Where they got the transcript is no response to the question of whether the testimony was permitted by the committee, or not.
Per your posting, it appears to have been suppressed, and eventually released by DHS, after the committee had disbanded, after the committee could be held accountable.
You keep on insinuating that it was the committee that suppressed evidence, and not DHS just doing its job. The SS clearly did not want to cooperate, as they had "mistakenly" wiped their text logs for that day. For a group that was omnipresent during the day, we got precious little useful information from them.
There's any number of prognostications as to what those texts contain. What I'm surprised about is the mobile vendor's lame excuse 'data was corrupted' and 'isn't retrievable', and am surprised that this is simply accepted and not challenged any further.
I don't know what the relationship between the SS and the cellular company is, but my suspicion is that it's not the vendor's fault, it's the Secret Service's fault.
Of course, then we also have Pelosi herself on video.
I think this might be the one time that Pelosi is candid, clear, and honest, because she is usually at the podium telling some whoppers.
This belongs in the same category with "sorry for your loss." Pelosi did not have the authority to call the Guard. All she could do was to ask somebody who did have the authority, and she did, repeatedly, without delay. All she can do is request this or that, she can't demand it. She was just blaming herself for not seeing into the future, as some people are wont to do. Had she known that trump was going to whip up a crowd and send them into the Capitol behind a bunch of Proud Boys, maybe she would have requested more cops than normal. But it's completely disingenuous to continue to blame Pelosi for this. After four years, if you don't know by now that she wasn't someone with the authority to summon the NG, then you are willfully ignoring the facts.
No, this has been established.
Yeah, you don't like that testimony upsetting the carefully scripted Committee's presentation, so no wonder you hate it.
I don't know if you can really call it "testimony" if Ornato refused to go under oath. Call it a statement.
What I'm seeing is hyper-partisan political blinders and willingly parroting the Dem issued talking points.
In this case, there is little doubt as to what happened. A mob of people, spearheaded by Proud Boys and other groups, stormed the Capitol. Red hats and trump banners were everywhere. Bear spray was used against the cops. Shit was smeared on the walls of the Capitol. This went on for hours, then stopped Bad things happened. Can you at least admit that much?
Agreeing on a set of facts should not be a partisan thing. I would think that
anybody would want to understand exactly how it all unfolded. I would also think that anybody would look at the riot and say, "that's completely wrong," but that's not the case. We still have people making excuses for the riot. People looking hard for any tiny nugget they can grasp onto so they don't have to admit to the totality of the bad stuff that happened.
That's why I keep asking for an example of some evidence - even imaginary evidence, completely hypothetical - that would change one's perception of the riot from bad to good, or at least bad to understandable. Because if that kind of evidence doesn't exist, even hypothetically, then why are you wasting your time looking for these tiny nuggets of perceived inconsistency and pointing them out?
At least I don't have that problem.
You have the same problem, but right-wing.