Select Page

Cipollone’s non-answers undermines Hutchinson’s … and the Committee’s … credibility

Cipollone’s non-answers undermines Hutchinson’s … and the Committee’s … credibility

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone testified before Speaker Pelosi’s one-sided January 6 inquisition.  He was one of the most sought-after individuals on the Select Committee’s wish list.  

It was a negotiated appearance, meaning that the inquisitors would not ask any questions in which Executive Privilege or client/attorney privilege might have been exerted.  The Committee could have taken the privilege issue to court, but that would have messed up their timeline to get the report out in time to have maximum impact on the 2022 midterm election.  Do not forget that the Committee is not about seeking truth, but to create political narratives that can be used as campaign fodder by Democrats.

As with much of the information we can garner from the Committee, we have to rely on carefully scripted and rehearsed testimony or selective leaks.

Tight-lipped Committee members have said that Cipollone did not refute the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson – particularly the part where she said that Cipollone had told her that if the Trump contingent went up to Capitol Hill, they would be breaking innumerable laws.

Of course, he did not refute it. That was because they never ask him if he had said such a thing.  Any responsible and rational person might have expected that to be the first – and most important – question. 

The credibility of Hutchinson’s testimony has been questioned when secret service personnel refuted her hearsay claim that President Trump had grabbed the wheel of the vehicle and attacked the driver, Robert Engel, over his refusal to take Trump to the Capitol Building.  

Hutchinson claimed she heard about the incident from Tony Omato, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.   Onato later denied telling Hutchinson what she reported to the Committee.  Engel and Omato both said they would testify under oath. 

When asked if the Committee would be bringing the Secret Service agents in to testify under oath, the Committee demonstrated a hesitancy.  At this juncture, it is unlikely that they will testify – for obvious reasons.  

Part of a prosecutor’s code is to never ask a question to which they do not know the answer – or do not like the answer.  They want to avoid any information that does not support the prosecutorial narrative.  And now we see that being applied to Cipollone.

Saying that Cipollone did not refute Hutchinson’s testimony is a lawyer’s method of misleading.  According to leaks from the Cipollone side of the issue, he would have firmly refuted what Hutchinson claimed he said if he had been asked.  A fair tribunal would get that important information on the record.

These are just two examples as to why one should never trust a one-sided interrogation or prosecution.   That should be a matter of principle for honest and fair-minded people – not subject to political biases and prejudices.  A one-sided tribunal cannot be trusted to arrive at the truth under any circumstances.

Failing to ask the pertinent questions of Engel, Omato, and Cipollone is a very small example of the investigative process that is taking place with the Select Committee on a daily basis.  In the words of the old west, Pelosi’s Select Committee is a hangin’ jury – and we should see it as such.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry HoristLarry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

59 Comments

  1. Mason

    The committee is a shit show and will be winding down soon It’s just proof that the democrats are afraid of Trump

  2. Doris

    Why are they so afraid to let the 2 agents answer the questions regard Hutchinson testimony because they don’t want the truth.

  3. brian

    how about the tax payers quit wasting money on this bull shit and start investigating hillary clinton…nancy pelosi…joe and hunter biden !!!

    • James Nice

      Will they ever change their wicked ways? I get so tired of people that try to control what is asked of whom and when only to help form a narrative. NEVER any due process for people or the facts. And then it’s on to cancel culture, doxxing anyone that doesn’t agree, etc. It’s time to stop the nonsense already.

      • frank stetson

        blah de blah, bunch of whiners when you can’t get your way. DId you see us whine like that over the Scotus roe v wade…oh, never mind :>)

        These are Republicans testifying, perhaps just listen to them. Not one has said they were taken out of context, edited to give wrong impression, etc. Not one of these Republicans that have testified have said it’s an unfair process. Even Invanka who admitted she favored Barr’s conclusion — there was no there, there, for election fraud at any level that would affect the outcome —- TRUMP LOST. You can see a lot of what these Republicans said yourself. More is on line. I would expect all will be online at some point. As Trumpians like to say: “get over it, it’s the law.” All legal, so put on your big boy pants, suck up those tears, and maybe listen to what Republicans have to say happened, under oath, under penalty of law.

        This is an investigation; if the DOJ picks it up, you will get your due process and adversary environment.

        IMO, based on what these Republicans have said so far, I would thing that’s the last thing you want. IF this goes to court, it just gets worse and, right now, odds are that you lose big time.

        IMO, you should be pushing your Representatives to push McConnell and McCarthy to end this ASAP. Impeach the sob, get him to proclaim that he concedes that Biden is the elected President according to our process, and we will let him go away and get on with our lives.

        As Woody Guthrie said: This land is made for YOU and ME. We need to move forward and get back to that. We don’t have to agree, but we should get to a place where we agree to that —- and make it happen. What is happening now is NOT what I think any of us want for all of us. We need to move past it, protect the office of the President, and forget this guy.

        • Ken

          Did we see you whine??? Lol. You idiots melted like snowflakes.

          • Frank stetson

            Can’t even attempt being lite

            Sigh.

            Sure ken, we’re idiots. Snowflakes. Sure.

        • Ac

          Larry,
          Now, you have done it again. Your PBP opinion commentary on each occasion opens the floodgates of the usual contributors’ various versions. You sir, are a provocateur. You provide the first shot across the bow start the action and customarily retreat somewhere to watch who has what to add.
          This time is similarly Republican speak, eyes closed to the real story, mind closed to hear indisputable real facts given under oath, and opinion longstanding and rigid its narrative .
          You and Trump are avid watchers when the.select committee for 1/6’golive. Something most Republicans will not admit watching.. It goes without saying that even before the opening gavel Republicans were not going to take in the gravity of 1/6. The evidence presented would be downplayed or ignored altogether. Truth is, an ugly and treacherous event occurred on that day and it came to be on your Republican Party’s watch. An attack on the Capital is serious enough, but this was as attack on the bedrock of our democracy.
          It matters greatly and measures taken must be stern justice imposed on all involved, all the way to the top. No one can be immune who participated in any way, whether in person on the day or in the months and weeks prior.
          Your party wants the whole messy business to go away. Making light of serious errors in judgement is expected behavior in cases of guilt and denial of responsibility.
          How adamant would Republicans be if a Democrat president acted as Trump acted causing 2 impeachments, refusal to concede defeat, then attempt holding onto power by court action, by bullying VP Pence, and staging a mob riot as an insurrection. The Select Committee has uncovered bad acts enough to ascertain who did what, when, and where.
          Republicans have not found a defense for the evidence. Their own line is as always, procedure, form, representations, and finger pointing.
          One’s approach to survey an incident like 1/6 can get clouded with political bias going in. This is where truth has real trouble getting seen clearly.
          Although, PBP has in its policy statement all the right words and intentions and sells itself as nonpartisan and an open forum. Objective consideration of issues and people in the news seems to elude those contributing articles.
          Larry has not proposed his view as being objective. His offering are shots from the hip, take no prisoners or names. When he finishes he does it with a tagline There tis.. in other words, take it or leave it. What is offered in reply is plain, on board or not.
          Simply, in the end, no question which side readers take. Opinion changes not in evidence..
          So, who or what of Democrat Party fails approval warrants dissection by dull instruments.

          .

          • larry Horist

            Ac. … Are you off your meds again? Your rambling screed is not making a lot of sense in terms of the issues. But you may have succeeded to taking first place for the longest and most inconsequential mendacious ad hominin attack. As far as PBP is concerned, it is a site presenting conservative view points — objectively and honestly. And it provides a platform for people like to to express their narrow-minded and opinions based on strident partisanship. I have often criticized Trump personally and on issues — but I have yet to hear any objectivity form those who come here to their their political rocks off. I have repeatedly challenged the critics to give me a brief list of the things Trump as done that they approve of. So far … crickets. Until that happens, I will remain unimpressed by accusations that I am not objective in my analyses. I also value hearing both sides on issues — something that my critics abhor. That is why they defend the indefensible one-sided Select Committee. Is that objectivity? Finally, you are the first to call me a provocateur. If my commentaries provoke response — supportive or other wise — I have achieved my mission. As poorly articulated as you responses may be, at least you are provoked to get off the sofa.

          • Ben

            “R u off ur meds again,” whatta nice sentiment. I wonder if Larry has stopped beating his wife.

  4. Redrag

    When one party can say who can even be on this so called committee and the other party could NOT put the persons that they wanted within this committee then you know right then that this is nothing but a east of time . One sided. To get a story out, but not one bit of truth. Plus since they truly don’t want the truth out since it would uncover that it was the party that sent people into the crowd that started the charge into the building. Plus NONE of those people have been arrested since the FBI is helping to keep it down. Sounds like Lieing to the FBI here.

    • Ben

      It’s the law, it’s Congressional rules. It was the only way for like the first hundred years of our Republic. Unusual, atypical, but not unheard of. Frankly, you split the milk and now you are crying about it. Frankly, if you get power, I guarantee you will do the same thing.

      • larry Horist

        Ben …. you are giving out misinformation. If you followed the news, you would know that for Pelosi to reject the GOP choices to select her own GOP members of the committee is unprecedented in the history of the Republic. I have written in the past that it was still a mistake by McCarthy not to staff up the Committee. That failure however does not give the one-side Committee a foundation of credibility. One side is bad no matter how it gets that way. Not sure if the Republicans will do the same when they get power, but if they do, you can blame Pelosi for crassly breaking precedent. Just as it was former Democrat leader that broke the requirement of a super majority to confirm federal judges. McConnel extending that to Supreme Court justices was a short putt after Reid hit the ball on the green. Democrats have also made investigation over legislation the nature of the Congress. That too will come back to haunt them. They also want to abolish the filibuster. They would come to regret that too. And then there is lowering the standard for impeachment. Thanks to the Democrats, impeachment may soon look like the frequent “no confidence” votes in the British parliament.

        • Ben

          Larry, you got me on this one, Pelosi herself said: “The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” of course your out of context version leaves out the salient caveat. She added that the unprecedented dismissal was based on unprecedented “statements and actions, with respect for the integrity of the investigation.” There is a list if needed, but Jordan’s recent unprecedented premature tweet against the 10-year-old rape victim shows IMO that her opinion was: good, justified. Both obstructionists voted NOT to certify the election, major obstructionists even for a balking minority, nuff said.

          As I have said previously, in response to you, IMO, unusual, but not unprecedented. Why? Precedent.

          Committees came to America from the British Parliament. It’s a good division of labor technique. By 1810, we only had 10 standing committees in the House but the expanding government, but we started over 600 since 1789, mostly short timers. The war of 1812, grew them exponentially. Three types, Standing with members chosen by the leadership of both parties, Joint Committees House/Senate with similar process, and Select or Special Committee where all members are chosen by the Speaker, according to House Rules. The 1/6 is a Select Committee. Pelosi is well within her rights to pick.

          The Constitution does not explicitly mention congressional investigations and oversight, but the courts have consistently upheld Congress’ right to undertake such activities. Until 1911, the Speaker chose members and no one even thought about it. There’s the first precedent and it covers most of our national experience. Then in the 1900’s, the speaker began to offer seats to be chosen by the minority, it was a choice, not a rule, and that’s the second precedent, but again, not a rule. That’s the current customary way it’s done, but it’s not always true. Many times, the speaker has exercised their right, by the rules, to choose members. Also, many times informal pressures had been brought to bear by the speaker is disallow certain selections. It is not unprecedented.

          The speakership reached a new power during Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon from 1903 to 1911. He exerted total control over the process. He set House agendas, appointed committee members, chairmen, headed the Rules Committee, and even determined which committee heard each bill. It is not unprecedented.

          Closer to home, in 2005, the House panel investigating government response to Katrina consisted of 11 Republicans and zero Democrats. Pelosi was minority leader and she called the panel a “sham” and refused to name committee members. Republicans had no issue and selected their own members. Couldn’t even find a Cheney or Kinzinger.

          There are a number of other examples as well, especially of the “behind the barn door” variety. Point being that indeed this is unusual, even highly unusual, but I disagree that it’s unprecedented UNLESS you use Pelosi’s rationale of WHY the specific two members were excluded. FYI — MTG is in the House and should be excluded from all committees. IMO.

          Perhaps the question you should be asking is why McCarthy copies Pelosi’s Katrina example to boycott instead of dealing behind the barn door to get something in return for mutually accepted appointees? He might have bumped Schiff for example, in exchange for bumping Jordan. But he went public, figured he could bluster into a “biased committee with unfounded results” forgetting that it would be all Republicans doing the testifying. Oops.

          McConnell made the first mistake which interjected bias, by House design. McCarthy made two more mistakes, selecting nuts and then the boycott which no Republican called unprecedented or stupid at the time. He should have seen the 2005 Pelosi blunder as a teachable moment.

          Pelosi did not “crassly break precedent,” she is not even on first —- McConnell is. We could have had a 9.11 style bipartisan commission that would have completed the task by the end of 2021 —- that’s the decision that set all the other wheels in motion. Unless you go back to burger-tossing, steering wheel grabbing, “get me to the Capitol, those arms ain’t for me” Trump’s decisions that kicked off the whole affair to begin with, actually starting with The Big Lie which, of course, is truly a lie.

        • Sandee Dempsey

          Well stated Larry, I am an Independent and just read all the opinions from both Political Parties and just ponder and wonder where this Crap will go next. What a waste of Citizen’s time and Tax money. As the old saying goes Opinions are like A–Holes, everyone has one.

  5. Chipper

    What I would like to know is why the j6 political prisoners are being deprived of their Constitutional
    rights by being locked up for a year and a half basically on misdemeanor charges. They are being treated
    like animals. Our Congresspeople should be screaming from the rooftops. We are now living in a
    Totalitarian regime.

    • frank stetson

      It’s the law.

      But one problem is that there are so many of them, they are clogging up the courts slowing the process from it’s normal slow pace.

      But most remain free, outside of jail, awaiting their court date. I don’t think there are any misdemeanors in jail. Only the more severe felonies remain in jail. I think as of February, that number was about 40 out of the 876 charged thus far.

  6. frank stetson

    I am sure they will interview the agents, why would they be afraid.

    The agents are also free Americans, they have the right to free speech and I am sure FOX would love to have them on. Why are they so afraid to go public?

    The committee is bi-partisan, the fact there are only two Republicans is the fault of the Republicans; they had three bites at the apple and they denied a 9/11 style commission, they were blocked from putting obstructionists on the committee, and they opted to boycott.

    The supposed “maximum impact on the 2022 elections” is the fault of the Republicans. The 9/11 style commission was planned to be chartered to end by the end of 2021, it had a deadline as part of the plan. You voted this down and choose the current schedule with your actions.

    “At this juncture, it is unlikely that they will testify – for obvious reasons.” Ah, the old “obvious reasons” gambit. You have no proof, but smoke is always grand for conspiracists. What the facts are Hutchinson’s, she testified as to what Oranato said. He refutes that, but has not done so under oath. Allegedly, the driver and another agent refute Hutchinson too; they too have not done so under oath or in public. Allegedly, other SS confirm Hutchinson, they have neither gone public or under oath either. The committee has offered to interview all, schedule has not been set. I am sure they are trying their best to meet Larry’s demands….

    The driver has been interviewed, obviously was not forthcoming with answers beyond the questions asked, heck, the guy did not describe that day to his own agency or other agents for over 14 months; at least he said so under oath. He also, under oath, discusses how he and Trump took different views on driving Trump to the Capitol as a deadly insurrection was getting under full steam. At this juncture, I think most can picture a Trump not being allowed to do what he wants to do as a very pleasant picture of puppies and donuts. But, again, he needs to testify to the question, use his public free speech rights, or something beyond hiding behind his supposed allegations that are hearsay at this point, even to Larry.

    Fact is all we have seen are Cipollone sound bites, the committee said that clearly. His full testimony, albeit the committee’s view of that as Larry expounds upon, is still forthcoming. While Larry’s opinions are fully baked, Cipollone’s testimony has not been delivered to the public yet. Just sound bites to which Larry ascribes his conclusions to that which is not completed.

    All in good time Larry, and yes, it’s political. Every Select Committee is political. Always has been. But the timing, the membership, is all yours.

    I remember when McConnell voted down the 9/11 style commission for 1/6 saying this choice would make this a mid-term circus. Well, Mitch, I was right way back then. Sorry, actually. I would rather the specter of the midterms not be part of this. But Democrats did not storm the Capitol. Democrats did not give Capitol tours to non-tourist areas the day before the insurrection. And Democrats did not tell Trump to whip up an armed crowd and send then to the Capitol to hang Mike Pence. Republicans had 60 failed court cases, 5 failed recounts, a fake elector slate plan, a military seizure of voting machine plan. Dems didn’t bully Mike Pence to void his Constitutional duty. Dem election lawyers didn’t have their licenses pulled, they didn’t get sanctioned or referred to State Bars for disciplinary actions. Dems did not create and push The Big Lie. Dems didn’t plan to replace the Acting Attorney General with his fake election supporter shill. Dems didn’t call state election officials, legislators, to change vote results. And Dems didn’t wait for over three hours before taking actions against the mob. That’s what this is about, not burger tossing, not late night screaming matches, and certainly not about Trump bitch slapping his Secret Service limo driver.

    Larry seizes upon some sound bites from Cipollone to summarize his entire testimony while wrapping the uncompleted version with the unfairness of the design and implementation of the Select Committee’s investigation. We are a nation of laws, the committee is operating legally under the law, we can debate the fairness of it all and who’s to blame for that. Larry is right that this is not a court of law, and that in a court of law, that their will be an adversary defense that will most certainly bring some of the facts presented so far into question or even discounted by other, more believable facts.

    But Larry, the facts presented thus far, while “cherry picked” by the committee in order to create a narrative, are facts presented by Republicans. The vast majority of this story is told by Republicans. And not ONE of them has stood up and said: “I have been treated unfairly, I have been taken out of context, or that’s not what I said….” It’s your story Larry. It’s the Republican story. My suggestion is move fast, move on, and put this behind your party. This goose is cooked and continued baking won’t help anyone. It’s time to put this one to bed without further damage to the office of the President. You know that bad things happen here, put on the big boy pants and assign blame where blame belongs. Impeach the son of a bitch, make him announce that Biden is the rightful President, he can keep his Big Lie, no need to refute as part of the “deal,” and let’s put this shit behind us.

    The real mission of the committee is to recommend what to do before the next President goes beyond where Nixon, Clinton, and now Trump have dared to go. We can not let this happen again. The political part is just icing on the cake, a cake baked by Republicans, hope you enjoy it.

    • Richard

      Frank,
      Get a clue. To state the following is ridiculous: “The committee is bi-partisan, the fact there are only two Republicans is the fault of the Republicans; they had three bites at the apple and they denied a 9/11 style commission, they were blocked from putting obstructionists on the committee, and they opted to boycott.” The “Select Committee” should be just that – select – and selected equally by both sides. To suggest that the Republicans were choosing ‘obstructionists’ is ignoring the fact of whom the DemocRATS were choosing. They chose political zealots and hacks who have no plan of ‘fact-finding’ and creating a time-line, they are a committee to find a crime to fit their narrative.
      As for the voting ‘irregularities’ noted from the election, a few comments. Many of the cases were thrown out due to procedural issues, not their merits. Recounting ballots simply verifies what is in front of them, not how those ballots arrived or how they were counted (unmanned ballot box dumps, late night dumps with 100% of ballots for one particular candidate, ballot harvesting, re-running ballots through voting machines, dead people voting, etc). Just sayin…

      • beven nation

        Apologies to Bowie’s “Lady Grinning Soul”

        He’ll come, He’ll go
        He’ll lay belief on you
        Orange hair’d with musky odor
        The liar from another grinning soul

        Cologne he’ll wear
        Silver and Americard
        He’ll ride a limo car
        And grab the wheel when no one’s lookin

        And when the cheeseburgers are strewn
        Don’t be afraid being groomed
        Touch the fullness of his tale
        Until the judge done sets your bail
        He will be your living end

        He’ll come, He’ll go
        He’ll lay belief on you
        But he won’t stake his life on you
        How can your life become his point of view

        And when the burgers are strewn
        Against the wall of the room
        Touch the fullness of his lie
        As you bend over for jailhouse guys
        He will be your living end
        He will be your living end
        He will be your living end

        • Joe Gilbertson

          Final warning, no poetry allowed in this forum.

          • Bevan nation

            Did you issue a first warning?

            Poetry is not considered free speech round here? Why?

            These are actually song parodies; still banned?

            You are banning song parodies, but how about a limerick? Japanese haiku?

            Too bad you are not pro-rhyme. I wonder how many living couplets you will abort. How about rape rhymes?

            Well, we lost on the first amendment, but we’ll always have curse words, ad hominem attacks, and bullying. They’re still not banned, right?

          • Joe Gilbertson

            Yes, I did issue a warning before. No poetry because the moderator has to read it, and the moderator hates poetry. If you post Haiku, I will send mercenaries to egg your house. No limericks permitted unless they contain the word “nantucket.” I like those.

          • bevan nation

            Well, I guess Bevan Nation will retire, with a parting salvo:

            There once was Joe from Nantucket
            drove a convertible with two buckets
            it had room for his ass, a gallon of gas
            but his balls hung out so he said fuck it.

            Not good, but it’s early.
            ttfn.

  7. poorgrandchildren

    Your tax dollars are being used at NPR (National Propaganda Radio) to spread selected portions of the selected evidence to promote the concept that the evidence is absolutely credible.

    • Ben

      What’s NPR got to do with it?

  8. tom

    As a non-partisan unaffiliated voter I have been impressed with the depth of information being given to the committee. There is no need for a cross examination because this is not a trial. This is a committee formed to document the time line and facts of what happened based on people who were involved. The cross examination you thirst for will occur if the DOJ feels there is a need to press criminal charges. And the DOJ will be the final determinant of what the true facts are and what is substantiated – that is how our government works! No witnesses have been threatened in order to show up, and Cipollone’s testimony did certainly confirm what other witnesses have stated of their own free will. I was even more impressed with the two other witnesses from Proud Boys. There is no doubt in my mind that they were the back up plan for an illegal takeover of government. What seems to be the real issue is did Trump actually plan it and know what he was doing, or, was he being manipulated by his inner circle who all had power agendas of their own? And what impresses me most and makes me proud to be an American is how we broadcast it to the people so they can see in real time, and we do not hide it away and try to do it secretly like other authoritarian countries where people just disappear. The committee is demonstrating a true respect for the rule of law and how a democracy gets to the root of its evil doers. The committee has congressional power but is showing how to wield that power with compassion and understanding. I am proud of the committee and the job they are doing!

    • larry Horist

      Tom … Just because it is not an official trial does not mean the principle of fairness and and opposition participation is not essential. They claim to be seeking the full truth, but it is obvious that is not the case. The are prosecutors attempting to sell their preconceived narratives for political advantage. You see to be duped by the propaganda — believing the truth is being found. And as far as calling the panel bipartisan, you are unaware of a false flag situation. It will just be months away before neither Cheney or Kinzinger will no longer be Republican officials. For various reasons, the have cast their lot with the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party. The Select Committee is a corrupt process no matter what the facts may be. This is not how things are supposed to be done in America — even is it suits your own bias.

      • tom

        Again, the DOJ will determine what is fair and accurate and if charges should be filed. The committee has said over and over again that anyone who wants to testify can testify. So anyone you wish to see testify can testify. IF it is unfair, it is only because they will not testify. And it is their committee, they can run it the way they wish. My understanding of this fact finding committee is that the opposition can come in and testify any time they like, or they can give a video deposition. They could also call you up and tell you so that you can write about it. But they remain silent because they know their testimony might land them in jail. So what is really unfair is that they get to hide away what they know so that we the American people will never fully know what went on.

        • larry Horist

          Tom … I do not recall the Committee saying that any who wants to testify can do so. You need to read the small print. They made a general call for witnesses to come forward, but only the Committee will decide who testifies and under what ground rule — and what questions will be asked (no cross examination questions). I saw one Committee member say that they doubted the Secret Service agents would be called. We need to see if they do testify or not.

      • frank stetson

        Larry,

        The “other side” Republicans ARE the ones testifying.

        Your claim is Cheney and Kinzinger are not real Republicans, lame duck Rhinos. Sorry, whose fault is that? No, you can’t have obstructionists, but you could have had anyone else.

        Let’s really hear from “the other side,” let’s hear from Donald Trump, under oath. Where’s the big guy? Afraid of Cheney? Afraid of Schiff? The only “facts” we’re heard from Trump is name calling.

        Tom, one of Larry’s favorite dodges is to avoid a direct response to issues you have noted and, instead, just generalize everything, no support, and then dismiss. You have been dismissed :>) “Tom … in view of your disregard for hear both sides, why should I consider you numbered retorts.” You see Tom, all facts aside, it’s your fault, your disregard, so why even respond, even if you have numbered the issues……

        1. Larry is on “the wrong side.”
        2. Republicans are the side that’s telling the story of what they saw and heard, and even felt — like flying burgers….
        3. Republican had three chances to do this better, the first was a bipartisan 9/11 style committee that would be finished at the end of 2021, well before the election. You voted against participating —- three times.
        4. “The other side” can testify, they can use the fourth estate, Trump even can testify, or they can wait for the DOJ.

        The fourth estate represents a forum for the other side. FOX is there, NewsMax, Epoch Times is there. So, beyond your laments over the bed you yourselves made, over the story your Republicans are telling, what have they got to say? Crickets and Hutchinson lied about a bitch slap fest to grab the steering wheel? That’s the other side’s defense? Might be better if the Secret Service had not deleted all those texts from 1.5 and 1.6. That’s not looking good for “the other side” either.

        But if you are talking about an adversarial debate, your chance for that will be forthcoming, both in Georgia and the Federal Courts.

        Nah, Larry, if there was an other side’s story, there are plenty of ways to release that information to the public, the Select Committee, the DOJ. Bring it on. If these witnesses are lying, why isn’t anyone standing up and saying: ‘that’s a lie, I can prove it” instead of arguing procedural issues of bias, stacked deck, and name calling. Hutchinson went from valued-conservative Trumpian to profit-seeking-ladder-climbing-barfly with her first words of testimony. And then “the other side” began calling people they never called before, potential witnesses, I guess so they could hear “the truth.”

        Larry, speak to the facts on the table. Show us compelling facts that disprove what these Republicans are saying. Because IMO the story they are telling once again show us how much farther this guy went this time making his Ukraine Godfather act look like fiction. You can see the plans, there are in writing. You can see the wrongdoing, they were caught in a number of these plans. The writing is on the wall, just like the burger. So, grab that steering wheel and turn this limo of your argument around and head to the Capitol. It will be WILD.

        Oye. This goose is cooked, let’s move on to the midterms…. Impeach the sob. Your side needs to step up; either defend or get this guy out of your way, and ours too. We did our part, now it’s time for you to step up.

  9. Trebor Retsbew

    It seems like a lot are relying on this soi called Secret Service person’s statement. Now open your mind and eyes, to the fact that Secret Service operates under the same rules as the Military, no one but the actual appointed person is allowed under the law to make any statement, and that person has said nothing about the incident.

    • tom

      True, but just because someone does not say anything does not mean it didn’t happen!

      • larry Horist

        Tom … I have not heard anyone accuse you of robbing a bank … but that does not mean it did not happen. You ARE guilty of the sin of using a negative as an implied accusation knowing that one cannot disprove a negative. I am surprised your use of such shoddy debate tactics. — including your acceptance of one-sided testimony.

  10. tom

    I will take a moment to be a little critical of your position. We all know from official government sources like William Barr and others, that Trump is selling a big lie that the election was stolen, when it wasn’t. But he sticks to the lie. Now you are sticking to the lie that this committee is as you say, “that the Committee is not about seeking truth, but to create political narratives that can be used as campaign fodder by Democrats.” 1) You seem to think that all Democrats are only interested in a publicity stunt – which as an non-partisan voter I do not believe is true, and their are Republicans on the committee. 2) Your comments seem to inject the attitude that only Republicans can care about their country – also not true, many Democrats care but have different points of view. 3) You seem to inject the attitude that it is all political bluster and that Democrats are not interested in the truth – not true, they are interested in the truth and fear another uprising just like I do. I hope you will consider being as fair minded as you perceive yourself to be and give the committee a chance. Again, this is not a trial, it is a fact finding mission. The DOJ along with FBI and others will be the final arbiters of what the truth of the matter actually is for the final record.

    • larry Horist

      Tom … in view of your disregard for hear both sides, why should I consider you numbered retorts. If this site worked like the Select Committee, you would not be allowed to even offer your responses. Get it?

      • tom

        Larry, do you really think that if the US Secret Service (USSS) testified they would be credible? It was just on the news that the USSS went and deleted critical messages from phones after the Dept. Of Homeland Security auditors and Inspector General requested the messages as part of the Jan 06 investigation. USSS claims it was part of a general phone cleaning program. Funny how it came after Jan 06, just after the USSS head guy retired, and after Dept. of Homeland Security requested the messages. Really Larry, you still have faith in the USSS accurately and truthfully refuting Hutchinson’s testimony? Seems like more GOP stonewalling to me!

  11. frank stetson

    Tom,
    Yes, it is political, everything is. Yes, it is biased. Yes, it does not have an adversarial aspect (as if one exists). Yes, the timing is butting up against the 2022 midterms. IMO, this is all true and it would always be true. Even IF McCarthy had placed his full-on obstructionists on the panel, the majority would hold the chair and the majority as well. As did every Benghazi “investigation.”

    But it is also a problem of the Republicans own making. Republicans told and sold The Big Lie. Republicans summoned an armed mob to DC. Republicans whipped them up and then sent them to the Capitol where the extremists, known to act as Republican arm-candy at many events, waited to begin the assault. In the assault, Republican extremists were the sharp tip of the spear, the crowd was the useful-idiot shaft of the spear, and Trump and his fellow Republicans were the arms that launched the spear of insurrection at the Capitol as part of a seditious conspiracy against the US Republic.

    And now, Republicans are telling us the story of what really went on that day.

    Republicans spilt this milk, now they cry when they should just clean this mess up. And don’t think a 2022 midterm capture of the House and the Senate will help —– DOJ can probably work this, unimpeded, until January 2025, at least.

    • tom

      I agree Frank. GOP made the conceived, designed, and made the mess and now they refuse to clean it up and want to paint this committee as a farce solely intended to get more votes for Dems. Fact is I am an independent, and we independents are the largest voting block, about 42%. And about 60% feel the GOP needs to stop stonewalling the efforts. Fact is, I vote base on issues and greatest good to all, and to me. None of this committee’s work will affect my vote. The only thing that has possibly biased me a little against the GOP is their refusal to fairly participate in the process and be forthcoming with their information. And you are correct, the DOJ can pursue possible criminal activity long after this committee has finished its report. It seems to me that the DOJ work does not begin until the final report by the committee is finished.

      • frank stetson

        Tom, the DOJ “work” has already started, I am sure. They just won’t unveil much until the committee is done. But DOJ only has a potential 1.2025 stop date when, potentially, they can be politicized by the right, again. Sorry that it’s that way, more so than ever, but Trumpian politics are different.

        Frankly….and I can say that….

        In round 1 impeachment, we had lots of smoke but no fire and we stopped.
        In round 2, we had him on tape but Republicans, to their demise, let the fish off the hook.

        At the end of the Ukrainian affair, you may not like him, but he was correct when Schiff said: “”We must say enough — enough! He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again,” “He has compromised our elections, and he will do so again. You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less, and decency matters not at all.” “You are decent,” “He is not who you are.”

        And here we are in round 3, The Big Lie realized. He told us “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” “It’s, like, incredible.”

        Incredible it is that Trump could act illegally in a manner than makes Nixon roll over in his grave and say: “Thank you Don for replacing me on “the list,” I am no longer number 1. More incredible is that Trumpians like Larry, Joe, and the other stooges won’t stand up and say “he has betrayed our national security,” he has done it again. It’s time for truth to matter, it’s time to end this. The right way. Protect our office of the President from further degradation, impeach this sob, make him concede the election, and he will disappear into the night and we can work on making this land be for YOU and ME.

        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson … as several prosecutors have said on television. Most of the testimony before the Committee will not be admissible in a court of law. AG Gardner has to deal with the law and the viability of any criminal charges. The left is going to be very disappointed when partisan politics meets the rule of law.

          • frank stetson

            I really doubt it’s “most.” If it was there would be stories detailing the most egregious examples. Sure, some will be tossed, hearsay rules, other’s will be contested, adversarial context, but the only question is what you said: “the law and the viability of any criminal charges” by either GA or the DOJ. So far, it’s balls to the wall in GA. We know DOJ is looking, but no subpoenas have been seen so not exactly chomping at the bit yet. I can understand that given the chips that keep falling.

            We have been disappointed twice before, but not in a court of law. There, in regards to Trump, we have done OK so far and Trump has failed miserably. It’s coming. We have until 2024, at least.

          • larry Horist

            Frank …. I think “most. I will give you just two examples. The former spokesperson for the Oathkeepers will never be called.

            Attorney: Did you participate in any planning meetings?
            Witness: No
            Attorney: When was the last time you were involved with the Oathkeepers?
            Witness: Five years ago.

            Calling this guy was disgraceful for the Committee, and those question could have been asked if there were real cross examination. How about the guy who said he was following Trump’ orders.

            Attorney: Did you ever hear Trump say you should break into the Capitol?
            Witness: No
            Attorney: Did you ever hear Trump say to bring weapons?
            Witness: No
            Attorney: Did you ever hear Trump say to attack the Capitol Police?
            Witness: No
            Attorney: Did you ever hear Trump call on the mob to attack the Vice President
            Witness: No
            Attorney: Did you every hear Trump call for those attacking the Capitol to stop and go home?
            Witness: Yes

            And I see no chance that that STAR witness Hutchinson will even be called. She is all rumor and hearssay.

            These guys would never be put on a witness stand in a court. The Committee if every far from establihssing criminality on the part of Trump and many of the others. i do ot say this in defense of Trump’s behavior, but just a person who knows a little bit about the right of defense and the standards of fairness. I think Garland is in a bind. He has the Democrat rabble wanting a hanging … but the rule-of-law is not there yet.

    • tom

      Frank, I sent this to Larry but would like your opinion as well. “Larry, do you really think that if the US Secret Service (USSS) testified they would be credible? It was just on the news that the USSS went and deleted critical messages from phones after the Dept. Of Homeland Security auditors and Inspector General requested the messages as part of the Jan 06 investigation. USSS claims it was part of a general phone cleaning program. Funny how it came after Jan 06, just after the USSS head guy retired, and after Dept. of Homeland Security requested the messages. Really Larry, you still have faith in the USSS accurately and truthfully refuting Hutchinson’s testimony? Seems like more GOP stonewalling to me!”

      • larry Horist

        Tom … you are simply taking sides. You believe Hutchinson because she testified under oath .. but will not believe the Secret Service testifying under oath. If I were to hear two … three … or four folks rebut Hutchinson’s testimony, I would be inclined to disbelieve her. One person rebutting under oath and you have a he said/she said. A wash. Believe what you will.

      • Frank stetson

        It depends; the best all round answer to anything.

        They protect the pres; all aspects fron Clinton sexcapades Trump’s hair pieces. That is a good thing to proect the office.

        If he crossed what might considered a Constitutional line, they should stand up.

        I don’t think we cate about burgers flying, steering wheel grabs, but Hutchinson’s credibility needs to be confirmed, they need to talk to that.

        I think most would be truthful, under oath, but forthcoming – it’s against the dna of the job.

        So, mostly yes, bring em in.

  12. CHRIS KELLY

    The planned orchestrated decline in this countries condition must be punished. GUNS are the only saving grace for the population to combat Globalism. Violence will begin against TV media that tries to maintain the middle as they do. FOX has gone purple tie globalist and will pay dearly i.e. the talking heads. They did it to themselves. Joe Scarborough will flip out when he sees his homicide from the early 90’s brought back in vogue. NO statute of limitations. Hannity get exposed for running interference for 20 years for the BUSH family with his lies on IRAQ. He is truly poison.

    • Ben

      I could use a song parody bout now.

      • Greg

        How about a nursery rhyme? You’ll like this one. Little boy blew because he needed the money. A boy named Ben

        • Larry kuhn

          Here’s one. Two old maids were lying in a bed. One sa”I’ll be Frank with you tonight “. The other one said “no way. You were Frank last night “

  13. Mike

    Larry, I find your entire article very insulting, but especially the Title you have chosen. You have absolutely no (I repeat no) knowledge that Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony had any lies in it. As she was speaking under oath, I suspect that what she said was true. Now we have heard statements, attributed to Tony Ornato saying he did not make such a statement to Cassidy, but that statement was not under oath. That also is contrary to what others in the SS have said, as well as personnel in the DC Metro Police Department. I would also say that Tony Ornato is a somewhat problematic witness, due to the extreme unorthodoxy of a member of the SS taking a political position in a Presidential Administration, but you choose to rely on some quotes attributed to him in an attempt to slander a witness whose testimony you don’t like. You also talk as though you know all the questions that were asked of Pat Cipollone-I am willing to bet good money that is not the case. The J6 Committee has been pretty good at keeping their cards hidden until they are actually ready to play them, so I am reasonably certain we have not heard everything he had to say. Instead of attempting to defend the indefensible by attempting to denigrate the J6 committee, especially when they have provided an overwhelming amount of evidence that DJ Trump is unfit to hold the office of POTUS, why don’t you focus on something where you might be able to bring some facts to your discussion instead of partisan hyperbole?

    • larry Horist

      Mike…. You know no more about the testimony than I do. The fact that we have been told that the folks involved are willing to testify under oath that they did not see or say what Hutchinson described casts doubt on her veracity. Doubt .. not conclusion. You place a lot on the fact that she was under oath … but seem to think that several agents would all lie under oath. That is just your bias showing.

      Regarding the questions not asked of Cipollone … it was widely reported that they did NOT ask him whether he told Hutchinson what she said he told her. It is reported that he would have denied saying it. Maybe we will learn more, but as of now the failure to ask the central question exposes the bias of the Committee.

      And in that regard, you are correct in that I have no respect or confidence in ANY one-side tribunal. They are dangerous and the enemies of trump. While the Committee is not a court-of-law, it is making accusations of criminal activities. If those accusations are merely political and will not hold up in a court of law, the Committee has done great damage to the search for truth. Most of the testimony in these inappropriately named “hearings” would not be allowed in a real court. We will see where things go when the Justice Department completes its work.

      As you well know, I am no defender of Trump, the person, and many of his antics. But I am a defender of good policies that occurred during his administration …. and I am especially a defender of fairness and justice in the pursuit of both law and politics. Unlike you, I do not believe in one-sided tribunals in any circumstances — even if they were in support of my causes. Pelosi’s Select Committee should be degraded by any fair-minded American regardless of what one things of Trump. Ironically, he is turning YOU into a vigilante.

      • Mike

        Larry, As per usual, you missed much of the point of my writing. The title of your article is an opinion that you have formed because you don’t care for what Hutchinson had to say. It is far from proven that any of her testimony represents a “lie”. You should be ashamed to slander a young woman that was brave enough to testify as to what she had seen and heard. Now it is completely possible that Ornato made up his story when speaking with Hutchinson on Jan 6, but it is highly doubtful that she did not recount the story as it was told to her, she is certainly a more credible witness as to what was said was said to her than Trump staffer/SS member Ornato ever will be….

    • Kyle

      Mike you aren’t good enough to kiss Trump’s ass

  14. Dan Winright

    In the first few minutes of “trying ” to watch the debacle, I came to the obvious conclusion that the j6 committee is nothing more than a poor spinoff of the view.

    • frank stetson

      Larry et al, screw your process issues, screw your hearsay issues, screw your procedural issues and screw your partisan issues. Step back, take a breadth, and ask yourself, “was 1/6 really just a rally gone bad because of a few bad actors?”

      Remember, these are Republicans telling the story and no one has said anything except “I can refute that,” but not a peep beyond these lame anonymous, unsourced, accusations of refutation. Most haven’t even the balls to go to the press where they can tell their story and lie, both at the same time. Pretty safe. But “hey, a couple of secret service guys said it ain’t so and they have the text messages to prove it……oh, never mind,” is a lame retort to the Republican testimony.

      If Republicans telling a story is the view, or is biased, a bunch of liars, gold diggers, hey —– it’s your party, you can diss them if you want to.

      IMO, if you can’t see Trump doing any wrong on 1/6, Lord help America. I would think the 3-hour and 7-minute lag time tween insurrection start and Trump’s weak-tea response, where Pence or Bowser finally call in the Guard, while Trump watches all unfold on TV saying Pence deserves it, I need another burger (how much spit did he get on the second one?), violence on tv, chortle, chortle, I would think that’s enough burden of guilty right there, not to mention a complete and purposeful dereliction of his duty, under oath, to defend the nation from all comers, foreign and domestic. What, just a senior moment? A pause In time to consider? What would you say if Biden waited 3 hours and 7 minutes?

      No matter what the packaging, it’s all Republicans telling the stories and basically crickets, unfounded accusations, and process problems as the Republican retort. Did you really expect a smoking gun? Like Trump calling the Proudboys and putting on tape: “here’s what I want?”

      You coulda convicted him the first time, lots of smoke, not enough fire for you, OK — it stands
      You shoulda convicted him the second time, he did it, he’s on tape, not enough for you still — it sucks
      And now he’s done it again, worse, and you are still flapping like a hooked fish on the dock.

      If you don’t cut a deal, impeach him, the DOJ will take him apart along with our office of the President and this thing will last to 2024 and probably beyond. Maybe it’s time to decide — cut bait or flop like a fish.

      • frank stetson

        As an addition: He told you he could shoot someone on Broadway and get away with it. He has. She’s dead. 140 police are wounded. 850 arrested. Hundreds will be jailed. Seditious Conspiracy guilty. He fostered The Big Lie. Everyone told him that it was not true. His daughter does not think it is true, do they not speak? He fostered 60 failed court cases that told him it was not true – and he persisted, 5 failed recounts to him it was not true – and he moved forward; and then there were fake elector schemes, stealing CO’s voter database, illegally replacing head of DOJ with an idiot, bully pressure on State Legislators and Pence to just overturn it, plans for military seizure of voting machines, and you seem to believe he was just a victim of others.

        And then he called a mob to assemble on 1/6 where he set them loose, knowing they were armed, on the Capitol where the extremists were already beginning the siege. The man stacked the wood, lit the match, and knew full well there would be fire. “it will be wild.” He saw those people, he knows the Proudboys and Oathkeepers, what did he expect? Tea and cookies? It wasn’t a planned march, a planned protest, he set them on Congress.

        Is that how you see the American Presidency being used going forward? Is this the precedent you think is OK for others to follow?

        Because if you do, consider this: IF Democrats cheated in the 2020 election, what will they do with the new “tools” of Trump’s 2020 election-overturn precedent in the future? You should thank God it’s not in Biden’s DNA.

        • Ben

          Biden doesn’t have sense enough to carry out a cheating plan. My Muslim daughter in law is smarter than him

          • Ben

            Trump not fairing too good on The Big Lie cheat either.

            What’s muslim got to do with how smart someone is? You got religion brainpower rankings?