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

Well her FIRST hand testimony is not being challenge by Ornato, is it?

 

They had a vote for a bipartisan Senate investigation, and repubs filibustered it, you can't blame Pelosi for setting up a special committee to the task

You can't blame Pelosi for McCarthy pulling his selections for the committee and refusing to replace the two that were rejected, which even Trump admonished McCarthy for it. .

You can't blame Cheney and Thompson for the few hard Trumpsters who testified who, though they could have argued their case, they pled the 5th.

You can't blame Cheney and Thompson for the many WH staffers and key operatives who are refusing to testify, some of whom have been indicted and to the

IF this whole scenario is turning out in a way that isn't flattering to republicans, I make the following suggestions:

1. Don't elect a corrupt, criminal, vile, despicable Human being for president, because such a man is likely to attempt to subvert an election through deceit, fraud, and whose lies provoked an armed mob to want to attack the capitol when elections don't turn out his way.

2. Next time there is a bipartisan investigation up for a vote in the senate, don't filibuster it.

 

That was a good move for exactly what we are seeing now. Trump can continue to lie and malign anybody that testifies and anybody that still supports him can shrug it off as "unfair" because of the absence of alternate picks from McCarthy.

That might not bode well for the process but it lines Trump straight up for another money grab and dangling a 2024 run. They will be hopping on that to "vindicate" him. I hope he doesn't run because he will lose AGAIN and the Capitol riot will look like the "lovefest" that he claimed it to be.

Didn't we have this conversation already? LOL Why do you insult humans this way?

 

Don't blame us for the J6 Committee failure:

​

 

Republicans were invited but all except 2 who were named by Republicans were likely to be invited to testify. It would have been like Manson saying he could only get a fair trial if all members of the jury had a swastica on their foreheads. The shortage of republicans was entirely the Republicans choice.

 

the manson analogy is apt. gym jordan on the committee would be like having squeaky fromm as prosecutor.

 

No one is challenging her first hand testimony, that I know of.

 

Oh yeah, ****, did I actually admit he was human? My bad.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; vacuous memes are not a counter argument.

Moreover, repeating a debunked theory, that the investigation was a hoax, a right wing talking point, does not improve your argument.

 

And yet you're willing to fully believe the hearsay of Hutchinson.

You do know that despite the oath people do commit purjury? Why you think Hutchinson wouldn't is a mental disconnect from what happens a lot.

I guess that settles it then.

No he doesn't have to. Hutchinson's testimony wouldn't hold up in a real court. This bs is purely a dog and pony show giving the base of the Democratic Party something once again to salivate over. You're part of the Pavlov experiment and you just don't know it.

No, it's all speculative opinion which relies on false premises.

 

What evidence is there that he is lying?

Including her SECOND hand words?

 

Then let him refute it under oath as the second hand recount was told by him to her. It's not really a talking point if he goes under oath. She was under oath and that carries vast legal weight.

 

Legal weight? Is this a trial?

 

My statement is quite clear. Reread it if necessary.

 

Gossip and disputed hearsay is only trafficked in by fools. Memes quite appropriately ridicule the ridiculous.

​

 

Yeah.
Right.

​

 

You repeating a debunked theory that has been debunked as being correct that the investigation is a hoax does not improve your argument.
The committee is a hoax and Russiagate was a hoax.

 

There's nothing more annoying that someone who thinks emojis improve his argument.

She is credible. she had little to gain, she's a republican who wanted to be on Team Trump.

Moreover, the limo incident, though hearsay, is not the important story. The important story she told she was a direct witness and no one is challenging her on it, the story about Trump calling off the mags, knowing they had weapons and not caring because they wouldn't hurt him, and his wanting to go to the capitol, leading a charge of armed men, and that story, his wanting to go to the capitol after the speech, has been confirmed by an interview with Trump last April on the Washington Post.

When Clinton said, 'I didn't have sex with that woman', I think it was obvious to everyone he was lying.

I'm not getting that kind of vibe from Hutchinson, she seems credible.
.

Who cares, it's the least important story of her testimony.
You really like those emojis, eh?
.

YOu don't now if the premises are false or not.

Her testimony would hold up if corroborated. Every effort will be made to corroborate, or deny, her testimony..

Recall that John Dean's testimony wasn't considered credible, until the WH tapes proved him right.

We'll have Cipillone's testimony, and we shall see if she is telling the truth.

 

What she said was hearsay isn't the important story.

The part of Trump wanting to take down the mags, not minding people were armed, wanting to go to the capitol, is first hand testimony

That Trump wanted to go to the capitol was confirmed in an interview with Trump in the Washington Post last April ( I think it was).

 

You're doing it wrong, dude. You're supposed to ignore the facts and get worked up about inconsequential matters. For example, when Trump had his 6,983,098,654 tantrum and threw his lunch - what brand of ketchup was it? /smdh

 

Ha ha ha, they won't call any body who can contradict missegend in her own mind.

 

Hearsay never stands, it is hearsay. Why didn't they have him there sitting next to her or testifying right after her. Why haven't they asked him or the Secret Service about it? Why did they put on this display and then run away with nothing scheduled for weeks. They attempt to smear Trump without the benefit of rebuttal or cross-examination of the witness and assertions. Nothing to corroborate her allegations. And then just let it lie? THIS is how Congressional "hearings" are supposed to operate?

 

There is nothing more annoying than someone like you who thinks they produce checks list that they think show their intelligence, which is none...

This is your childish list you created... live with it.....

 

They testified under oath in depositions to the committee. Why didn't the committee put these agents up to testify instead of presenting hearsay?

 

Yes, but what does ANY of this have to do with ORNATO? You may have forgotten, but he is the subject of your thread as per the thread title.