Former FBI agent: Messages sent to Hutchinson are witness tampering

[Flash]

Ex-FBI official: Messages sent to Cassidy Hutchinson were an 'attempt to intimidate a witness'

Former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi says the messages shared by Vice-Chair Liz Cheney during Tuesday’s bombshell hearing of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack are “witness tampering.”“There is no question in my mind that what you just read is an...

www.alternet.org

It appears the messages come from associates of Meadows. Executive Privilege does not apply when a crime is being committed.

This is not a trial.

 

[Care4all]

This is not a trial.

True.

But DOJ did say they would be watching every bit of the hearings......

So if the DOJ sees a possible crime, they will investigate....

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn’t a trial. It is a hearing. Like the ones you had on Hilary

In Hillary's case there were classified e-mails that even Comey said were mishandled, an illegal server, evidence destroyed, there were four dead Americans in Benghazi with no explanation from the administration for why--we do know that she and Susan Rice spread a false story/reason until even the mainstream media protecting them had to admit was absurd along with other accounts the media with her said never happened. And she had plenty of support from the Democrats all during the hearing who challenged pretty much anything that was said against her.

It was not an unreasonable hearing and it was done completely fairly with plenty of input from both sides.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then I don’t see what point it would be to ask Cassidy about it, there would be no way to corroborate it.

There is no way to corroborate anything Cassidy has said at least that the committee is willing to do.

The Washington Examiner has a well organized piece on this whole thing--the unprecedented one-sidedness of the Jan 6 Commission compared to the Benghazi hearings.

The Jan. 6 committee charade

THE JAN. 6 COMMITTEE CHARADE. At the end of the House Democrats' Jan. 6 committee hearing featuring former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson, committee member Liz Cheney (R-WY) delivered an elaborate tease for the panel's as-yet-unscheduled next episode. Thanking Hutchinson for her testimony, which…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Orangecat]

Conspiracy Theories we once uncommon and mostly laughed at by ALL.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why no answer, Foxfyre?

I answered it. You just didn't like the answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

The argument here has become circular and I've pretty said what I have to say on the topic. At least regarding the issue to date. So I'll find something else to talk about somewhere else. Meanwhile, I hope everyone will read the current Washington Examiner summary on this. It is very VERY difficult to refute.

The Jan. 6 committee charade

THE JAN. 6 COMMITTEE CHARADE. At the end of the House Democrats' Jan. 6 committee hearing featuring former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson, committee member Liz Cheney (R-WY) delivered an elaborate tease for the panel's as-yet-unscheduled next episode. Thanking Hutchinson for her testimony, which…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Coyote]

Yes she could request whomever she wanted to testify and if that person had material knowledge they would have been called. And the Democrats on the committee strenuously defended her and certainly could call anybody they wanted and probably did. The Jan 6 Commission is the most maliciously one sided hearing, show trial, inquisition, whatever you want to call it that I have ever witnessed in my life.

I don't know if Trump is a little guilty, a lot guilty, totally guilty or innocent. I do know I have seen zero evidence against him that anybody has brought forward that would be deemed credible and/or unimpeachable in ANY court of law and I've seen a lot of corroboration that his version of what happened in not falsified in any way.

If the Jan 6 Commission believed that they had a case, they wouldn't block anybody and everybody who might challenge it or call any of the testimony or pronouncements by politicians into question.

At this point I believe this is a trash Trump any way they can, honestly or dishonestly, fair or unfair, exercise.

Anyone who testified would have to do so under oath, right? Has anyone actually been blocked from doing that?

 

[Care4all]

No it is a hearing. But a hearing with the sole purpose of damaging Donald J. Trump so badly he can't run in 2024. It is 100% dishonorable in that they allow no challenge to any of the testimony and no introduction of exculpatory evidence. A hearing run or authorized by Congress should be honest, transparent, fair. This one isn't.

Nobody is willing to testify when they know they'll be attacked by the entire panel and there is nobody allowed there to keep it honest.

In the collusion hearings, Schiff and company tried the same tactic but made the mistake of allowing people on the committee to challenge his witnesses. And systematically those challenges brought every single witness to admit they heard or saw nothing illegal related to Donald J. Trump.

Schiff, Pelosi etc. didn't make that same mistake this time so they put together a commission of 100% Trump haters who have no apparent sense of ethics or fair play.

It's just wrong.

Did Nixon have a defense team of congress critters in the Watergate hearings to counter? Nope, not that I saw??

 

[Foxfyre]

Did Nixon have a defense team of congress critters in the Watergate hearings to counter? Nope, not that I saw??

I thought I was done here but I'll speak to this as I watched the Watergate hearings. The Democrats of course were eager to implicate Nixon; the GOP were just as hopeful to exonerate him. There was every bit as much give and take, back and forth, challenge to ALL testimony in those hearings as what we saw with the Benghazi hearings. In fact it was pretty much going Nixon's way until John Dean testified. The Republicans tried to impeach Dean's testimony but were unsuccessful in doing so. The DOJ had cut a deal with Dean for a light sentence if he turned state's evidence. When it was inevitable that 'all the President's men' would be indicted and found guilty, Nixon resigned to avoid a certain impeachment.

After his VP Gerald Ford was sworn in as President, he pardoned Nixon and that wasn't well received by Democrats or Republicans. (That probably cost Ford his re-election making him the first one in our history to serve as President without having ever being being elected as VP or President.)

 

[Care4all]

I thought I was done here but I'll speak to this as I watched the Watergate hearings. The Democrats of course were eager to implicate Nixon; the GOP were just as hopeful to exonerate him. There was every bit as much give and take, back and forth, challenge to ALL testimony in those hearings as what we saw with the Benghazi hearings. In fact it was pretty much going Nixon's way until John Dean testified. The Republicans tried to impeach Dean's testimony but were unsuccessful in doing so. The DOJ had cut a deal with Dean for a light sentence if he turned state's evidence. When it was inevitable that 'all the President's men' would be indicted and found guilty, Nixon resigned to avoid a certain impeachment.

After his VP Gerald Ford was sworn in as President, he pardoned Nixon and that wasn't well received by Democrats or Republicans. (That probably cost Ford his re-election making him the first one in our history to serve as President without having ever being being elected as VP or President.)

The Watergate hearings I believe lasted two years or so. When I began watching I saw everyone on the committee, just trying to get to the truth about Nixon.... What did Nixon know, and when did he know it?

Do you think Jim Jordon could have been respectful like the Republican gentlemen committee members in watergate, and not bombastic as he usually is.....with sole goal of interference and chaos?

McCarthy lobbied against the first proposed, outside of congress, 9/11 commission type investigation, after he was first for it. He requested for Republicans to have equal number of investigators, Republicans vs Dems, Pelosi gave it to him, he lobbied for equal subpoena power, Pelosi gave it to him along with giving the leader his other two requests of equal power... Pelosi agreed to all of it.

McCarthy's assigned negotiators announced the repubs and democrats had a deal for the 1/6 commission.

Then McCarthy came back from his Mara Lago (kiss the ring) visit, he flip flopped... The house resolution passed with Republican support anyway...

But McCarthy spent the next week or two lobbying Republican Senators to not pass the resolution in the Senate. And they didn't.

WHY DID HE DO THAT foxy lady?

The only thing that comes to mind, is Trump didn't want any investigation and somehow, through blackmail or something, convinced McCarthy to do his bidding, when he visited him at Mara Lago.....?

Then, when Pelosi brought up a Select Committee to investigate and McCarthy could pick 5 for it, McCarthy intentionally sabotaged his picks, by putting Jordan and Banks on the committee, with 3 others.....KNOWING that Jordan was a conflict of interest with him being a potential witness, (and eventually was a witness called) and would be rejected by Pelosi. Yes, on House Select Committees, the Speaker has full authority over member picks, under the House rules on it, going back for a hundred years or so.

McCarthy counted on Jordan and maybe even Banks being rejected, So that McCarthy could have his excuse to pull all of his appointed members off of the committee, so he could then claim later on down the road, that the Select Committee on the 1/6 Capitol and electoral college attack, was partisan, or a hoax, or a witch hunt.... Trump's usual and tried and true, modus operandi.

And, that is exactly what he is now trying to claim. When we all know, he built this bed, that he sleeps in now.

Pelosi got Cheney and Kinzinger to be on the committee giving it, at least two Republicans, one who was recently the third most powerful person in the Republican House leadership.

Cheney is not a Rino either, she's as conservative as they come in DC.

Yes, it would have been great to have the 3 republican McCarthy picks that were accepted, who were all very vocal Trumpers too, on the committee....

and it would have been great if McCarthy had just picked two others to replace Jordan and Banks,

And it would have been great to have 5 additional republicans than what the committee ended up having, but it is disingenuous to complain now and blame democrats, when it was your side's CHOICE to have it this way....imo.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Watergate hearings I believe lasted two years or so. When I began watching I saw everyone on the committee, just trying to get to the truth about Nixon.... What did Nixon know, and when did he know it?

Do you think Jim Jordon could have been respectful like the Republican gentlemen committee members in watergate, and not bombastic as he usually is.....with sole goal of interference and chaos?

McCarthy lobbied against the first proposed, outside of congress, 9/11 commission type investigation, after he was first for it. He requested for Republicans to have equal number of investigators, Republicans vs Dems, Pelosi gave it to him, he lobbied for equal subpoena power, Pelosi gave it to him along with giving the leader his other two requests of equal power... Pelosi agreed to all of it.

McCarthy's assigned negotiators announced the repubs and democrats had a deal for the 1/6 commission.

Then McCarthy came back from his Mara Lago (kiss the ring) visit, he flip flopped... The house resolution passed with Republican support anyway...

But McCarthy spent the next week or two lobbying Republican Senators to not pass the resolution in the Senate. And they didn't.

WHY DID HE DO THAT foxy lady?

The only thing that comes to mind, is Trump didn't want any investigation and somehow, through blackmail or something, convinced McCarthy to do his bidding, when he visited him at Mara Lago.....?

Then, when Pelosi brought up a Select Committee to investigate and McCarthy could pick 5 for it, McCarthy intentionally sabotaged his picks, by putting Jordan and Banks on the committee, with 3 others.....KNOWING that Jordan was a conflict of interest with him being a potential witness, (and eventually was a witness called) and would be rejected by Pelosi. Yes, on House Select Committees, the Speaker has full authority over member picks, under the House rules on it, going back for a hundred years or so.

McCarthy counted on Jordan and maybe even Banks being rejected, So that McCarthy could have his excuse to pull all of his appointed members off of the committee, so he could then claim later on down the road, that the Select Committee on the 1/6 Capitol and electoral college attack, was partisan, or a hoax, or a witch hunt.... Trump's usual and tried and true, modus operandi.

And, that is exactly what he is now trying to claim. When we all know, he built this bed, that he sleeps in now.

Pelosi got Cheney and Kinzinger to be on the committee giving it, at least two Republicans, one who was recently the third most powerful person in the Republican House leadership.

Cheney is not a Rino either, she's as conservative as they come in DC.

Yes, it would have been great to have the 3 republican McCarthy picks that were accepted, who were all very vocal Trumpers too, on the committee....

and it would have been great if McCarthy had just picked two others to replace Jordan and Banks,

And it would have been great to have 5 additional republicans than what the committee ended up having, but it is disingenuous to complain now and blame democrats, when it was your side's CHOICE to have it this way....imo.

This is too far off topic to continue here my friend. But yes, Pelosi should have accepted the GOP appointments to the committee no matter who they were. For her to hand pick what GOP reps were acceptable and to pick the two most avid Trump haters on the planet just underscores that this is a show trial intended to damage Trump and has no other purpose. Truth is not a goal.

Just like the purported threatening memos Hutchinson was supposed to have received. Please read the Washington Examiner take that I linked. There's nothing righteous or right about the way the Commission is going about this.

 

[Faun]

I answered it. You just didn't like the answer.

I reviewed all your posts in this thread and no, you never answered. I can only conclude from your squirming, avoidance & lying that even you believe Trump tried to steal the election.

 

[Care4all]

This is too far off topic to continue here my friend. But yes, Pelosi should have accepted the GOP appointments to the committee no matter who they were. For her to hand pick what GOP reps were acceptable and to pick the two most avid Trump haters on the planet just underscores that this is a show trial intended to damage Trump and has no other purpose. Truth is not a goal.

Just like the purported threatening memos Hutchinson was supposed to have received. Please read the Washington Examiner take that I linked. There's nothing righteous or right about the way the Commission is going about this.

It's not a trial, or show trial.

It is a public hearing.....and yes, for the public view....

Just as all public hearings are....

Like when Republicans had Hillary, under oath, for 11 hours straight, in the Republican Bengazi hearing beating Clinton up on Tv..... Over and over and over and over and over and over again and again.... the show must go on!

Only, the public found out nothing....

These hearings are informative.... With all Republican witnesses, who all voted for Trump.....

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not a trial, or show trial.

It is a public hearing.....and yes, for the public view....

Just as all public hearings are....

Like when Republicans had Hillary, under oath, for 11 hours straight, in the Republican Bengazi hearing beating Clinton up on Tv..... Over and over and over and over and over and over again and again.... the show must go on!

Only, the public found out nothing....

These hearings are informative.... With all Republican witnesses, who all voted for Trump.....

It is a public hearing using hand picked, coached, rehearsed witnesses.
It is a public hearing allowing no challenge to the testimony of those witnesses
It is a public hearing allowing no introduction of any exculpatory evidence or evidence that would change public perception.
It is a public hearing using dishonestly edited video and quotes taken out of context.
It is a public hearing allowing no evidence of any Democrat contribution to what happened.
It is a public hearing for the sole purpose of so damaging Donald Trump that he cannot run for President in 2024.
It is evil. And were it being done to Joe Biden or any other Democrat, the Democrats would be up in arms screaming foul!