Statement in Question: Did Donald Trump lunge for the steering wheel of the presidential limo known as “the beast” and assault a secret service agent when they refused his request to take him to the capitol building to meet the crowds gathered there on January 6th?
Background: The January 6th “Select” committee, an illegal, unconstitutional show trial ostensibly convened to get to the truth about what happened January 6th, but is in fact, as former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro put it, is actually a, “partisan witch-hunt, kangaroo committee, which is unduly authorized, and not properly constituted and has no subpoena power…” revealed a surprise witness on Tuesday, June 26th, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aid to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
The Trump Lunge?
In statements to the show trial committee (see echo below), Hutchinson provided hearsay evidence – evidence which is inadmissible in a real court of law – that former president Trump ordered the presidential limo known as “the beast” to the capitol on Jan 6th. When he we was told there was not adequate security to go there and so the secret service agent driving refused, Hutchinson claims Trump lunged at and assaulted the limo driver after they (the driver and lead agent Bobby Engle) denied the request.
True or False: False. The event never happened, There was no Trump lunge in “the beast” neither did Trump assault one of his secret service agents.
Degree of Certainty: Extremely High
Reason(s): There are multiple reasons we can be certain this never happened.
- Hutchinson is not providing eye-witness evidence. She is providing hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in a real court of law. (Further evidence this is a show trial and not a real trial or hearing.)
- The secret service agents (lead agent Bobby Engle, and the unnamed limo driver agent) are willing to refute Hutchinson’s statements under oath, and affirm there was no Trump lunge in the beast, nor an assault.
- Hutchinson supposedly heard the information from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato, but Ornato is denying he ever said that.
- If the show trial select committee actually wanted the truth on the matter, they would request the testimony of the secret service agents who are willing to testify. They did not request them to testify on this matter – obviously because the agents will not provide the testimony they want for the show trial, so they had to go with inadmissible evidence.
- As previously reported here, the FBI has already done an investigation of what happened on January 6 nearly a year ago. At they time they concluded their there was “scant” evidence that January 6th was an insurrection. Clearly not the outcome the partisan (aka lying) democrats wanted. But a sitting president assaulting one of his own secret service agents, is, as the main stream (aka lame stream media) has pointed out (see Hannity echo below) a serious charge. Would not the FBI, the premier investigative agency in the United States, uncovered this charge in the course of their investigation nearly a year ago? Thus the timing of this charge is highly suspect. The J6 committee has still been unable to find a way to keep Trump from running in 2024, so like the liars they are, they’ve resorted to easily refuted lies in their last grasping attempts to keep Trump from running again..
Some have pointed out the impossibility of the claim due to the inability to reach the steering wheel in the stretch limo. In response, others have pointed out that the limo he was in was the suburban, not the traditional stretch limo. (Both are referred to as “the beast” when the president is in them). Others see significance in the fact that the secret service had previously been interviewed, and still the J6 committee ran with the story, believing they would not have done so if they knew the secret service would blow the whistle on them. (Interestingly, the secret service agents have offered to do precisely that – refute the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson – hearsay evidence which some nonetheless believe is reliable.)
Here, in our view, are the salient reasons to reject Hutchinson’s claims:
- It’s significant that the J6 committee have not:
- Allowed cross-examination of Hutchinson (or any witness for that matter).
- Are allowing hearsay evidence – which is inadmissible in a real court of law.
- Have not called the secret service service agents to provide eye witness testimony of what happened.
- Some have pointed out that the report from Peter Alexander about the secret service willing to testify in denial of Hutchinson’s charges is effectively hearsay evidence since the Secret Service hasn’t given it yet. Yet they’re willing to accept the hearsay evidence of Hutchinson. They likely don’t even see the inconsistency. Everything about this matter has been presented as hearsay evidence. At the very least one must be consist: reject it all, or accept it all. If it’s all rejected, Hutchinson’s testimony goes away, and with the spurious charge. Accept it all, and the testimony of the Secret Service Agents and Tony Ornato refutes Cassidy Hutchinson. Either way, the charge is dismissed.Below Hannity points out why the founders of this great land wisely rejected hearsay evidence in a court of law, and why the whole matter should be ignored by those interested and the truth. The rejection of basic constitutional protections by the January 6 committee is why the hearings should be recognized for what they are: As Peter Navarro put it: “a partisan witch-hunt, kangaroo committee, or as Tucker Carlson put it: a show trial complete with a production crew, or as Jason Whitlock put it: a charade and a lie and the committee has no respect for truth, there was no insurrection.
Echoes and References:
New J6 Narrative About Trump and Secret Service Collapses Hours after Tuesday Hearing
The Federalist, June 23, 2022
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦