and how many people they had in the “leadership” of the above political prisoners, like with the Whitmer “assassination plot” that wasn’t.

    Or tell us, who is Ray Epps, and why was he never charged? Is he a fed, was he orchestrating this on the behalf of the govt?

    The list goes on….

    Yeah there’s lots to look at.

    But they won’t.

    So many questions.

    That won’t get answered.


  10. Of course….



  11. There’s always more to these stories than one narrow viewpoint. Taking one knee-jerk opinion and running with it, no matter once, usually backfires. Time to take a breath, listen and be open to what the evidence shows.

    Let’s see how things shake out before we come to a hard-and-fast conclusion. Instantly making up our minds based on our pre-existing political views and prejudices doesn’t usually work out well for getting to the truth in the end.


    From The Week:

    Former Trump aides vouch for credibility of bombshell Jan. 6 witness: ‘I don’t think she’s lying’

    Several former Trump administration officials vouched for the credibility of Jan. 6 committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson, who dropped several bombshell revelations during her testimony Tuesday.

    Hutchinson, a former aide to former President Donald Trump’s final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told lawmakers that Trump requested that Jan. 6 rallygoers be allowed to keep their firearms, grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limo when he was told he couldn’t join the protesters at the Capitol, and hurled his lunch against the wall in anger when former Attorney General William Barr publicly contradicted Trump’s stolen election claims.

    “This is explosive stuff,” tweeted Mick Mulvaney, who was Trump’s acting chief of staff before Meadows took the job. “If Cassidy is making this up,” the aides and agents involved “will need to say that. If she isn’t they will have to corroborate. I know her. I don’t think she is lying.”


  12. Not surprised Menendez is involved in going after pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. I mean what happens if he impregnates one of those underage girls he’s so fond?

    He’s repulsive.


  13. I’ve never defended a politician “no matter what,” except for maybe when I was really young and somewhat naive, frankly. But never since. Always be wary of politicians, even the ones you love-love-love.

    I’ve been somewhat perplexed at the undying loyalty Trump seems to get from a few folks. I’m curious, would anything change that? I’m thinking not?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. She lied under oath.



  15. Scripted.


    They just keep falling for it. They desperately want to believe any bad thing about Trump they hear. And it always turns out false.


  16. Haha, I guess I made a grievous mistake in using the word “jarring.” Whatever, AJ — I suppose we can all pick a word you’ve used and just hammer down on it.

    But we don’t.

    And where would that get us? Any closer to the truth? Nope. It’s just a way to personally jab other people, unnecessarily. Stick to the issues, personal jabs don’t advance any kind of serious or thoughtful debate.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Well, yeah, technically, in a real court of law…

    But this ain’t that. 🙂

    It’s a Clown Court of Media Opinion. So it stands!


    Lather, rinse, repeat suckers.


  18. And it’s kind of rude. Aren’t we friends here? Friends (let alone brothers and sisters) should be able to discuss issues in a calm and respectful way, rather than taking our cues from the fallen world around us.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. DJ,

    I’m making fun of that being the overall media take on it, that “yes, we finally got that Trump this time!” thing yet again. I would assume you’re smarter than that.


  20. My apologies DJ, didn’t mean you. Should have been more clear.

    Takes like this are what I meant. Ones that give her questionable testimony weight it doesn’t deserve.


    Even if he threw the ketchup, so what?

    It’s ridiculous.


  21. Again, let’s step back and let the facts emerge.

    I know, that’s not very social-media of me. 😦

    I’m old school. And I stand behind that process.


  22. This committee made a huge mistake up front in not making it truly bipartisan.

    But the information gleaned is still worth taking a fair look at.


  23. I’ll ignore the “I’d assume you are smarter than that” comment. Kind of makes my earlier point, I suppose. Unnecessary.


  24. Dj at 4:45

    When Trump first appeared, I was totally not there. Ben Carson. But then I started paying closer attention and my mind was changed. The man was rude and overbearing in the debates and in the media and such, but his personal actions seemed different. Don’t I recall, when Carson did not hear his cue, Trump stopping to check with him? I learned that he actually cared about the people in this country. He definitely had the brusque NY attitude and quickly fires people who are not working toward the same goal, but he also seemed to have a real love for the people. He is very wide open with his thoughts which always seem to be moving toward ways to improve the country. No, he did not recommend drinking bleach, he did hypothesize if something along that line might be a defense, proposing it to the scientists.
    The strong minded men in other countries seemed to respect him enough to cut back on their aggression.

    Did I vote for him? Yes. Would I again? Possibly but not so certain as people have made him out to be the thing causing division in our country. It is not him causing the division, he has certainly pointed it out. I think he was definitely leading our country in a better direction but there are a whole lot of people that not only refuse to acknowledge that but insist he was driving us down.

    I might be convinced if a true nonpartisan committee, dealing with all of the facts available, found him guilty of sedition with info I do not yet have. Or if he appeared to be settling into senility. But I would strongly encourage our next President to use him as a positive sounding board for their decisions.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Further, I do believe he is a fellow believer, imperfect and growing in the Lord and I suspect his wife has something to do with that.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Did she “lie under oath?”

    The information certainly was second-hand information and deserves to be vetted and questioned. I’m not sure that qualifies as an intentional lie on her part.


  27. Again, it’s just being careful with our words and accusations. Too much time spent on social media has made us all careless and quick to judge.

    And here we are.

    (I’d say Trump was a result of the national division that has already existed; and his administration may be determined to have caused more unnecessary division, I’d almost safely say at this stage, with both sides taking part in that ongoing battle — but as imperfect as this committee is, much of the testimony is coming from folks who were inside the Trump administration and that does give me pause. I don’t know if Trump is a believer, time will tell on that front I suppose. And none of us know him personally, so I’m not sure that’s knowable information at this point.)

    Things are rarely so black and white as we wish they were.

    It takes listening, it takes discernment. And sometimes we may never know the whole truth. But as believers it’s important to be fair observers to the broadest extent possible, not so quick to judge everyone on a moment’s notice.


  28. I am with you, Mumsee. I wanted Ben Carson and went to an event to sponser him when it was Run Ben Run. I still love the navy blue t-shirt with green letters that spell HEAL related to his campaign. Trump did treat Carson with supreme respect and ovrrall Trump had a great track record in how he treated blacks in general. Being quite practically minded, I viewed our nation as rising out of the pit it had been driven into by the former occupant of the White House. As before, there will probably be a pool of people vying for the top spot. I don’t know who they will be and who will emerge on top. It does get tiresome though to have people make wrong assumptions as to why people vote as they do. Then again, perhaps it is humorous to continually wear the badge of being a deplorable. Once a deplorable always a deplorable. The only other person I have been to an event to support on the national level was Rick Santorum. Does anyone even remember him?


  29. Santorum — vaguely 🙂

    Voting is a pretty personal choice and dependent on many factors. I’d said if I lived in a state that could go either way, I’d have considered voting for Trump in 2016 and (less so) in 2020. As it is/was, we live in a completely blue state that will always go Democrat for president so it gave some of us the luxury, if I can put it that way, of opting out and abstaining from making that choice. But honestly, I never thought I’d abstain from voting for president, I fully embrace the reality that we are always voting, at some level, for the lesser of two evils in what is a fallen world.

    But conscience does (or should) also come into play. Sometimes one just can’t take that step if one’s conscience seems bound in one way or another. It happens. But usually, I can make a choice and vote, knowing the result won’t ever be perfect — and could turn out much worse than I think — but it’s a binary decision in those cases.


  30. To clarify, I would have seriously considered (and probably would have?) voted for Trump in both those years if I had lived in a swing state. Circumstances sometimes dictate and override other considerations when voting in an imperfect situation.

    I suppose I was glad I wasn’t faced with that choice, however.


  31. In that vein, I voted for Carter in my early voting, based solely on kindness and zero on politics. Raise the voting age to thirty maybe?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.