Explosive testimony today's hearing

And why are we having a special committee anyway? Why? Because the Repub senate filibustered the vote on a bipartisan committee doing it.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000...-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot

So don't give me any crap about Pelosi's committee being one sided, repubs in the senate had no intention of contributing to an investigation on 1/6.

So, Pelosi commenced with a special bipartisan house committee to do it.

And we should trust McCarthy? Pelosi did select three of his five offerings. McCarthy could have replaced the two for two that were acceptable, but he didn't, he pulled them all and refused to cooperate from then on. My guess is that he knew she would reject Banks and Jordan, and that when she did, he could pull them all and declare the committee as being one sided. Well, that plight is do to his own doing.

Sorry, McCarthy had the opportunity to contribute, but failed to do so. Even Trump chastised him for not putting some McCarthy selections on the committee.

So, McCarthy is being disingenuous, and thus his 'word' is not credible.

 

Actually, there is evidence she's lying. Three people say she's lying. Does that PROVE she's lying? No, not yet. Is it evidence that she's lying? Yes.

 

Thompson should be contacting them. If he's interested in the truth, that is

 

It's irrelevant. Was the Steele Dossier sworn testimony. Of course it wasn't, but I bet you still believe it's true.

 

As you seem to not comprehend McCarthy's statement, I'll post it again... twist and spin it the best you can.....

https://www.republicanleader.gov/mccarthy-statement-on-select-committee-on-january-6/

Washington, D.C. – House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) released the following statement on the Select Committee on January 6th:

“Speaker Pelosi’s rejection of the Republican nominees to serve on the committee and self-appointment of members who share her pre-conceived narrative will not yield a serious investigation.

“The Speaker has structured this select committee to satisfy her political objectives. She had months to work with Republicans on a reasonable and fair approach to get answers on the events and security failures surrounding January 6.

“Instead, she has played politics. Lost in much of the news coverage is the fact that the Senate has already conducted bipartisan investigations that should serve as a roadmap for the House.

“Speaker Pelosi’s departure from this serious-minded approach has destroyed the select committee’s credibility. The U.S. Capitol and the men and women who protect it suffered a massive leadership failure. We must make sure that never happens again and that is what Republicans will be focused on.”

 

Some of it was, most it not, but in most cases sworn testimony was rebutted with sworn testimony.

I really appreciate how the main thrust of this particular track is how much Republicans love the aid Trump undoubtedly got from the present worst fascist in the world. That much of the Steele dossier is admitted true, by Trump himself.

 

Nothing in the Steele dossier was true, nor confirmed under oath, but thank you for proving my point.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials

 

Keep peddling a lie, just like you want to peddle Hutchinson's lies.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/11/the-steele-dossiers-tawdry-absurd-and-fake-sources/

 

Keep believing everything told you by the most obvious con man who ever existed.

 

You believe the biggest con of all time, "Russia collusion". Now, you're being conned the the Jerkoff 6 committee. Since they're going after Trump, you'll believe anything.

 

NO, it doesn't.

There are no direct quotes of the people in question (mainly Ornato), just an article that says 'sources close to...".

Moreover, even if there are, social media retorts and denials are cheap.

Let them say it under oath.

She testified under oath under pain of perjury. .

Ornato was a Secret Service guy, promoted to deputy Chief of Staff, which is an unpreceded promotion for a Secret Service agent.
He's a political operative in the Trump white house, and we can surmise where his allegiance is. Her allegiance was to Trump, she was all idealistic, young, just out of college, eager to show the world Trump's greatness, until he started betraying his oath of office. She has nothing to gain by testifying, she knows that Trump and his minions will try and discredit her, and how brutal that can be, and yet, she does it anyway. I'm with her, all the way, .and........

And there is this about Ornato, the alleged Hutchinson denier:



I'm with her.

 

Of course you're with her. You hate Trump so much, you'll believe anything...lol

 

I know it serves the right wing agenda to believe that, but it's wishful thinking. All of the testimony given are from Republican operatives. There is an open invitation to anyone in the White House to testify, and they are refusing. this is pure spin.

Ditto, above.

All your article says is the committee is one-sided. There is no substantive evidence provided to warrant such a conclusion.

But, I'll provide substantive evidence to the contrary.

Apparently you haven't a clue on what the word 'spin' means. The article is right wing hype.

A senate bipartisan committee to investigate Jan 6 was proposed and filibustered by the Republicans in the senate.

You forgot to mention that.

So, Pelosi, determined to get to the bottom of the attack on the capitol, forms a special committee to the task.

McCarthy offers 5 for the committee, Pelosi rejects the two whom she knew would be disruptive, based on their past behavior and public comments.

All McCarthy had to do at that point was offer two more to replace Banks and Jordan, but no, he pulled the remaining three, only to claim the committee
is one sided. In fact, I believe he knew both Jordan and Banks would be rejected, just so he could pull them all and claim the committee is biased. It's a ruse.

Both the committee's leadership have an open invitation to all WH staff to testify before the committee, only a few have, and several have been subpoenaed and the key players have committed contempt of congress by not appearing on the subpoenas of which two were indicted. A couple of Trump operatives, Trump supporters, did not defend Trump, but, instead, the claimed the 5th amendment to every question asked.

I find it interesting that Trump defenders are claiming the 5th, but those who used to be Trump defenders disillusioned by Trump, are freely telling their stories.

All or the vast majority of the testimonies given thus far are from REPUBLICAN operatives, many voted for Trump. They have every opportunity to defend Trump and his schemes. No one has come forth to defend Trump. Not one.

Oh, yes, they will defend Trump on social media.....

But not under oath.

One sided, my ass.

Additionally, Trump chastised McCarthy for not letting his selections be part of the committee.

You forgot to mention these facts.

If you read your article, it is full of assumptions and little evidence about Pelosi, it is pure right wing spin, devoid of reality.

 

And you love trump so much you will believe anything

 

Incompetent rebuttal: vacuous claim unsubstantiated with evidence.

 

The one thing that just blows your rambling incoherent post to pieces.....

CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

And Hutchinson's testimony is substantiated?...lol

 

Well, we have three people saying Hutchinson is lying. Are you going to go along with latest theory that the Secret Service is covering for Trump?...lol

 

Actually her wild fabrications beg for corroboration.

TO BE FAIR, THAT’S ONLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT ISN’T TRUE: Report: Jan. 6 committee hasn’t corroborated Hutchinson testimony about Trump SUV incident.

Explosively Crapping The Sheets. ​

"Wherever you come down Hutchinson versus Ornato, it’s clear now that it was an unforced error by the committee to have her testify about the SUV story. It was hearsay which they hadn’t attempted to corroborate, unbelievably."

 

The Born Again "substantiating" cops? BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Monica Lewinsky adds the following:

​

 

What blows your egregious ignorance of reality to pieces is the following:

The Bipartsian Senate investigative committee proposed was filibusterd by the Republicans in the Senate. They did not want to investigate 1/6

When Pelosi went ahead and established a special committee to the task,
McCarthy pulled his selections for the committee, and refused to replace the two that were rejected, striking the ire of Trump.

Y'all had every opportunity to provide your side for cross examination, but your side refused to appear, let alone your side filibustered the first proposal.

MOreover, all the hard core Trumpsters who did appear, who weren't indicted for contempt of congress, pled the 5th.

Whatever claims of bias etc, right of cross, you, on the right, and Republicans make, are therefore forfeited.

 

My comment went to your rebuttal. Your comment doesn't refute my specific point, and is a deflection.

But, I will comment on it, anyway...

Some of it has, such as the fact that Trump wanted to march to the capitol with the rioters, but the whole point of testimony is to give testimony of the truth to the best of one's ability.

It's the committees task to determine what truth is, not the person giving testimony, though that determination doesn't usually come until or near the end of the investigation, not before it. That being said, they might assert what they believe are interim facts during the journey to the finish.

Every opportunity for counter testimony are welcome by the committee. They have extended that invitation.

 

It is really simple... let Trump's team cross-examine any and all witnesses either Democrat or Republican that the Pelosi hit squad has hand picked to testify...let's have a real hearing to get to the truth...

If you want the truth...... put on ALL the witnesses that testified in front of the committee..
Hutchinson has testified at least 4 times before this last one... this makes the fifth... where are the other four of hers? How many more people have testifies that we will never hear from that did not fit their
agenda? The committee has interviewed nearly 1,000 people since it converged about a year ago. Is it strange not one person they show to the world has been saying anything positive about Trump... what are the odds no one out of the 1000 had anything good to say about Trump..
WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT INFORMATION THAT IS SILENCED..

 

All testimony making claims call for corroboration.

They, however, are given under oath and pain of perjury to the best of one's ability.

The committee has an open invitation for anyone to testify, especially if it confirms or denies existing testimony.

As far a fairness goes, most of the hard core trumpers who did testify pled the 5h, but most refused, and some were indicted for contempt of Congress.