I wonder if the secrecy about tomorrow's hearing is witness security related

[Siwsan]

Protecting the witness. Might be a bit of an OTT theory, but if they don't announce a name, or names, that's what I'm thinking.

[elleng]

1. Likely, imo.

[Brainfodder]

2. That almost sounds too reasonable! The Conald being it would be....

Especially if he was confessing due to very very very very very very ill health and implicating the 1000+ people each by name?

I still got big dreams...

[emulatorloo]

3. I think you are on to something.

[RoeVWade]

4. Imagine-the reaction if Melania walked in

...not that I think that would be it, but it would be quite startling.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. An embedded mole?

I have no idea.

[Kingofalldems]

6. Saw that exact thing in a tweet.

High security needed for this witness.

[sarcasmo]

7. Please be Pence, please be Pence.

[Siwsan]

9. I think Pence is far too much of a coward, and he has delusional dreams of being POTUS

My gut says it's something to do with the new documentary.

[RoeVWade]

10. Pence would definitely spur an urgent hearing, also Meadows

vvv

[usonian]

8. DU is exploding with speculation (of course). Try these.

I am signing off cuz chores ain't getting done.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216857054
Franken looking forward to tomorrow's
Newly announced hearing


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216857389
My *hunch* regarding tomorrow's Jan 6 Committee hearing.

[MLAA]

11. Something amazingly incriminating trump on the video from the documentary guy?

[Under The Radar]

12. If this is huge, damaging news against Trump

I am wondering what he will pull out of his bag for a diversion to this news.

[Totally Tunsie]

13. His cardiac arrest would be a good start.

[Siwsan]

14. I'm picturing him red faced, pounding on a table, with his hair all a flip flop.

Maybe add in watering eyes and drool.

[H2O Man]

15. Recommended.

Wow! I hadn't thought of that! But it does make sense. Thank you!

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Of course I can't find the link now...

but an article I read said specifically that they aren't naming the witness out of concern for their safety.

[H2O Man]

17. +1

Thank you. Makes sense.

[Mr.Bill]

18. Maybe not so much for the witness's

safety, but more like not wanting anyone to get to the witness first and influence, threaten or blackmail them.