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

Hmmmm....

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.

Given:



So, let him lie under oath. I doubt he will. Until then, Cassidy's word stands.

 

Are you taking word salad lessons from Harris?

 

Of course you feel that way since her position appeals to you. Don't forget that she repeated the word of a third party that wasn't in the car. She wasn't in the car either. That you fall for this is entertaining. Christine Ford of Cavanaugh hearing fame didn't really gain anything from reporting nonsense to a senate commitee unless it was money. Do you think Hutchinson will gain something from this nonsense?

 

many people will tell the truth simply because its the correct thing...that is unfamiliar ground for the rightwing it seems

 

Posturing (and it's many flavors, of which 'mockery' is one, some emojis fall into the category, as well) is not a valid counter argument, In fact, it's a non argument

 

It depends on whether he thinks he can get away with it. However, the dispute over grabbing the wheel or not is a minor detail in the big picture. That picture being Don's desire to march with the armed crowd to the Capital to help with the effort to stop Biden's certification. Trump's last stand.

 

Engel was in the Car and Engel was standing by Ornato when he told her that story and he didn't correct Ornato.

The truth, and only the truth, I find appealing.

She was up close for much of her testimony. Her office was in between Meadows and the Oval office and Ornato's ( the deputy CoS).

She wasn't in the car but that testimony (Trump's lunging the driver ) is far from the salient facts revealed. Moreover, her testimony that Trump wanted to go to the capitol has been confirmed by an interview with Giuliani, and an interview with Trump in the Post,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/07/trump-interview-jan6/

and Trump announcing it at the ellipse. Moreover, she was in the tent behind Trump for the testimony on Trump saying 'take down the mags' . etc. So we know he wanted to be with armed insurgents attacking the capitol to 'stop the steal' a few months after he said, on TV, '[Proud Boys] Stand by '.

Ford is irrelevant.

She gains nothing but the satisfaction of doing her duty to country to tell the truth. She joined the team to promote the 'good deeds of Trump' and, in time, she became disgusted with Trump. Which is interesting, that has happened to so many people who worked with Trump, only to find out he is a not a man of good character worthy of the office.

As for reports that Ornato wanted to refute her testimony under oath, we don't have confirmation form Ornato on the point, and not under oath, as of yet.

And

 

You're confusing a rant with that of a valid argument. If you presented an actual argument I could give you a counter, most likely.

 

I don't think she lied. I think she repeated what she heard honestly. The fact that she wasn't there and neither was her source simply makes the whole testimony nonsense. Common sense appears to be unfamiliar territory for the left.

 

Waiting for yours.

 

An eye witness was there when details of the incident were related. He made no corrections. In all likelihood he told Ornato what happened.

 

Maybe he was lying when he told Cassidy the President lunged for the steering wheel.

 

Here's one for you.

I've made no claims.

 

yes, I've been saying that many times, they are pettifogging the debate by focusing on that point.

 

NO, it's more likely he is lying to assert Hutchinson's story is not true. It's a Trumpster, deputy CoS promoted from the SS ranks.

 

There are many asserting the story is not true.

 

Alyssa Farra (?) also makes the same claim.....he's a Trump appointee and loyalist that crossed the SS impartial line. Makes you wonder what else he did and hide and destroyed for Trump if he's also corrupt (spit-balling here). One things for certain, a corrupt individual like Trump, his biggest threat is someone with real grounded principles and that's why he requires total loyalty and proof of it to boot.

 

That's called a cop out.

Even if my argument is wrong, it's a valid argument (the whole point of debate, we disagree and engage in discourse to reveal who has the stronger argument)

.so, the point is, Even it an argument is wrong, Even it it's weak, it's a valid argument, it's worthy of debate. Only the 'non argument' is unworthy of debate.

Why? By glancing at this inventory I've cataloged over the years, having been a member of debate forums going back to the days of Usenet ( before the WWW), I hope you might and others might be able to see why they aren't worthy of discourse.

It is my view that the only arguments that are invalid are those whose salient premise (at the minimum) contain any one, or more, of the following,
what I called 'non arguments': (see below). Note, we all commit such things in varying degrees, even yours truly, but I think 'egregious' is the operative word, but it is when
an argument's salient premise is essentially, one or more of them on this list, that I feel aren't worthy of continued discourse. Not to me, anyway, though
they might, to others. Even then, occasionally, I might respond, anyway. Sometimes I'll respond with this jpeg, since I'm tired of typing them out all the time.

So, a cop out is a poor rationalization to not rebut a valid argument, as defined herein, and thus your assertion is a cop out, by that definition, which, I think, is fair. My post, in my view, contained pertinent information about Ornato, of whom many were asserting wanted to refute Hutchinson, even though the reportage was hearsay on that fact ( 'sources close to Ornato/Engel say that ....') to suggest that his denial might not be worthy of our trust, considering how he has treated others in similar situations.
That is not a rant, by any stretch of anyone's reasonable definition of the term. So, no.

View attachment 178921

 

No, you merely tossed up a non argument (Mockery, a form of posturing, is a non argument, unworthy of discourse if it is the salient aspect of a rebuttal [and then responding only to indicate it], and such as it is to me, of course, I can't speak for others)

in summary, why dish up a non argument? Why waste time like that?

Most of us, I would imagine or I would hope, are here to debate politics and ideas, hash things out, not indulge in clever conversation (though, notably, some apparently are really into such things).

 

I will never understand why you people make a big deal about certain actions (sometimes inactions) by Donald Trump..

What is the big deal about him trying to "grab the steering wheel" of the vehicle he was in? We all knew already what Trump wanted to do and was trying to do.

 

This is not Ornato's or Engel's story.... cross-examining Hutchinson while she was right there and under oath would find any holes in her testimony.

 

..

No, I've seen a number of articles repeating the NYT/CNN story, including this reuters story:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...evidence-surprise-tuesday-hearing-2022-06-28/

which stated "The New York Times and CNN, citing unnamed sources, said Ornato also denied the story and was willing to testify."

Which I find amusing since republicans often poo poo NYT and CNN as unreliable especially if they use anonymous sources, unless, of course, it says something they like, then it's like, we love it.

Well, we have yet to hear their (Ornato's and/or Engel's testimony under oath, and until, it won't carry the weight of testimony given under oath and pain of perjury.

Barking from the sidelines of social media is cheap.

 

That is the problem with due process, it uncovers the truth.

 

And Olivia Troye

 

I hope you didn't choke on that one... call 911 if you need help..