Explosive testimony today's hearing

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 28, 2022.

  1. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    5,998
    Likes Received:
    3,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NOOOOO... if you let his team cross-examine the witnesses... that would be "letting his side be represented"... it has nothing to do with anyone on his team testifying...
     
  2. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    61,535
    Likes Received:
    40,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More J6 crap. She also claimed the Trump lunged for the steering wheel of the limo and the SS driver of the Limo immediately offered to testify under oath that no such thing happened. Amazing that this lying committee wouldn't corroborate sensational testimony like that and drop that bombshell with a witness to hearsay rather than the easily accessed person with firsthand knowledge?

    Now she claims she heard Trump make the remark you attribute to him, but if she lied about grabbing the wheel on the Limo, she's impeached as a witness and nothing she says can be trusted.

    I'm not surprised that the J6 committee just blew itself up. They aren't particularly bright folks prone to serial miscalculation.

    Trump's now completely exonerated.
     
  3. gringo

    gringo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    trump is exonerated only by his followers..

    And yes, trumpers are not very bright

    they believe that the testimony of every republican from bill Barr to rusty bowker to trumps girlfriend/daughter Ivanka, are all fake news.

    There seems to be no limit in witnesses that will testify trump is insane
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    MJ Davies, Noone, Bob0627 and 3 others like this.
  4. Gateman_Wen

    Gateman_Wen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His "team" did most of the questioning. Liz Cheney is a republican, just in case you forgot.
     
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it hasn't. No one has testified to counter her statements under oath to congress, and that is what it will take to 'call her statements into question'.

    You can't put on par vacuous allegations on social media by 'sources close to..." with testifying under oath to congress under pain of perjury.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
  6. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who were there say she's lying.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Two things:

    1. That story was merely her retelling the story told to her: she spoke with White House deputy chief of staff for operations Tony Ornato in a room with Robert Engel, they told her the story. Cheney asked her if Ornato and Engel would confirm her story, and she answered in the affirmative.

    It makes no sense they would have not have told her that story. She had absolutely no reason to lie in front of Congress on national television and risk her career and prosecution. If Engel and Ornato want to deny it, they will have to do it under oath to Congress. No social media hearsay stating 'sources close to Ornato and Engel say.they are going to deny it' is sufficient to debunk her claim. We'll have to hear it from them directly under oath. Until then, it's not an equivalent counter argument.

    2. It's not even the salient story. The salient story is her first hand testimony that Trump, worried that the rally arena wasn't being filled up, worried about crowd size, told the SS to 'take the mags down', which is to take down the metal detectors because the The trump fans didn't want to go through the mags because they didn't want to lose there weapons since the SS would confiscate them, and when the SS told him about the weapons, glocks, AR 15s, other weapons, Trump replied that they weren't going to hurt him, so let them in.

    .
    Thompson has an open invitation to any staff in the White House to testify. None has appeared thus far, other than a few.
    It's not a lie, she clearly stated it was a tory told to her by Engle and Ornato. She had no reason to make up that story. Were Ornato and Engel lying? That doesn't make sense, either. Anyway, for your to have a valid counter argument they will have to testify under oath to counter it. And even if they do it, we don't know who is lying. Ornato and Engel, or Hutchinson. But, that is a moot point until they testify under oath. No statement in social media will be an equivalent counter argument. She risked pain of perjury, so they must either match it, or forever be quiet. Moreover, it's not a court of law, and no one's liberty is at stake. If this is taken up at the justice department they will, of course, subpoena Ornato and Engel to confirm the story.

    The only reason I can muster to understand why Engle and Ornato want to deny the story is that them telling her the story kinda makes them look like loose lips, which is not a good thing for a secret service agent. However, since they do know, given she is an executive aid to Trump's chief of staff, she is entitled to know that story, so I'll bet they will not testify against her. Until then, the story stands unchallenged. IF the DOJ takes it up, of course they will subpoena all parties.
    point is moot. See above.
    Wrong. Her testimony is the most damning testimony given to date.


    I'm not surprised you are unable to perceive reality and are willing to stoop to cheap shots.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    Bob0627 likes this.
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then provide their names and quotes.
     
    MJ Davies and Noone like this.
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Chairman Thompson has an open invitation for anyone in the White House to testify. None has other than a few.

    McCarthy had every opportunity to appoint 5 team members, he pulled the 3 Pelosi accepted and refused to replace the two she didn't.

    Even Trump complained that what McCarthy did was foolish.
     
  10. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    61,535
    Likes Received:
    40,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you admit that it was nothing more than rumor, gossip, innuendo and as such is excluded by the foundational principles of due process. Secondly, since you are apparently a fan of numbering your exploding cigars, Ornto and Engel are both eager to testify, under oath, that she fabricated all of this. Thirdly, did the idiots and clowns on the J6 committee take the depositions of Ornato and Engel, before throwing this poor 24 year old girl to the wolves in front of the entire nation, to satiate their Trump blood lust, you know, like a sensible adult would of? Then when her claims were falsified by actual first hand witnesses, they could have quietly taken her aside and asked her if she was certain of the things she was relating, rather than exposing her to be pantsed in front of a live national audience? The way the blood thirst for Trump Revenge Porn reduces the brains of all it touches, to jello, continues to astound.
    Oh suddenly you are the hearsay cop? Her testimony IS hearsay. Engel and Ornato immediately, on hearing what she testified to, offered to testify under oath that her claims were complete fabrications. You know as well as I do, that if the J6! committee was a true finder of fact, that they would have corroborated her claims with Engel and Ornato BEFORE throwing her to the wolves on national television.
    And the claim that 75 year old overweight Trump lunged all the way from the back seat to grab the steering wheel of a moving vehicle and then went for the throat of the driver, a fit conditioned highly trained security officer in his prime, is salient? Those wild claims never once tickled the BS meter of you, any of the lying fake news propaganda press or anyone of the lying evidence doctoring J6! committee?
    You all richly deserve your humiliation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
  11. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bobby Engel, the head of Trump's detail.
     
  12. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    39,033
    Likes Received:
    14,963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have they testified to the Congress under oath?
     
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quote please, and under oath to congress. Otherwise, dismissed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    8,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    She testified under oath under pain of perjury. She was a republican, a team player. Until she was betrayed by Trump, she came forward.

    Moreover, her testimony about Ornato's story is not the salient story.
    Posturing does not improve an argument, but it might diminish credibility.
    All you have is a news report that says 'sources close to Ornato and Engely say that".

    Ahh,so you perfectly willing to use gossip and innuendo when it is convenient for you.

    Got it.

    Which is to say, neither Engel nor Ornato has refuted her testimony under oath.

    Until then, her testimony stands. Anyone can bark from the sidelines.
    Posturing is does not improve your argument, but it does diminish your credibility.
    The chairman, Bennie Thompson, at the end of the hearing, put out an open invitation to any WH staff that cares to testify.
    None has come forward, to date, to refute her testimony.
    Posturing does not improve your argument, but it does diminish your credibility.
    Posturing is does not improve your argument, but it does diminish your credibility.
    Please provide the names and quotes, given under oath, that refute her statements.

    Moreover, even if the story about Trump lunging at the SS driver isn't true, that isn't the salient point.

    She stated that Ornato told her that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol to be with his people. That much we know is true and that is the damning part of the testimony.

    We know Trump wanted to join his supporters marching to the Capitol. That much has been reported by The Post, including in an interview with Trump in April.

    Also note that She heard Trump directly stating that he wanted the metal detectors removed, and he wanted his people to be armed, as they marched to the capitol.

    THIS IS THE DAMNING TESTIMONY. The story about Trump lunging at the driver is a red herring if you are nitpicking on it.
    You haven't been paying attention. This was accomplish under oath.
    Cheney: Was mr. Engel in the room as Ornato told you that story?
    Hutchinson: He was
    Cheney: Did Mr Engel correct, or disagree with any part of the story from Mr Ornato?
    Hutchinson: Mr Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story
    Cheney: Did Mr Engel or Mr Ornato ever, after that, tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?
    Hutchinson. Neither Mr Ornato or Mr Engel ever told me that it was untrue.

    Also, she never asserted her story was first hand, it was given as a story Ornato told her. Her attorney tweeted that if Ornato and Engel
    dispute that story, they should testify to that fact under oath. Until then, and only then, her story stands until refuted by statements under oath.

    Posturing does not improve an argument. Posturing comes in many forms, ad homs, cheap shots, weasel words, loaded language, and as such, is a non argument.
    It's direct hearsay, and admissible in a congressional hearing. It's not a court of law, no one's liberty is at stake. Counter witnesses are welcomed to testify.
    Until then, her statement stands as compelling. If the DOJ takes it up, they will subpoena all the pertinent parties, of course, .

    In a court of law your point is valid. But this isn't.
    Please provide their direct quotes of making that offering.

    You can't, because they didn't, as of this writing. All you have is a news article that states 'sources close to...." .

    MOreover, when they are willing to testify, if they do it under oath, all it will do is neutralize the story about Trump's lunging, which isn't the salient story. Why they want to backtrack that story I have no idea, it's really no sweat of their backs. Why would she make it up? It makes no sense.

    Until then, insinuations about Ornato and Engel are nothing more than that. insinuations.

    The rest of her testimony is first hand, which is to say, the really damning testimony.
    All they do is take testimony. No one has come forth to counter her testimony, though there is an open invitation by Bennie Thompson for anyone on staff to testify.
    Most of the staffers won't testify. So we are left with the testimony of others.
    What humiliation? No one has counter her statement, and it wasn't the damning testimony, anyway

    You mentioned nothing about the damning testimony of the hearing, which was given as direct witness.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    MJ Davies likes this.
  15. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't hurt yourself moving that goalpost...lol
     
  16. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    5,998
    Likes Received:
    3,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does Chairman Thompson has an open invitation for anyone on the Trump team to cross-examine any and all witnesses that testified?

    And no you don't get to tell why or why not McCarthy did or did not do... you are not his spokesman..
    The committee is illegit and illegal... it's purpose is to dig up crimes... legislative Congress hearings are to dig up legislative issues and not look for executive criminal issues... Any and all testimony falls under the doctrine "Fruit of the poisonous tree" as this is an illegal committee to start.

    let McCarthy speak for himself... Your little Pelosi kiddie games are getting old... I wish we had some grownups in the House, maybe in November...

    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.”
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    Wild Bill Kelsoe likes this.
  17. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What difference does it make? If Hutchinson lied, she lied. The jerkoff 6 committee has a duty to find out if she was telling the truth. If they don't do it, then the credibility of the entire committee is lost, permanently.
     
  18. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    53,011
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Entirely one sided. Cia agents in the car with Trump deny the allegations and the agent who is alleged to have told her the story denies that he did. Committe has interviewed them all, but they werent called to testify in the televised hearing.
    AND her second hand story was that this occurred in the beast, but they didnt have anyone to testify that in fact Trump didnt ride in the beast on that day and instead was riding in a surburban
     
    Steve N likes this.
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    53,011
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    113

    ???? What weapons? There were no known weapons. Just baseless speculation that people werent going through the magnetometers because they had weapons.
     
    Wild Bill Kelsoe likes this.
  21. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    54,777
    Likes Received:
    21,171
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Sounds more like explosive diarrhea.
     
  22. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    54,777
    Likes Received:
    21,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because fake ballots cannot talk.
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    53,011
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Claims this one staff member made, who didnt witness the events. refuted by the other staff members who did.
     
    mngam and Wild Bill Kelsoe like this.
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    53,011
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of her testimony regarding what happened in the "beast" that she wasn't in, that the other 3 that didnt testify were in when the events happened. In a court of law she wouldnt have even been allowed to testify because it was hearsay or "second hand" info
     
    Wild Bill Kelsoe likes this.
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    53,011
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???? Because they wont let anyone who counters the narrative to testify in front of the camera.
     
    Wild Bill Kelsoe likes this.

Share This Page