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

You seem increasingly desperate to minimize this...

 

Lol, so now that you understand it isn't hearsay you're just gonna claim she lied?

 

Unfortunately, as it has been said many times before, everything Trump touches turns to $hit. Nobody will come out of this episode smelling like roses. And for what? To cover up Trump's plan to steal the election.

 

Hutchinson is a low level aide to WH chief of staff, not Trump... any of her testimony is 2nd and 3rd hand testimony that is not allowed in our system..... but watch the Liberals run back behind the "this is a hearing" curtain its not a court and claim her testimony is the word of god not to be questioned... we watched this same behavior during the failed impeachment when Vindman started his lies... oh man, no one is to even think of daring to question his credibility.... same thing here... America is not buying it....

 

What you call courage I call partisanship.

 

These threads remind me of the time I was in the Chicago Greyhound terminal and this kid was bending my ear about the WWF. He and his buddies were going on about whatever drama they’d seen in the ring and how serious it all was. I was a bit taken aback when he verified they believed it was all real and unscripted. In retrospect he was an impressionable kid and the marketing of that form of entertainment is top notch.

I didn’t burst his bubble for two reasons. I’m not the type to tell a kid there’s no Santa and break their hears. LOL. And I had no desire to do a stupid thing in a stupid place with stupid people. Partaking in two out of the three was plenty already.

But this forum is (I believe) for adults. I’m amused but saddened by the similarities between that bus terminal experience and reading these threads on PF. I hope someday there is a desire in our society for more than bread and circuses.

 

You desperately need to pick new lines because you keep running around calling everyone desperate when they're not

 

Okay, I'll shorten it.

That's a cop out.

If you can't grasp that then read the previous comment.

 

No, Cassidy's SECOND HAND words do NOT in fact stand. I think that some people are under the impression that she was in the car with Trump. Perhaps you're one of them.

 

Ornato's story, whatever it was, is the least important revelation in the hearing.

 

funny you should bring up pro 'rasslin.' some people do take the kayfabe seriously.



Kayfabe - Wikipedia

 

Unjust trivializing is a form of posturing, and, as such, is not an argument.
Olivia Troye is Former White House Homeland Security Advisor to Mike Pence, has 202,000 followers on Twitter.
Alyssa Farrah Griffin is an American political advisor who was White House Director of Strategic Communications and Assistant to the President in the Trump administration in 2020. with 91,000 twitter followers, Both have the blue checkmarks to their names and both are CNN analysts, and appear regularly.
Both have had direct working relationships, at one time or another, with Tony Ornato.

Unnecessary trivializing is a form of posturing, and, as such, does not improve an argument. FYI, it is the province of unskilled debaters.

Unnecessary trivializing, is a form of posturing, and, as such, does not improve an argument. FYI, it is the province of unskilled debaters.

She is the executive aid to the WH Chief Of Staff. That is not a 'low level' job, though not a seat at the table, she is in the loop and a close witness to power.

:Let's clear up some things about the hearings process.

First, I want to establish that, though there are portions that are hearsay, hearsay is admissible in hearings but much of her testimony is direct witness, first hand knowledge.

. This is why they have many witnesses testify, to see if several people are saying the same thing, which when achieved, puts the committee closer to the truth, which is always the objective. They want hear from all angles, direct witness and hearsay, to see how they add up.

With that in mind, therefore...

The point of her testimony isn't to prove anything, the point of her testimony is to tell her story under oath, under pain of perjury, to tell the truth to the best of her ability.

She was on Team Trump, she is a Republican and wanted to promote the Trump agenda. Only when Trump betrayed his oath of office, which disgusted her, did she decide to come forward. She is very credible.

Now then, in my view the committee's strategy was to have her testimony cajole Pat Cipollone to testify, and he was subpoenaed shortly after this hearing and he has acknowledge to testify, without camera, only sound or a transcription will be available. .

So, with Cipilone's testimony will have either corroboration or denial of Hutchinson's testimony. If Engel or Ornato come forward, and they should, then we will have their testimony to get us closer to the truth. But other Trump/Pence operatives (Olivia Troye and Alyssa Farrah Griffin) who have had and interactions with Ornato have asserted that Ornato is loose with the truth, as he is trying to protect Trump.

Those who think she is lying must understand, she's a young woman, a Republican, she has her career and life ahead of her, and surely the concept of integrity must be of the utmost importance to a woman like her. She's on national TV testifying in front of millions of people, and anyone thinking she is intentionally lying isn't thinking straight. If you are lying, corroborating testimony will either hang you or back you up, surely she's not that stupid. While listening to her, though she is young, she struck me as very professional, sober, articulate, and very good with details. And she did it knowing that Trump was going to attack her, and of course, he is and it's petty.

 

You can mention other admins, but none compare to this one, such as Trump directing his entire staff, before the fact, en masse, to defy congressional subpoenas.

No president in history ever did that.

You won't find any comparison of a comparable magnitude to the Trump administration, when it comes to crime and transgressions. Trump is the grand winner. He beats Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton.

By virtue of that fact, your claim of hypocrisy won't shout, it will barely whimper and right there it won't matter much.because that isn't a counter argument of worthy magnitude.


Besides, that isn't the important story.

 

Surely you have some evidence that Trump directed his entire administration to ignore subpoenas?

 

Nonsense. Her testimony is very much allowed 'in the system' ( WTF do you mean by that? )

She's executive aid to the CoS, and, though she doesn't' have a seat at the table, she's in the loop, rides on AF1, etc.

No, it's not a court, and hearings accept hearsay and first hand testimony. It is the whole point, to get testimony from all relevant personnel from different angles in order to determine the facts.

Her testimony was likely a strategy to get Cipillone to testify, He was subpoenaed just after her testimony, he will be appearing before the committee soon, and he will be able to corroborate, or not, her testimony.

That is how it works. Everyone gets to testify, all is accept if relevant. it's not a court of law, there are no cross examinations, no one's liberty is at stake.

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/c...tions-and-the-rules-of-the-117th-congress.pdf

Although investigations may seem to proceed by familiar legal process—including document productions and witness testimony— there is actually very little due process in congressional investigations. There are no motions to dismiss, protective orders, or limited discovery orders. There are, however, some rules, and the rules that exist are important.

 

She gave first and second hand testimony.

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/c...tions-and-the-rules-of-the-117th-congress.pdf

Although investigations may seem to proceed by familiar legal process—including document productions and witness testimony— there is actually very little due process in congressional investigations. There are no motions to dismiss, protective orders, or limited discovery orders. There are, however, some rules, and the rules that exist are important.

 

What is the relevance of this to Cassidy's testimony?

 

the jack bryan video in his 3:43 tweet seems to show something in the suv.

note : yet again, this is NOT the beast, this is the same suv he uses to drive around dc spreading his covid; for conservatives who continue the "he could not do that in the beast" bullshot, that may be true but anyone who watched the hearing saw trump enter the suv.

Jack Bryan on Twitter: "made a zoomed video. At the very least Trump is moving his hand over the driver's shoulder. Not sure why else he would be doing that. https://t.co/f41XKnA4kP" / Twitter

on the other hand. while i might expect trump to arrive to accept his "president for life" title from his adoring fans, i do not believe that trump would place himself anywhere near physical danger. any talk of going to the capital while the action was ongoing is just the kind of puffed up bravado the old pro 'rasslin' hall of famer would want to sell to the paying customers.

 

Let me put your mind at ease. You are safe from any criticism of you breaking character! Thanks for providing more solid evidence bread and circuses is what society craves.

 

You presented what constitutes a rant. I commented giving my opinion of what I think of forum rants. They barely deserve a response, but just like a petulant child it's hard to ignore their temper tantrums.

 

Allow me to state the obvious. The focus on a dispute over whether Trump grabbed at the wheel is a side show created for two purposes. 1. Taking attention away from his desire to march with the armed mob to the Capital so Biden's certification could be stopped. 2. Call the credibility of Hutchinson's testimony in to question.

"Hey, look at the shiny object over here!" It's part of the Trumpery playbook.

 

Well, the Committee thought it was a big deal or they wouldn't have asked Hutchinson about it. It's not like they didn't already hear about it from behind closed doors.

 

Only two and they aren't testifying ... yet. OR, Benedict Donald could tesitfy himself and set the record straight ... on all of it.

 

I was always under the impression the secret service agents never talk publicly about their duties.

 

Did they? Or was it a detail Cassidy added to the testimony of much larger importance. Establishing Trump's desire to march with the armed mob to the Capital and his frustration with being prevented from doing so.