pfife Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 5 minutes ago, romad1 said: They think the struggle with the driver anecdote that she relayed as a story she heard in the moment is the critical piece of this? That shows the depths of their despair. I suspect it was something that Loudermilk did harp on but I'm merely going off it being something Axios specifically called out in that summary. My guess is that if they can make people believe she lied once it damages her credibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 9 minutes ago, pfife said: I just read a quick summary from Axios. My initial feeling is if the GOP really thought this was something they wouldn't do a report. Everyone knows no one reads reports. In the summary I read, the thing that got me most interested was the direct testimony contradicting Hutchinson. They said it was specifically about the physical altercation between trump and Secret service, which while lurid isn't critical path of what happened that day. Other stuff just seemed like stuff I've already heard from GOP for months, like "J6 committee destroyed evidence" https://www.axios.com/2024/03/11/house-republican-report-jan-6-committee From the Axios article: Quote The report includes a section refuting allegations that at Jan. 5, 2021 tour of House office buildings led by Loudermilk served as a "reconnaissance tour" for some participants in the Capitol attack. Wouldn't the report have more credibility if it was offered by someone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 16 minutes ago, pfife said: I suspect it was something that Loudermilk did harp on but I'm merely going off it being something Axios specifically called out in that summary. My guess is that if they can make people believe she lied once it damages her credibility How are you lying if it was an anecdote you heard in the moment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 30 minutes ago, romad1 said: How are you lying if it was an anecdote you heard in the moment? Sorry I'm probably not being clear. I'm saying I think that's the GOP strategy, not that I agree with it or that they're succeeding. But what I do think is that they don't actually have to "prove" that she's lying in order to get a lot of people to believe that she did and that she's not credible because they think she's a liar. I personally do not think she's a liar, but think that's what the GOP is trying to do to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, pfife said: Sorry I'm probably not being clear. I'm saying I think that's the GOP strategy, not that I agree with it or that they're succeeding. But what I do think is that they don't actually have to "prove" that she's lying in order to get a lot of people to believe that she did and that she's not credible because they think she's a liar. I personally do not think she's a liar, but think that's what the GOP is trying to do to her. Right. They talked a lot of smack on TV but what did or would they say under oath? When one person speaks under oath and is rebutted by a guy on Hannity or whatever, I'm going to lean toward believing the person under oath. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, pfife said: I watched the first few episodes on Netflix and did think it was pretty good but at this point I can't remember why we stopped watching it. In all seriousness, no I haven't read that, I'd be happy to hear quick summary I had just started reading it this morning and put it aside for a walk. Hope to get through it soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 (edited) 26 minutes ago, oblong said: Right. They talked a lot of smack on TV but what did or would they say under oath? When one person speaks under oath and is rebutted by a guy on Hannity or whatever, I'm going to lean toward believing the person under oath. Yes, this is exactly my recollection from the time and I felt the same way but the Axios summary of the Loudermilk report said there was testimony contradicting that account so that's why my interest got peaked - maybe someone(s) actually did go under oath and contradict her? Edited March 12 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Snopes has taken on this issue. Did the Secret Service 'Officially Debunk' Hutchinson's Testimony? | Snopes.com Quote Hutchinson testified that Ornato told her in his office in the West Wing, with Engel in the room, that Trump became angry in his Suburban after being informed he was being driven back to the White House. The president had previously told the crowd at his rally that he would be walking with them to the Capitol. (Note: Hutchinson referred to the presidential limousine known as "The Beast." However, Trump rode in a Suburban that day.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 42 minutes ago, oblong said: Right. They talked a lot of smack on TV but what did or would they say under oath? I also recall that, despite Hutchinson's explosive testimony, the denials (which weren't under oath) did get a lot of play and, to some degree, deference from the NYT as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 22 hours ago, The Ronz said: Children that were considered "handicapped" in any manner - not that they actually were - were denied the right to attend public school until 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act Honest question: do you prefer the term "disabled" rather than "handicapped"? I know "disabled' is the politically-correct preference, but that word always struck me as meaning that such people are not even a little capable of doing anything—i.e., they are not able to do it at all—whereas "handicapped" strikes me as meaning, people can still do something but with some added challenges. But that's just me trying to use linguistic logic to understand it versus accepting the orthodoxy. Perhaps you can help me understand why "handicapped" is a bad term to use but "disabled" is fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 17 hours ago, oblong said: I bet the RNC will operate as well as the MIGOP did under Karamo. Fascism is all about loyalty over competence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 By the way, the "Are you better than you were four years ago?" answer changes pretty significantly over the course of this week. March 12, 2020, at this very moment I was at the first round of The Players Championship with my parents and my phone was blowing up with everything being cancelled. The uncertainty of the next few days wasn't awful. Hell, the next month or so with social time on Zoom wasn't awful either. It's around May when people started doing things socially and left responsible people behind when things went to ****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 3 hours ago, mtutiger said: I'll take you at face value that it's the first thing you saw, but it's nowhere to be found at the top of the NYT or WaPo webpages as far as I can tell. In all fairness, Trump has been saying he'll pardon the rioters for at least a year now, so it's not exactly breaking news requiring 72-point headlines today. It's all part of the fire hose strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 hours ago, romad1 said: They think the struggle with the driver anecdote that she relayed as a story she heard in the moment is the critical piece of this? That shows the depths of their despair. I think their position would be, if she's wrong/lying about this, what else is she wrong/lying about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 4 minutes ago, chasfh said: I think their position would be, if she's wrong/lying about this, what else is she wrong/lying about? I think they are manipulating the statement to be her swearing that it happened, with her swearing that Ornato told her that it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, chasfh said: Honest question: do you prefer the term "disabled" rather than "handicapped"? I know "disabled' is the politically-correct preference, but that word always struck me as meaning that such people are not even a little capable of doing anything—i.e., they are not able to do it at all—whereas "handicapped" strikes me as meaning, people can still do something but with some added challenges. But that's just me trying to use linguistic logic to understand it versus accepting the orthodoxy. Perhaps you can help me understand why "handicapped" is a bad term to use but "disabled" is fine? Terminology is a big deal in the deaf community. They are sensitive to the idea that something is deficient and "needs to be fixed", for example there's a hard line between those with and withouth cochlear implants. In my view it's semantics. As the parent of a deaf kid with other cognitive and physical issues I don't get worked up. People generally mean well. They say Handicapped is "wrong" but there's signs that say it. Disable is problematic for the reasons you cite. There isn't a right or wrong answer. In a lot of cases the thing that makes them disabled or whatever is just a degree of difference from someone needing glasses. You need some kind of help. We all do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, oblong said: Terminology is a big deal in the deaf community. They are sensitive to the idea that something is deficient and "needs to be fixed", for example there's a hard line between those with and withouth cochlear implants. In my view it's semantics. As the parent of a deaf kid with other cognitive and physical issues I don't get worked up. People generally mean well. They say Handicapped is "wrong" but there's signs that say it. Disable is problematic for the reasons you cite. There isn't a right or wrong answer. In a lot of cases the thing that makes them disabled or whatever is just a degree of difference from someone needing glasses. You need some kind of help. We all do. So what you are saying is that Manny Ramirez did nothing wrong? JK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I feel like we’ve fallen into a horrible episode of The Twilight Zone I’ve also seen reference to Jesse Ventura in this scenario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Beginning to think that RFK may end up a non-entity in this race after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Any MTS lawyers looking for pro bono work??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Haley is leading in Dekalb and winning a big chunk in Cobb. She dropped out a week ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said: Haley is leading in Dekalb and winning a big chunk in Cobb. She dropped out a week ago. Jugger-not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 10 hours ago, mtutiger said: Any MTS lawyers looking for pro bono work??? I think we all can figure out who the “massive resources” are coming from and what kind of “election integrity” they’re talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 55 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: The putsch at the RNC and this reality that Trump always and everywhere diverts all resources to himself is going to hurt GOP fundraising with a lot of traditional non-MAGA contributors. But who knows how big the effect will be? Lets hope for 'huge' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.