2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[N.E. Brigand]

From some video played in today's hearing:

Rep. Liz Cheney: "General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified?"

A one minute 36 second delay followed in which Flynn consulted with his attorney.

Flynn's attorney: "Is that a moral question or a legal question?"

Rep. Cheney: "I'm asking both."

Gen. Michael Flynn: [inaudible, and then:] "I said, I said the Fifth."

Cheney then asked two separate questions -- was the violence justified morally, and was it justified legally? -- and to both, Flynn again took the Fifth.

I am almost baffled as to how answering those questions would be self-incriminating. Flynn was not part of the mob that day!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, that sequence can only be described as gobsmacking. Of course, the argument that Flynn would make is that he has to protect himself from the biased witchhunt that is out to get Trump and his loyal minions and therefore can't give any ammunition to the witchhunters not matter how innocuous. However, the only possible answers that could possibly be stretched into being incriminating by even the most biased witchhunter would be that the violence was justified (either morally or legally or both) or that he did not believe in the peaceful transfer of power (which was the next question that Cheney asked, which he also responded to by pleading the Fifth).

[River]

His lawyer probably told him to do that for fear of what might be discovered in someone else's texts or on social media. Taking the Fifth in general shouldn't be interpreted as anything more than that but, in this context, with those questions...that's not a good look. I mean, it was maybe that or perjure himself but...yeesh.

[N.E. Brigand]

NBC reporter:



However, (1) that doesn't exactly contradict what Hutchinson said today, and (2) it was reported today that Engel already testified to the Committee.

Her testimony was that after they all returned to the White House, Tony Ornato brought her into his office, where Engel was already seated "looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost." Then, Hutchinson says, Ornato closed the door and said to Hutchinson: "'Did you f***ing hear what happened in the Beast?' ... Tony proceed to tell me that when the President got into the Beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off-the-record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen but that Bobby had more information. So as the President had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought they were going up to the Capitol, and when Bobby had relayed to him we're not -- we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the West Wing -- the President had a very strong, very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate: the President said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f***ing President; take me up to the Capitol now." To which, Bobby responded, 'Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.' The President reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm and said, 'Sir, you need to take your arm off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge toward Bobby Engel. And when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles."

She didn't say Trump "lunged for the steering wheel"; she said "reached up ... to grab at the steering wheel." And she didn't say Trump "assaulted" Engel; she said Trump "lunged toward" Engel. And again, the Committee reportedly has Engel's testimony, so I think it's a reasonable guess that he at least did not deny Hutchinson's description of the events.

Edited to fix typo.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree with Marcy Wheeler.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The article linked to in that tweet is worth reading.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/06/28/c ... was-armed/

Of particular note is the fact that Hutchinson recently replaced her attorney. I remember hearing about that a little while ago and thinking it might be significant.

It was!

[Frelga]

Could you elaborate for the non-lawyers? I assume it's significant, and I saw that Trump, in his multi-post meltdown on his new not-Twitter, thought so, but I suspect he doesn't mean the same thing as you do.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The fact that Trump knew that the crowd was armed and still encouraged them to march on the Capital and "fight like hell" makes it more difficult for him to maintain his argument that he was only meaning for them to "fight" rhetorically.

[Cerin]

Does it bother no one that the ranking member wasn't allowed to choose the Republican members of the panel? Do any of you believe that this is an unbiased attempt to get to the truth of what happened on Jan. 6, rather than a one-sided effort to find something on Trump that can be used to prevent him from running for office again?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Does it bother no one that the ranking member wasn't allowed to choose the Republican members of the panel? Do any of you believe that this is an unbiased attempt to get to the truth of what happened on Jan. 6, rather than a one-sided effort to find something on Trump that can be used to prevent him from running for office again?

First of all, it was the first choice of the Democrats to form a bipartisan independent commission on the the lines of the 9/11 commission. That was opposed by the Republicans in both the House and Senate.

Secondly, Minority Leader McCarthy was allowed to select five members of the select committee, subject to review by the Speaker. He choose to choose two members who were directly involved in the events of 1/6 so the Speaker rightly rejected them. But she allowed the other three and offered McCarthy the opportunity to name 2 others who were not involved in the events of 1/6. Instead he pulled all the GOP members that he named and refused to name any. It was then that the Sepeaker added Kizinger and Cheney, both reliable conservatives..

So, speaking only for my self, it doesn't bother me because it is not true.

[Cerin]

So, speaking only for my self, it doesn't bother me because it is not true.

If two of McCarthy's choices were disallowed, then what I said is true -- he wasn't allowed to choose the Republicans for the panel. The fact that you approve of the denial of two of his choices is a separate matter.

Is it normally the case on a bi-partisan panel that the ranking member's choices are subject to approval by the Speaker?

If not, I would have preferred (on the basis of institutional principle) that McCarthy arrive at the hearing with his chosen members and let the Speaker take whatever action she chose at that point.

Personally, I wouldn't give credence or attention to a trial in which the prosecutor got to choose the defense counsel and witnesses.

[N.E. Brigand]

So, speaking only for my self, it doesn't bother me because it is not true.

If two of McCarthy's choices were disallowed, then what I said is true -- he wasn't allowed to choose the Republicans for the panel. The fact that you approve of the denial of two of his choices is a separate matter.

Is it normally the case on a bi-partisan panel that the ranking member's choices are subject to approval by the Speaker?

If not, I would have preferred (on the basis of institutional principle) that McCarthy arrive at the hearing with his chosen members and let the Speaker take whatever action she chose at that point.

Personally, I wouldn't give credence or attention to a trial in which the prosecutor got to choose the defense counsel and witnesses.

What you're suggesting is akin to the idea that O.J. Simpson should have been allowed to serve on the jury in his murder trial.

Additionally, I would note that Donald Trump has lately complained that Kevin McCarthy pulled his appointees from the Committee -- although apparently Trump told McCarthy at the time that he made the right decision.

[Cerin]

What you're suggesting is akin to the idea that O.J. Simpson should have been allowed to serve on the jury in his murder trial.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. If you're referring to the disallowed Republicans, I believe defendants are allowed to represent themselves at trial. I do not see the panel as a jury, but as a prosecution. I think the American public and the Attorney General are the jury, and I hope they notice that there is no one present to question, much less refute the prosecution narrative or to examine the evidence for tampering.

If you're referring to my trial remark, I'm saying it would have been unfair for the prosecutor to pick O.J.'s defense attorney and the defense witnesses and be the one creating the narrative without opposition.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The purpose of the select committee is not to prosecute anyone; it is to get to the truth of what happened. I think they are doing an admirable job. Particularly Liz Cheney, who is certainly not someone that I ever thought I would admire.

[N.E. Brigand]

The purpose of the select committee is not to prosecute anyone; it is to get to the truth of what happened. I think they are doing an admirable job. Particularly Liz Cheney, who is certainly not someone that I ever thought I would admire.

A key moment late in the (fictional but generally fact-based) movie Vice is when Liz betrays her sister Mary in 2013 by opposing gay marriage in order to win what is her current Congressional seat, and her father, who previously had expressed his support for Mary, won't speak out against Liz's move.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like if the Secret Service hadn't stopped President Trump from traveling to the Capitol.

If he were right there with the mob trying to storm the building, would there have been a battle between the Capitol Police and the Secret Service?

[Sunsilver]

It would have been interesting, that's for sure!

Maybe once the Secret Service saw in person how bad it was, they would, if necessary, have tackled Trump and handcuffed him to make sure he stayed in the car!

[Cerin]

So you're apparently unimpressed with the fact that the people who were actually there said this didn't happen? When will the panel be hearing their testimony?

Of course, that testimony wouldn't matter. This story will now become part of the anti-Trump legendarium, and no amount of truth would be enough to dislodge it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No one has contested that Trump demanded to be brought to the Capital and that the Secret Service refused and brought him back to the White House instead. The only part that has been contested is that Trump grabbed the steering wheel and assaulted Engel.

[Cerin]

No one has contested that Trump demanded to be brought to the Capital and that the Secret Service refused and brought him back to the White House instead. The only part that has been contested is that Trump grabbed the steering wheel and assaulted Engel.

Yes, that's the part (the assault) that will become legend -- see Sunsilver's comment above. A man out of control, needing to be handcuffed.