Is Tony Ornato, the SS guy denying Hutchinson testimony, a liar?

Well, Cipollone has just agreed to testify. I'm thinking this will clear things up. Many things, in fact!

 

Nobody should believe anything any Trump staffer or loyalist says if they're not under oath. That applies to Barr, Cassidy, Meadows, Ivanka, Cipollone .... But, once they're under oath, their stories change radically. So why would it be any different with this guy?

You REALLY need to be under a cult mentality to believe somebody loyal to Trump who is not under oath, over people, also loyal to Trump, who ARE under oath.

 

Well, my view on the 'valid argument' is as long as it sincerely invites further discussion or debate, weak or strong, it's valid.
the list of insincere arguments, disingenuous arguments, what I call 'non arguments' is long, they are not valid arguments.
But, you mean 'good argument' 'strong argument', so I will take it that way. I think I could have done better, so, let's take a look at your criticism.

I could have articulated that one better I agree. In retrospect, I would have written thus:

I doubt Ornato and Cipillone are going to accuse Hutchinson of being a liar. She worked hard for Trump, she believed in him, they know she's a woman of integrity and they know she deserves to be treated with respect. If anything, they might clarify details of her testimony. Not every one sees teh same event in the same way. That's my point.

Moreover,

Okay, unless someone testifies against her, her testimony stands because she gave it under oath. By 'stand' it doesn't mean 'proof'. It means 'duly noted'. It means unless someone contradicts her, she gave it under oath, and they have no reason to doubt her. The committee will, based on who she is, how she carries herself, her credentials and position, will decide if she is credible or not. They would be just if they accept what she says at face value until more corroboration. No, this is not about 'evidence' (unless she had documents or videos, of course they are relevant, but hearsay evidence is allowed in Congressional hearings, and of course, the committee will try and corroborate her testimony ) so it's not about evidence as much as it is about testifying as to the facts to the best of one's ability. It's the committee's purpose to decide, after hearing testimony from many people, what the facts are and what they might mean.

Also note that the altercation that she describe which was waht Ornato told her, is not the salient part of her testimony. The more salient and signifant aspects of her testimony were first hand accounts.

I'll repeat. Hearsay evidence is acceptable in a hearing. Testimony is not about proof, per se, unless, of course, the person testifying can provide it.
But hearsay evidence is allowed, period. As for corroboration, that's a given. Note that the committee has deposed over 1000 people, and the entire purpose of that many depositions is for corroboration, get all the viewpoints on what happened the objective of which is to get a clear portrait of what happened.

Ad hominems are a type of posturing, and, as such, are non arguments. It appears that you do not know better, but I'll cut you some slack on the ad hom, all or most of us are guilty of ad homs at some point.

Also, Assumed premises are weak arguments. It appears that you do not know what a rant is. and it also appears you do not know what a non argument is so, for your edification:

Non arguments come in many flavors, here are some typical ones.

vacuous claims (unsubstantiated claims, failure to do one's homework to back it up, lazy declarations, broad swipes, etc).
vacuous claims which cannot be substantiated
weasel words (incoherent vagueness, )
loaded terms & phrases, snarky rhetoric
off topic/irrelevant deflections
non sequitur quips
words of sentiment, rant devoid of fact, reason
egregious strawman arguments
egregious cynicism, nihilism
off-the-charts ill logic
trolling (intentional & egregiously disingenuous & offensive remarks)
kill-the-messenger/source (unless truly warranted)
cheap shots, childish/sophomoric comments
answering with a question with an assumed/false/debatable premise
thought terminating cliché (TDS, fake news, etc) demagoguery
off point pithy aphorisms, clichés
posturing/self-puffery: 1 . talking down, ad homs, shaming, patronizing, mocking, egregious unjust trivializing
flaming
2. inapplicable expertise/authority/credentials.


In my OP, written thus:

As a secret service guy, he was given a Trump WH Staff deputy Chief Of Staff, the guy who does all the CoS Meadow's grunt work, a political job, which is unprecedented, so we know where his allegiances are, and it makes sense.

The OP points out that it is rare for Secret Service guys to take a political job, and, as far as I know, it's unprecedented. In his political role, I doubt he would have taken the job unless is allegiance was for Trump.

So, I made a claim, and gave my path of reasoning, and that is enough to qualify as a 'valid argument'. that doesn't mean my argument cannot be refuted, a valid argument is one that is made sincerely, one which invites further debate or discussion. A valid argument doesn't have to be correct. I mean, the whole point of this forum is to debate, and if everyone were correct, what would the debate be? There would be no point in debating. We're here to hash such things out.

One thing it is not, is a 'rant'. Rants are vacuous allegations and statements devoid of logic or reason, and usually are unsubstantiatable, often incoherent, and are deeply emotional, littered with loaded language/weasel words, etc., and usually are verbose and almost always fall apart under scrutiny. You can hardly characterize my OP as that.

 

She most certainly has not been impeached. To my knowledge, Ornato, nor Engel, Nor Cipillone, nor any other SS agent have publicly refuted her and to impeach her they will have to testify under oath that she was lying, or got the details wrong, at the minimum. Cipillone is to testify soon, we shall see what he says.

I'm pretty sure they had good reason to believe her. But, we shall see what develops.

 

More likely another delusional hit and run forum post.

 

As it stands Hutchinson's credibility has already been easily impeached.
So far the committee has done nothing to rehabilitate her or her testimony.

Maybe they will be able to produce the video.

 

Make sense, lotsa peeps still think WWF/WWE is real?

 

That may explain Hutchinson's odd tale.

 

More like Ornato's...if you think critically.

 

If you think critically Cassidy Hutchinson is more like Christine Blasey Ford or Mercy Lewis.

 

More proof that Brooks Adams was right about partisan hate.

“Politics, as a practice, whatever its profession, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Brooks Adams

 

This post wins the early afternoon irony award.

 

I see.

 

Of course, it's kinda obvious to most folk .

 

Most folks have leaned who the partisan haters are the hard way by now.
It take more than one lesson for some, but patience abounds.

 

Circle bad to post #263, you're going for it again?

 

That is a bit incoherent. Try again.

 

Re-read it, it's as clear as is the day!

 

I thought Tony couldn't wait to testify under oath for the J6 that Cassidy Hutchinson
lied?

"US Secret Service Assistant Director Tony Ornato leaves agency"
Source: CNN Politics

"(CNN)US Secret Service Assistant Director Tony Ornato left the Secret Service on Monday, according to two sources familiar, a significant departure two months after explosive testimony by a former White House aide, who alleged Ornato had told her then-President Donald Trump was irate upon learning his security detail wouldn't take him to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. CNN has reached out to Ornato for comment.

snip:

According to Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who serves on the panel, committee members have stressed their desire to speak with Ornato and he has retained private counsel. It's not clear whether Ornato will end up testifying related to the claims from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

LOL! Sources told CNN that Ornato had been eligible for retirement since earlier this summer, and he had been discussing leaving the Secret Service since before Hutchinson's testimony."

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/29/politics/tony-ornato-leaving-us-secret-service/index.html