After Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, the ex-President's potential legal troubles--and those of possible co-conspirators--become clearer. Yes, we are looking at you, Mark Meadows
Regarding your Margaret Atwood comment, In the 1940s Robert Heinlein wrote one "If This Goes On -- " a novelette from his history of the future series that tells the story of the revolt against a theocratic dictatorship that controlled the US, and after its leader was voted in, seized power and never allowed another vote. In one of his essay books that I read in the 70s, Heinlein wrote something like, "I've received hundreds of letters about this story over the years. Not one has questioned its basic premise."
Why oh why the SUV storyline was not buttressed by prior testimony is problematic. This is after all a hearing for public consumption that targets GOP voters- so the inconsistency does matter (even if it doesn't from the perspective of prosecution.) If both Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel and Trump WH Deputy COS for Operations Tony Ornato (a former Secret Service agent who has since rejoined the Service) refute Hutchinson's testimony- de facto calling her a "liar" or "prone to misunderstand"- then her entire testimony gets burned from the POV of influencing the Committee's target audience. I believe there is a third party who may join in the pile on: the driver of the SUV in which Trump was riding. The Special Committee f***ed up. It was an unforced error.
We know that Engel has testified before the Committee but apparently did not corroborate the details regarding Trump reaching for his clavicles (sic) and trying to grab the wheel of the SUV carrying Trump from the Ellipse. Since all politicians spend so much time amping up the cred of cops and all agents of our sprawling security state, Messrs. Engel, Ornato (and the driver of the SUV carrying Trump from the Ellipse) have an inherent advantage over Ms. Hutchinson. So far as we know there only three people privy to the conversation Ms. Hutchinson recounted: herself, Mr. Engle and Mr. Ornato. If these men do not corroborate their conversation that will hurt Ms. Cassidy's credibility and the Committee's ability to sell her testimony to the American public.
I wish that the Committee had taken testimony from Engel, Ornato and the driver of the SUV before Ms. Hutchinson made her public appearance. If they do in fact pull a Thin Blue Line maneuver on Ms. Hutchinson, she could have simply testified that the president had insisted on going to the Capitol after his rally at the Ellipse, was overruled by his Secret Service detail and was livid. She would have emerged with no bruises and the record of events wouldn't have been any less damning.
I agree- my understanding is that Engel has already testified. However Trump, Donald Jr. and the whole MAGA / FOX bandwagon would not be jumping all over the discrepancy unless they thought there was something there. We shall see. The Committee is in a corner: it has to call Engel and Ornato now. Their testimony can either buttress what Hutchinson said or knock the legs out from under her. Again, I am only speaking to the optics not the legal case building against Trump and his enablers (Meadows, Eastman, and others I presume).
As I understand it, both Engel and Ornato became really close to Trump, and part of what is in question here is what they would do to protect him. And while Thompson's cakl for people to come forward seems mainly aimed at Cipillone and Meadows, he may also have been issuing a veiled invitation for them to return and testify under oath.
Regarding your Margaret Atwood comment, In the 1940s Robert Heinlein wrote one "If This Goes On -- " a novelette from his history of the future series that tells the story of the revolt against a theocratic dictatorship that controlled the US, and after its leader was voted in, seized power and never allowed another vote. In one of his essay books that I read in the 70s, Heinlein wrote something like, "I've received hundreds of letters about this story over the years. Not one has questioned its basic premise."
That's a good reading suggestion Peter: our eerie time makes everything all too believable!
Why oh why the SUV storyline was not buttressed by prior testimony is problematic. This is after all a hearing for public consumption that targets GOP voters- so the inconsistency does matter (even if it doesn't from the perspective of prosecution.) If both Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel and Trump WH Deputy COS for Operations Tony Ornato (a former Secret Service agent who has since rejoined the Service) refute Hutchinson's testimony- de facto calling her a "liar" or "prone to misunderstand"- then her entire testimony gets burned from the POV of influencing the Committee's target audience. I believe there is a third party who may join in the pile on: the driver of the SUV in which Trump was riding. The Special Committee f***ed up. It was an unforced error.
We know that Engel has testified before the Committee but apparently did not corroborate the details regarding Trump reaching for his clavicles (sic) and trying to grab the wheel of the SUV carrying Trump from the Ellipse. Since all politicians spend so much time amping up the cred of cops and all agents of our sprawling security state, Messrs. Engel, Ornato (and the driver of the SUV carrying Trump from the Ellipse) have an inherent advantage over Ms. Hutchinson. So far as we know there only three people privy to the conversation Ms. Hutchinson recounted: herself, Mr. Engle and Mr. Ornato. If these men do not corroborate their conversation that will hurt Ms. Cassidy's credibility and the Committee's ability to sell her testimony to the American public.
I wish that the Committee had taken testimony from Engel, Ornato and the driver of the SUV before Ms. Hutchinson made her public appearance. If they do in fact pull a Thin Blue Line maneuver on Ms. Hutchinson, she could have simply testified that the president had insisted on going to the Capitol after his rally at the Ellipse, was overruled by his Secret Service detail and was livid. She would have emerged with no bruises and the record of events wouldn't have been any less damning.
Claire?
I think Engel has already testified: but it isn't clear that the story being bruited about is telling the truth:
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/06/unnamed-source-tries-undermine-cassidy
I agree- my understanding is that Engel has already testified. However Trump, Donald Jr. and the whole MAGA / FOX bandwagon would not be jumping all over the discrepancy unless they thought there was something there. We shall see. The Committee is in a corner: it has to call Engel and Ornato now. Their testimony can either buttress what Hutchinson said or knock the legs out from under her. Again, I am only speaking to the optics not the legal case building against Trump and his enablers (Meadows, Eastman, and others I presume).
As I understand it, both Engel and Ornato became really close to Trump, and part of what is in question here is what they would do to protect him. And while Thompson's cakl for people to come forward seems mainly aimed at Cipillone and Meadows, he may also have been issuing a veiled invitation for them to return and testify under oath.