It says Ornato and Engels have already confirmed under oath that Trump was angry in the SUV and wanted to go the the Capitol regardless of the danger.
Regardless of if they agree about the trying to grab the steering wheel part, the other parts are enough to establish mens rea on Trump’s part.

---

Even if true, these "facts" are irrelevant and do not come remotely close to supporting the burden of proof that you suggest.  It's like saying anyone who is angry and goes to a BLM protest, does so with the intent to riot.

---

That's not how mens rea works. No one asks "was there mens rea" unless an illegal act occurred. Simply showing up at a protest while angry is not a crime. But rioting is. And inciting a riot is.  Trump continuing to incite violence after he knew that there were real threats of violence and even actual violence is a crime, and the testimony we have establishes that he knew what he was doing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Even if true, these "facts" are irrelevant and do not come remotely close to supporting the burden of proof that you suggest.  It's like saying anyone who is angry and goes to a BLM protest, does so with the intent to riot.

---

That's not how mens rea works. No one asks "was there mens rea" unless an illegal act occurred.  Simply showing up at a protest while angry is not a crime.  But rioting is.  And inciting a riot is.  Trump continuing to incite violence after he knew that there were real threats of violence and even actual violence is a crime, and the testimony we have establishes that he knew what he was doing.

All of that is LIES... Anything you say going forward on anything, I will assume its a lie, because you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you upside your liberal head.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Even if true, these "facts" are irrelevant and do not come remotely close to supporting the burden of proof that you suggest.  It's like saying anyone who is angry and goes to a BLM protest, does so with the intent to riot.

---

That's not how mens rea works. No one asks "was there mens rea" unless an illegal act occurred.  Simply showing up at a protest while angry is not a crime.  But rioting is.  And inciting a riot is.  Trump continuing to incite violence after he knew that there were real threats of violence and even actual violence is a crime, and the testimony we have establishes that he knew what he was doing.

LOL.  Do you ever read what you've written before hitting "Post Reply"?  If "Simply showing up at a protest while angry is not a crime.", why are you making such a big deal about "Trump was angry in the SUV and wanted to go to the Capitol."  These are your own words from a few hours ago.

I challenge you to provide quotes, his actual words that you claim provide irrefutable proof that he incited the violence.

P.S.  You know he was in the back seat of the SUV, right?  What was his plan for the gas after he grabbed control of the steering wheel?  If the driver had just lifted his foot off the pedal, how far do you think the thing would have rolled?  Was he counting on the crowd for a push?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That's not how mens rea works. No one asks "was there mens rea" unless an illegal act occurred.  Simply showing up at a protest while angry is not a crime.  But rioting is.  And inciting a riot is.  Trump continuing to incite violence after he knew that there were real threats of violence and even actual violence is a crime, and the testimony we have establishes that he knew what he was doing.

All of that is LIES... Anything you say going forward on anything, I will assume its a lie, because you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you upside your liberal head.

He's not liberal. He's a product of the establishment. He believes in it and it defines his reality. Within that paradigm, he's relatively open minded. He just can't properly criticize what his unable to see. No one can.

I just wish people would stay acknowledging how corrupt our system has become, but that won't happen until they become negatively impacted by it. Would you be criticizing the establishment 20 years ago? I was around then; I don't remember conservatives lashing out about government corruption.

---

Fox generally does a decent job on these things, and then their headline writers bungle them up.
Read the article.
It says Ornato and Engels have already confirmed under oath that Trump was angry in the SUV and wanted to go the the Capitol regardless of the danger.
Regardless of if they agree about the trying to grab the steering wheel part, the other parts are enough to establish mens rea on Trump’s part.

---

An establishment President would not have falsely claimed that vote totals were faked or any other election irregularity.

Ask yourself this...  If that was indeed a fact, why did this committee not bring these witnesses in to testify in their televised DNC ad?  Why do they rely on the testimony of a woman "who was told by someone else that was told something happened"?

President Trump may have been angry, but her false testimony about him reaching for the steering wheel pretty much throws any credibility that she might have had out the window.  Oh that's right.  Because she is testifying that "someone told her what someone else told them".

This so-called "hearing" is nothing more than the DNC trying to make sure that Trump can not run again.  Period.

Is there any credible evidence saying that President Trump "reached for the steering wheel"?

So answer the question.

Your mainstream media sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) etc. keeps parroting the same false claim.  There is no credible evidence that what this democrat woman says happened.  The people that were actually there said that they would testify.  Why are they not called to this "hearing"?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

All of that is LIES... Anything you say going forward on anything, I will assume its a lie, because you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you upside your liberal head.

He's not liberal. He's a product of the establishment. He believes in it and it defines his reality. Within that paradigm, he's relatively open minded. He just can't properly criticize what his unable to see. No one can.

I just wish people would stay acknowledging how corrupt our system has become, but that won't happen until they become negatively impacted by it. Would you be criticizing the establishment 20 years ago? I was around then; I don't remember conservatives lashing out about government corruption.

Good assessments on both points.

---

He's not liberal. He's a product of the establishment. He believes in it and it defines his reality. Within that paradigm, he's relatively open minded. He just can't properly criticize what his unable to see. No one can.

I just wish people would stay acknowledging how corrupt our system has become, but that won't happen until they become negatively impacted by it. Would you be criticizing the establishment 20 years ago? I was around then; I don't remember conservatives lashing out about government corruption.

Good assessments on both points.

20 years ago? Hell yes we lashed out. Thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh warning everyone about what was coming. He was written off as a “nut extremist” by many, but this is what we all we’re saying 20-30+ years ago. 20 years we were 9 years removed from 9/11. We just had no idea how deep and corrupt the whole thing is. 

Our government is broken. We need a redo, do-over. Our quality of life is diminishing more and more each day. With every shrug of our shoulders we encourage them to do more. It can get worse, quickly too. Hmmmm…

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Democrats project everything. There is no way they will allow Trump or any problematic Republican to win 24. They are already demising an evil plan to rig elections.

They got plans, they are not a political party, but rather an army that has as its goal to take over this country with hostility. They are the minority and people hate them, but they don’t care. They cheated once and got away with it, and now they will never stop cheating, why would they?

They are fighting a civil war, just a matter of time before thats’s escalated.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

---

Ask yourself this...  If that was indeed a fact, why did this committee not bring these witnesses in to testify in their televised DNC ad?  Why do they rely on the testimony of a woman "who was told by someone else that was told something happened"?

President Trump may have been angry, but her false testimony about him reaching for the steering wheel pretty much throws any credibility that she might have had out the window.  Oh that's right.  Because she is testifying that "someone told her what someone else told them".

This so-called "hearing" is nothing more than the DNC trying to make sure that Trump can not run again.  Period.

Is there any credible evidence saying that President Trump "reached for the steering wheel"?

So answer the question.

Your mainstream media sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) etc. keeps parroting the same false claim.  There is no credible evidence that what this democrat woman says happened.  The people that were actually there said that they would testify.  Why are they not called to this "hearing"?

I believe Ornato and Engels already testified behind closed doors.  We will see.  It's possible that the committee is just trying to grab headlines with the steering wheel thing.  It's possible that someone told her "I thought he was going to grab the wheel" and her mind filled in blanks and created a false memory.  It's obviously a much better story if he did try to grab the wheel, but it doesn't matter if he didnt.
As I said, the firsthand parts of Cassidy's testimony are enough to establish mens rea.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let me translate: This story eases my cognitive dissonance, so I will accept the parts I like, even though the witness is most likely lying.

---

Let me translate: This story eases my cognitive dissonance, so I will accept the parts I like, even though the witness is most likely lying.

She's not the only witness saying he wanted to go to the Capitol, that he was aware people in the crowd had weapons and didn't care, and that he was very angry when he didn't get to go.  
When he said "we're going to go to the Capitol," he was being literal.  We have multiple witnesses agreeing to that.
When he didn't get to go, he was mad.  
He really thought they were going to listen to him and go.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let me translate: This story eases my cognitive dissonance, so I will accept the parts I like, even though the witness is most likely lying.

She's not the only witness saying he wanted to go to the Capitol, that he was aware people in the crowd had weapons and didn't care, and that he was very angry when he didn't get to go.  
When he said "we're going to go to the Capitol," he was being literal.  We have multiple witnesses agreeing to that.
When he didn't get to go, he was mad.  
He really thought they were going to listen to him and go.

She's not a witness to anything, SHE WASN"T IN THE CAR

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

So answer the question.

Your mainstream media sources (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) etc. keeps parroting the same false claim.  There is no credible evidence that what this democrat woman says happened.  The people that were actually there said that they would testify.  Why are they not called to this "hearing"?

I believe Ornato and Engels already testified behind closed doors.  We will see.  It's possible that the committee is just trying to grab headlines with the steering wheel thing.  It's possible that someone told her "I thought he was going to grab the wheel" and her mind filled in blanks and created a false memory.  It's obviously a much better story if he did try to grab the wheel, but it doesn't matter if he didnt.
As I said, the firsthand parts of Cassidy's testimony are enough to establish mens rea.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

She's not the only witness saying he wanted to go to the Capitol, that he was aware people in the crowd had weapons and didn't care, and that he was very angry when he didn't get to go.  
When he said "we're going to go to the Capitol," he was being literal.  We have multiple witnesses agreeing to that.
When he didn't get to go, he was mad.  
He really thought they were going to listen to him and go.

She's not a witness to anything, SHE WASN"T IN THE CAR

She was in meetings leading up to it.  She was backstage.  AND SHES NOT THE ONLY WITNESS
Gosh does typing in all caps make you feel better? It didn't work for me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

She's not a witness to anything, SHE WASN"T IN THE CAR

She was in meetings leading up to it.  She was backstage.  AND SHES NOT THE ONLY WITNESS
Gosh does typing in all caps make you feel better? It didn't work for me.

Why don't you look up the definition of hearsay and get back to me?

I'm expect many things that work for me, don't for you.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

She was in meetings leading up to it.  She was backstage.  AND SHES NOT THE ONLY WITNESS
Gosh does typing in all caps make you feel better? It didn't work for me.

Why don't you look up the definition of hearsay and get back to me?

I'm expect many things that work for me, don't for you.

The January 6 committee is not a court of law.  Yes some of what she said was hearsay and would not have been admissible in criminal court.  Not all of it was, though.  As I said, I'm pretty sure they already have Engels and Ornato on tape.  Yes this is theater, but so is pro football..  That doesn't mean it's fiction.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why don't you look up the definition of hearsay and get back to me?

I'm expect many things that work for me, don't for you.

The January 6 committee is not a court of law.  Yes some of what she said was hearsay and would not have been admissible in criminal court.  Not all of it was, though.  As I said, I'm pretty sure they already have Engels and Ornato on tape.  Yes this is theater, but so is pro football..  That doesn't mean it's fiction.

...... she talked to someone who wasn't even at the Whitehouse when she said she was talking to him. This is so big of a lie that I'm starting to believe Trump paid her to make a fool of the committee.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/...5986386944

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Why don't you look up the definition of hearsay and get back to me?

I'm expect many things that work for me, don't for you.

The January 6 committee is not a court of law.  Yes some of what she said was hearsay and would not have been admissible in criminal court.  Not all of it was, though.  As I said, I'm pretty sure they already have Engels and Ornato on tape.  Yes this is theater, but so is pro football..  That doesn't mean it's fiction.

Theater, while not necessarily fiction, is also not proven fact.  Yet, for months you've been insisting that Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection, without supporting facts.  Thank you for finally admitting your belief was based on the theater production orchestrated by the Democrats.  
If you can now disregard the media hype and focus on the actual facts, rather than allegations and hearsay, you will have the basis to form an opinion without bias.  Remember, good information is prerequisite to a good decision.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

---