Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jun 28, 2022.
No, odds are it won't
No it wasn't.
Why question him.... when you should be questioning the witness who made the statement in cross-examination.
Why... it is a illegit and illegal committee...
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.”
You do know who Liz Cheney is, don't you?
Well that's a lie.
Why do you continue to tell lies when we all know that's what they are?
Hutchinson testified concerning what she says she heard from Ornato.
Obviously, Ornato needs to testify to corroborate or refute that aspect of her sworn testimony.
Cross-examinations are in trials, not investigations.
https://www.usatoday.com › story › news › politics › 2022 › 06 › 29 › secret-service-officials-testify-jan-6-trump › 7767338001
Secret Service: officials willing to testify after Jan. 6 testimony
Today First Hand witnesses contest "the Jan.6 committee's star witness. Bobby Engel and Anthony Ornato are both willing to testify to dispute Cassidy Hutchinson's account."
Hutchinson testified concerning what she says she heard from Ornato.... and she should be cross-examined about that claim...
Yea... she is a Democrat. Some folks call em' RINO's but I'll just cut to the chase... She is depending on the Democrats to protect her now that she has turned traitor.
You mean like the president saying to secret service to let a bunch of armed people into a secure area because “they’re not here to hurt me”? Don’t try something so stupid
another from trumps circle will be rolling over
Prove it with a reliable source.
I don’t really care what you think on the topic. Is there any reason you can even define what a reliable source is?
Cross-examinations occur in trials. This is not a trial.
Ornato can corroborate or dispute what she testified under oath that he told her.
The committee should subpoena Ornato, as they have subpoenaed Cipollone.
Ornato doesn't have to corroborate or dispute what she testified under oath that he told her. Cross-examine her... let prove her testimony true or a lie... it's not Ornato testimony, it's hers.
Give it a shot... let's see what you have.
Let's let Jim Jordan have his say...
No. I’ll wait for you to tell me what a reliable source is. Because you will just deny whatever I bring to you.
Don't tell me you believe a word of what Jim Jordan says.
Nah... I was waiting for you and CNN to translate it into liberal tongue and then you tell me what he said..
I would hate to have someone think and post I would "try something so stupid" and then not have impeccable sources to back up what you are claiming.... my, my, my... what I'm seeing is your claim is coming from a very questionable "hearsay" witness ... I wonder if Trump used the word f---ing as much as she did...
But let's let Trump speak for himself..
You are, apparently, anticipating a criminal prosecution where cross-examinations occur.
You'll have to wait.
Trump bum kissers are so predictable. Everyone could foresee them parroting mindless rage against the most recent Republican to testify under oath before the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
It's is an orchestrated fatwa everyone could see coming, and it's an index of how much the Cry Baby Loser has been damaged,
Did you even read the OP? It says, in bold letters, "most of what we heard were 2nd hand accounts". It was in bold so even the lazy readers would see it. Looks like you missed it.
Hutchinson's testimony is important because it points to the DOJ where it is they need to look.it
Ok. You're too far gone for anybody to expect to have a serious debate with you. Thanks anyway...
The problem is that the "sources" upon which you rely refuse to testify under oath, the many Republicans of integrity who do testify under oath being swarmed by rabid Trump nuts, and smeared by the vendetta-driven Trump propaganda factory.
Pasquale Cipollone is a far-right lawyer who was the subservient Trump White House Counsel. He defended the Cry Baby Loser in his impeachment.
Whistleblower Cassidy Hutchinson referenced Cipollone repeatedly in her sworn testimony, and it is obvious that his input, under oath, is demanded. Allowing Hutchinson's accounts to stand unchallenged is not the way Trumpers should want to go. It is obvious that he has much to share:
Donald Trump Rails Against Pat Cipollone Subpoena
Of course, Cipollone testifying could well mean Trump raging that he "hardly knows him" and the further random distribution of ketchup.
Separate names with a comma.