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

What evidence is there that he is lying?

 

You said: "She was under oath and that carries vast legal weight." The legal weight of things is irrelevant in this non-trial. Simple!

 

Anybody that backs Trump's lies is lying. Rudy, Powell, etc.. It's not a complicated formula.

 

YES...... What she said as hearsay is very much the important story. If fact she sucked as a witness trying to sell a story.. and no, only in a Pelosi run hearing is 3rd hand testimony allowed as gospel... wow

What is so disturbing that you lap this up is...
A good cross-examination would blow her testimony to pieces "I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of"... How close of a vicinity... and "something to the effect of" doesn't cut it in a real cross-exam.. yet again we are spending tax payer money on a scam illegit illegal committee..

 

""What evidence is there that he is lying?"" Please answer the man's question... without your liberal "complicated formula"

 

Which Trump lie has Ornato backed?

 

There is an open invitation for anyone in the WH to testify.

Sorry, you are wrong.

 

In retrospect, I should have added it to the OP. But, the point is still valid.

 

Ad homs are not an argument.

The list is an inventory of common non arguments, most of which I'm not interested in responding to, if they are done egregiously or as the salient aspect of a reply. Oh, I might sometimes, and I might respond in kind, sometimes, but I find myself, more and more, not wanting to. To me, non arguments are to an argument what litter is to landscape. It bothers me so I indicate it. If that bothers, you, I can't help that.

It has nothing to do with 'intelligence', your ad hom noted, which, again, is a non argument.

FYI, you used 'demagoguery' wrong, among other things.

 

I didn't find anything my reply that is on that list, especially 'demagoguery'.

If you are going to use it, learn what a non argument is (such as the items on the list, though there could be more I've not thought of).

From the looks of it, you're just mocking me, and, of course, mockery is a non argument. Oh, and ad homs, too.

 

I hate to break this to you..... but you are kidding yourself when you think you are so highly intelligent that you think you can talk down to folks with your strange scolding and derogatory remarks.

 

Sorry but if you actually believe that really means anything you really need to lay off the Kool aid.

 

Legal weight as in "a crime to lie under oath". Your blinders are partisan and on too tight.

 

At least, as I understand it, he was actually there. Anyway, validating the veracity of any witness is not part of the committee's rule book.

 

False accusations and projectionism (your accusing me of that which you are doing) are not an argument.

When someone rebuts my comment with a non argument, I just indicate it. Nothing more, nothing less.

If that bothers you, please don't respond, because all you will get are more indications of non arguments, which I feel compelled to indicate the presence of.

An argument would be to actually rebut what is under debate, sans cheap shots, snarky comments, ad homs, etc.

It's not a lot to ask and it's fair to ask it.



. .

 

Your premise is compatible with that of a typical cynic, and I reject cynical arguments. Mainly because

1. They are rooted in platitudinous generalities, weasel words.
2. It has been my observation that most arguments that allude to, imply, assert, assume or presume, broad swipe generalities on a body of people of any group as the basis for their premise are usually false on its face.

Noting thare #1 and #2 are essentially sibling concepts.

 

I see it went right over your head so let me say it one more time... your not as intelligent as you think you are..
... you are kidding yourself when you think you are so highly intelligent that you think you can talk down to folks with your strange scolding and derogatory remarks.

 

Dude there is zero room for anything other than cynicism for anything regarding this democrat clown show.

 

No, my rebuttal was the appropriate response.

Non arguments do not merit a proper response by me, in my opinion, and so you have confused my approach to non arguments with 'going over my head'. So, your claim is without merit, given this fact.

 

My response is the same, so please reread it, if you need a response.

 

So rather than deal with reality you choose to remain oblivious, sad but hardly surprising.

This is, in fact, no different than any other leftist show trial since Robespierre first figured out that the easiest way to deal with your opposition was to kill them.

 

Certainly, if you are willing to back up your claims, otherwise it's not a debate, it's opinions/chit chat. Not interested, but that's me.

By backing up, I mean, at least a viable path of logic, you know, a modicum of effort in it, but preferably some substantive links, documents, testimonies, quotes, etc, anything but a vacuous claim.

 

Hearsay is allowed in congressional hearings, no one's liberty is at stake.

The objective is to hear everyone testimony pertinent to the investigation, hearsay, direct witness, the works

 

The Bipartsian Senate investigative committee proposed was filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate. They did not want to investigate 1/6

When Pelosi went ahead and established a special committee to the task, McCarthy pulled his selections for the committee, and refused to replace the two that were rejected, striking the ire of Trump.

Y'all had every opportunity to provide your side for cross examination, but your side refused to appear, let alone your side filibustered the first proposal.

Moreover, all the hard core Trumpsters who did appear, who weren't indicted for contempt of congress, pled the 5th.

Whatever claims of bias etc, right of cross, you, on the right, and Republicans make, are therefore forfeited.

 

Her story about the limo lunge is hearsay, but it is allowed. No one has come forward under oath to dispute her testimony, and it's not likely they will. (because the story is true, though she might have gotten the detail of Trump grabbing the stearing wheel wrong, the just relayed what she was told, but there was an altercation).

Her story that Trump wanted to go to the capitol was confirmed by an interview with Trump in April in the Washington post, which is the salient story.

Her story about Trump directing the SS to take down the metal detectors, the armed won't hurt him, etc, is direct witness.

So, the salient part of her story are direct witness or confirmed, the less salient story of the limo altercation is not that important. It's a red herring, to pettifog on it.