ICE raids across L.A. spark backlash; Trump officials vow to continue operations

[multivita-man]

No, notice I didn’t say misdemeanor, felony or civil…but illegal. You can still be deported.

Presence vs Entry. A visa overstay versus crossing a border illegally.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Not suppressed. DHS redacted Ornato's testimony for security reasons.

Jan. 6 committee didn’t ‘suppress testimony’ about Trump

Recent reporting claimed the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol hid e

www.politifact.com

Yeah, it was a pretty sensational claim, making trump look like the nutbag that he is. But she was just relating what Ornato told her.

Secret Service agents have a strong allegiance to the POTUS. SS text records of the day were deleted by mistake (by the SS), remember that? What Ornato told Hutchinson made both trump and the SS look bad; he had plenty of reason to lie. And if I remember correctly, no matter how much he offered to cooperate, he wouldn't go under oath. Which tells me that he's full of shit.

The testimony that you are after is just Ornato claiming that trump talked about 10K NG being available, but never called for deployment. And we all know that the NG was not called for hours, and we all know that if trump wanted them there, they would have been there.



Records don't just get deleted; there are always copies, and the government is very good at keeping records. Did they share information with Fani Willis? I hope so, they had a lot of good evidence that should be made available to any prosecutor. But a prosecutor wouldn't stop there, they would always confirm things to their own satisfaction.

Again, I don't know what you (or Loudermilk) think would be exculpatory.



All of this stuff is just about the SS agents, who were under DHS supervision, and refused to go under oath. They both had skin in the game, and would be weak witnesses for the defense because of that.

How convenient, classify the very testimony that could verify it.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Absolutely.

Now, should deportation always occur on an overstayed visa?

If such attempts to renew visa that don’t happen within 6 months to a year. Beyond that, time to leave.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Presence vs Entry. A visa overstay versus crossing a border illegally.

All three are illegal.

 

[Emlee]

Was that the cop who directed rioters away from nearby escaping congress members saving them and was praised for it? I remember that story.

I had actually posted about that report several times in the past, the report actually debunks claims that police were letting them into the building, also the false claim that it was some new bombshell that had been hidden.

Post in thread 'Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal'

Dec 31, 2023

I saw the broadcast video where capitol police opened capital door and invited people in on Jan 1/6. Yes.

No. It’s a lie, 100% lie. You saw a selectively edited clip that Christina Bobb tweeted two years ago and just swallowed it whole.

I had already posted this in the thread you posted that. It actually shows much longer security video from inside the building that captured what was really transpiring, which completely debunks the lie that police had invited them in and held the doors for them.

The much longer security video showing police didn’t open the doors and let them...

• Emlee

• 

——

Post in thread 'Sen. Mike Lee calls for investigation of J6 committee after tapes released: 'Deliberately hid from us''

Nov 27, 2023

In new defense, dozens of Capitol rioters say law enforcement 'let us in' to building

At least 29 people arrested for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol claimed they thought they were free to enter because authorities didn't stop them.

abcnews.go.com

Just saying, if you really wanted to know you could give a try, but I think you are perfectly happy with a lazy approach and keeping your head in the sand.

Have a good night.

Nice try with cherry picking, taken out of context clips. That’s not new, it was reported on way back in 2021.
That clip and more of the footage had actually been released by the government in 2021 and used in Ethan Nordean’s case, so it certainly wasn’t being hidden.

The full...

• Emlee

——

Post in thread 'Wisconsin fake elector tells ‘60 Minutes’ he was afraid of Trump supporters'

Feb 22, 2024

Capitol police opening doors people to enter the Capitol bldg on jan 6th - Search Videos

www.bing.com

While they were letting all these people to enter, on the other side they were firing flash grenades, rubber bullets, and tear gas upon a peaceful crowd to entice them to violence....it worked, their plan succeeded. In the process two protesters were killed by flash bang grenades, then another woman was beaten to death...

• Emlee

———-

Post in thread 'Freedom of Information Act DOJ Video Shows Peaceful J6 Protesters Being Escorted Into Capitol by Police'

Oct 14, 2024

Copying over my post from your same thread you started in April.

———-


Because it doesn’t show police were helping them in, that's just yet another cult45 woven conspiracy. That video has been posted here several times and debunked several times.

How hard is it to comprehend that police were quickly overwhelmed and outnumbered?

Here’s a link to the much longer video from security cameras inside the building that shows the fuller context.

It shows police coming up upon them after they got in, it shows police holding open an inside door to get people who were already inside to leave...

• Emlee

 

[multivita-man]

All three are illegal.

There's a lot of it depends in immigration law. Someone can technically not have received their paperwork but still be in status. Someone could also have an extension filed even if they're technically nearing the expiration of their status. There could be brief periods where someone is technically out of status but still generally compliant, at least in the sense that the process has been followed.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You said it yourself.

Don't jump in if you haven't read the preceding posts. It just makes you look stupid.

 

[eohrnberger]

Are you seriously going to try that?

Does the surveillance video contents show what you are trying to deny?
Why, yes, yes it does.

I literally posted the link to that report back in 2023 when you falsely claimed to have seen a broadcast of police opening doors and inviting them into the building, to show your claim was a lie.

I linked to that same discussion in my post you just quoted.

Incredible. You’re once again cherry picking and distorting, unable to comprehend your own link.

Had you not cherry picked and actually watched and comprehended the entire video you would have seen that in full context that pic you're falsely claiming to be police opening doors and letting them into the building was actually a police officer opening the interior door getting them to LEAVE the building,

Goal posts moved. None of the above additional conditions and specifications were previously stated.

Security footage shows those people going through those interior doors and out of the building through the exterior doors.

Move goal post moving.

More of the security footage then shows more people coming into the building which was opened by PROTESTORS/RIOTERS leaving the building.

and yet move goal post moving.

The officer then tries to stop several others from coming in but was quickly outnumbered as more people came through the doors that protesters opened.

Nice try though.

I’ll take it that’s the extent of your false claims of police opening doors and letting them into the building.

Bad bet, apology..lol.

You can try and bluff your way through this, but it isn't going to work with your clearly moving the goal posts.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

How convenient, classify the very testimony that could verify it.

Who do you think was responsible for that? Not Pelosi, but DHS. They have rules.

Besides, it was nothing testimony.

 

[Emlee]

Does the surveillance video contents show what you are trying to deny?
Why, yes, yes it does.

Good grief, no, the surveillance video does NOT show what you falsely claimed.

I literally spelled it out for you giving the full context of what the videos actually showed.

Goal posts moved. None of the above additional conditions and specifications were previously stated.

What are you babbling about?

Not one goal post was moved.

It’s the full context. Full context is what matters and is required.

Move goal post moving.

More nonsense babbling.

It’s called context, full context, something clearly foreign to you no matter what the topic.

and yet move goal post moving.


You can try and bluff your way through this, but it isn't going to work with your clearly moving the goal posts.

Bluff lol.

That is so pathetic it’s downright embarrassing for you.

Here’s the bottom line and actual facts.

Your original claim: “Why was the video which showed Capitol Hill police opening the doors for some to enter hidden / suppressed for so long?”

Your claim that the link you cited shows police holding open doors letting them into the building…

Is a lie.

Just like your claim that you saw a broadcast showing police opening doors and inviting them into the building was a lie.

Your own link, in full context, debunks it. I used that same link a long time ago to easily debunk your lie.

Period. EOS. Nothing further needs to be said on the matter.

But do continue doubling down, making it even more embarrassing for you.

.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Don't jump in if you haven't read the preceding posts. It just makes you look stupid.

That’s not a rebuttal.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

That’s not a rebuttal.

There was no rebuttal needed. You didn't understand the context.

 

[eohrnberger]

That's not hearsay. Hutchinson related conversations that she was a part of; that's perfectly admissible. Whether or not Tony Ornato was lying to her would be nice to know, but he was unreliable. She had no reason to lie, Ornato did.

Hutchinson was in a great position to know what was going on, so she was a great witness once she got her own counsel.

Yes, we know what 'counsel' she received.

New Texts Reveal Liz Cheney Communicated with Cassidy Hutchinson About Her Select Committee Testimony—without Hutchinson’s Attorney’s Knowledge—Despite Cheney Knowing it was Unethical

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration

cha.house.gov

She had little to gain and lots to lose by testifying. Sorry

That a witness doesn't stand to gain anything from their testimony doesn't change whether that testimony is hearsay or not.

she made your boy look so bad.

This was the politically motived point and purpose of the entire committee from the very first inkling of a thought about it to the very last minute of it, and nothing of the empty gum flapping claims which were voiced.

Outside of the Beast episode, her testimony was pretty well corroborated.

We should believe tstimoney from someone who attests to a physical impossibility? Treat them as a 'great witness '?
Why? Answer: Because politics.

As for the lack of pushback, well, how can they push back against the obvious truth? trump is always full of shit, nobody but his cult believes a word he says. Meadows wasn't around, he was laying as low as possible. What kind of pushback do you envision?

The pro-Dem side was only the pro-Dem side because all the evidence made trump and the GOP look guilty as hell.

"All the evidence" which was permitted to see the light of day by the committee.

 

[eohrnberger]

Was that the cop who directed rioters away from nearby escaping congress members saving them and was praised for it? I remember that story.

None the less it is video of content which was demanded.
That then the goal posts were moved is obvious to everyone.

 

[Emlee]

None the less it is video of content which was demanded.
That then the goal posts were moved is obvious to everyone.

LOL

That’s another lie.

Not one goal post was moved. It was all the same context, the full context.

How stupid that anyone would actually try to claim that the full context of a cherry picked screenshot wouldn’t be required.

Full context is what’s obvious to at least most everyone.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not suppressed. DHS redacted Ornato's testimony for security reasons.

Jan. 6 committee didn’t ‘suppress testimony’ about Trump

Recent reporting claimed the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol hid e

www.politifact.com

Was the testimony permitted, or not?

Yeah, it was a pretty sensational claim, making trump look like the nutbag that he is.

But she was just relating what Ornato told her.

The very definition of hearsay testimony.

Secret Service agents have a strong allegiance to the POTUS. SS text records of the day were deleted by mistake (by the SS), remember that?

There are legitimate questions as to the legitimacy of those deletions and what those messages contained.

What Ornato told Hutchinson made both trump and the SS look bad; he had plenty of reason to lie. And if I remember correctly, no matter how much he offered to cooperate, he wouldn't go under oath. Which tells me that he's full of shit.

How convenient for you, and your confirmation bias.

The testimony that you are after is just Ornato claiming that trump talked about 10K NG being available, but never called for deployment. And we all know that the NG was not called for hours, and we all know that if trump wanted them there, they would have been there.

Ornato's testimony transcript was released. Apparently he did testify, but it was never released by the committee (gee, I wonder why? - Didn't align or support their demanded narrative and performance or something?)

The article cites testimony from Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, given to the House Select Committee on January 6 in January 2022, which was allegedly suppressed. Ornato claimed Trump wanted 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6, 2021.​

• When and What: Ornato testified that on January 3, 2021, Trump discussed deploying 10,000 troops with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, saying, “The president wants to make sure that you have enough.” Ornato recounted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows requesting a “quick reaction force” from the Defense Department, to be stationed at Joint Base Andrews, indicating proactive planning.
• Who Turned It Down: Mayor Bowser reportedly rejected the offer, stating she had 350 guardsmen for traffic control and needed only a limited role for additional troops. Ornato also noted frustration within the Trump White House over Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller’s slow deployment once the Capitol was breached, suggesting Pentagon resistance.
• Evidence: The article relies on Ornato’s transcript, released by Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s House Administration Subcommittee, and claims the committee hid it to fit a narrative against Trump. It notes Trump’s post-riot push for immediate help from Miller.

Ornato’s testimony suggests Trump floated the idea of 10,000 troops, but no formal order is documented, and Bowser’s limited request (350 guardsmen) aligns with her January 5 letter requesting minimal support (AP News, October 18, 2022). The committee’s final report noted no presidential order was issued, corroborated by Miller’s 2022 testimony (AP News, July 5, 2024). The “suppression” claim is disputed, as the committee sent Ornato’s transcript for executive branch review, and its contents were summarized (Washington Times, 2024; Politifact, March 19, 2024).​

Records don't just get deleted; there are always copies, and the government is very good at keeping records. Did they share information with Fani Willis? I hope so, they had a lot of good evidence that should be made available to any prosecutor. But a prosecutor wouldn't stop there, they would always confirm things to their own satisfaction.

Again, I don't know what you (or Loudermilk) think would be exculpatory.

This detailed in my response above, and is specific to the often repeated accusation from the left that Trump didn't ask for the NG, he did, that Trump stopped the deployment of the NG, he didn't, and Trump rejected the deployment of the NG, when they were rejected by the DC mayor.

See how many lies were told by the left and their media propagandists? No wonder their trust and credibility polling results are in the toilet - this all self-inflicted.

All of this stuff is just about the SS agents, who were under DHS supervision, and refused to go under oath. They both had skin in the game, and would be weak witnesses for the defense because of that.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yes, we know what 'counsel' she received.

Her first attorney was being paid for by trump (more likely somebody else with money was paying), which is a far worse ethical situation than anything Cheney said to her.

That a witness doesn't stand to gain anything from their testimony doesn't change whether that testimony is hearsay or not.​

No, it has nothing to do with hearsay. It has to do with her motivations and believability.

Also, her testimony wasn't hearsay.

This was the politically motived point and purpose of the entire committee from the very first inkling of a thought about it to the very last minute of it, and nothing of the empty gum flapping claims which were voiced.

She was a Republican who probably had a future somewhere in the party if she refused to testify.

Sometimes, a guy is just guilty of what he's been accused of. Not everything is political, not everything is a conspiracy.

We should believe tstimoney from someone who attests to a physical impossibility? Treat them as a 'great witness '?
Why? Answer: Because politics.

I agree that it was probably physically impossible for trump to lunge forward without crapping his pants. Maybe news of his pants-crapping was suppressed. Poopgate.

Again, Hutchinson was merely testifying as to what Tony Ornato told her. Not hearsay. She didn't say that trump lunged, she said that Ornato told her (the room, actually) that trump lunged. See the difference?

"All the evidence" which was permitted to see the light of day by the committee.

I invite you to think of some piece of evidence that would exonerate the rioters and/or trump. Use your imagination, let it take you anywhere. Get creative.

 

[eohrnberger]

Good grief, no, the surveillance video does NOT show what you falsely claimed.

You demanded:

Cite the videos of police opening the doors so some could enter.

Is this not what the video shows?

Sure looks like it to me.

I literally spelled it out for you giving the full context of what the videos actually showed.

Moving goal posts. None of this 'full context' was in your post I included above.

What are you babbling about?

Not one goal post was moved.

No, they clearly were.

It’s the full context. Full context is what matters and is required.

This is to where you moved those goal posts.

More nonsense babbling.

It’s called context, full context, something clearly foreign to you no matter what the topic.




Bluff lol.

That is so pathetic it’s downright embarrassing for you.

Here’s the bottom line and actual facts.

Your original claim: “Why was the video which showed Capitol Hill police opening the doors for some to enter hidden / suppressed for so long?”

Your claim that the link you cited shows police holding open doors letting them into the building…

Is a lie.

Just like your claim that you saw a broadcast showing police opening doors and inviting them into the building was a lie.

Your own link, in full context, debunks it. I used that same link a long time ago to easily debunk your lie.

Does the video show police opening a door for civilians to pass through the door?

Period. EOS. Nothing further needs to be said on the matter.

But do continue doubling down, making it even more embarrassing for you.

.

I'm no longer interested nor amused by your backpedaling, goal post moving or bluster to cover up your unspecific demand which was in fact met.
Have a nice night.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

There was no rebuttal needed. You didn't understand the context.

That’s the claim you made without saying why it’s out of context. Nuh-uh, isn’t a valid argument.

 

[Emlee]

You demanded:

LoL

Demanded. What utter nonsense.

I asked for cites for your claim that videos showed police were holding open doors and letting them in that had been hidden from the public. Cites are requested all the time.

But ok, I ‘demanded’ and so since you didn’t actually have anything credible you decided to just lie and post a link, claiming it showed something that it clearly didn’t because it was ‘demanded’ of you. A link that I had actually used multiple times in the past that easily debunked the lie.

Is this not what the video shows?

Sure looks like it to me.


Moving goal posts. None of this 'full context' was in your post I included above.




No, they clearly were.


This is to where you moved those goal posts.




Does the video show police opening a door for civilians to pass through the door?

No it actually doesn’t in full context. Incredible you refuse to admit that clear important fact, and/or simply can’t comprehend it.

It showed police holding the doors getting people to leave, then police trying to stop more people from coming in and then getting outnumbered and overpowered by a mob of people coming in.

A far cry from trying to claim that police were holding doors open letting people in.

I'm no longer interested nor amused by your backpedaling, goal post moving or bluster to cover up your unspecific demand which was in fact met.
Have a nice night.

Oh stop lying and projecting. There was not one bit of backpedaling or goal post moving, nor is it bluster.

You keep saying I demanded it. That’s nonsense and makes zero sense, just part of your need to double down. I asked for the citations to what you were claiming.

So again, but ok I ‘demanded’ and since you didn’t actually have anything credible you just chose to make something up instead, to meet the ‘demand’, thinking no one would be able to figure it out. That’s even more pathetic.

Have a nice night indeed.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Was the testimony permitted, or not?

They got a transcript from DHS. Nothing important in there. I already went over this.

The very definition of hearsay testimony.

Don't bother applying to law school.

There are legitimate questions as to the legitimacy of those deletions and what those messages contained.

There sure as hell are. Problem is, the SS did the deleting. Everyone would have loved to have access to those texts. I doubt they made the SS look good. I don't doubt that they would have made Ornato look like a liar, but we'll probably never know for sure.

Ornato's testimony transcript was released. Apparently he did testify, but it was never released by the committee (gee, I wonder why? - Didn't align or support their demanded narrative and performance or something?)

The article cites testimony from Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, given to the House Select Committee on January 6 in January 2022, which was allegedly suppressed. Ornato claimed Trump wanted 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6, 2021.​

• When and What: Ornato testified that on January 3, 2021, Trump discussed deploying 10,000 troops with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, saying, “The president wants to make sure that you have enough.” Ornato recounted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows requesting a “quick reaction force” from the Defense Department, to be stationed at Joint Base Andrews, indicating proactive planning.
• Who Turned It Down: Mayor Bowser reportedly rejected the offer, stating she had 350 guardsmen for traffic control and needed only a limited role for additional troops. Ornato also noted frustration within the Trump White House over Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller’s slow deployment once the Capitol was breached, suggesting Pentagon resistance.
• Evidence: The article relies on Ornato’s transcript, released by Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s House Administration Subcommittee, and claims the committee hid it to fit a narrative against Trump. It notes Trump’s post-riot push for immediate help from Miller.

Ornato’s testimony suggests Trump floated the idea of 10,000 troops, but no formal order is documented, and Bowser’s limited request (350 guardsmen) aligns with her January 5 letter requesting minimal support (AP News, October 18, 2022). The committee’s final report noted no presidential order was issued, corroborated by Miller’s 2022 testimony (AP News, July 5, 2024). The “suppression” claim is disputed, as the committee sent Ornato’s transcript for executive branch review, and its contents were summarized (Washington Times, 2024; Politifact, March 19, 2024).​

This detailed in my response above, and is specific to the often repeated accusation from the left that Trump didn't ask for the NG, he did, that Trump stopped the deployment of the NG, he didn't, and Trump rejected the deployment of the NG, when they were rejected by the DC mayor.

Were 10,000 National Guardsmen ever assembled at Andrews? 10K sounds like a huge number, which would track with trump's ignorance and tendencies toward round figures and overkill. Sounds like trump was just riffing, like always. No formal order - check.

And the important thing is that trump didn't call for the Guard even after the Capitol had been sacked. So what are you really arguing here? Do you think Ornato's testimony helps trump here? All he did was blame others, with zero documentation to back up his claims. FFS, if the POTUS called for the guard to be deployed DURING A RIOT AT THE CAPITOL, nobody is going to get in the way of that. Use your head. His own kids were begging him to do something, and he refused, for HOURS. Ornato's story is BS.

See how many lies were told by the left and their media propagandists? No wonder their trust and credibility polling results are in the toilet - this all self-inflicted.

What I'm seeing is your inability or unwillingness to see what would be obvious to any fifth-grader. That, and a TON of projection.

 

[TangoNoCash]

None the less it is video of content which was demanded.
That then the goal posts were moved is obvious to everyone.

We’ll just agree to disagree.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Being here illegally isn't a crime. Unauthorized border crossing is, but for example someone overstaying their visa faces no consequences beyond the possibility of deportation.

Of course, there are the penalties for failure to deport. 4 years in prison would make that a felony.

8 USC 1253

(a) Penalty for failure to depart
(1) In generalAny alien against whom a final order of removal is outstanding by reason of being a member of any of the classes described in section 1227(a) of this title, who—
(A) willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United Stateswithin a period of 90 days from the date of the final order of removal under administrative processes, or if judicial review is had, then from the date of the final order of the court,
(B) willfully fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure,
(C)connives or conspires, or takes any other action, designed to prevent or hamper or with the purpose of preventing or hampering the alien’s departure pursuant to such, or
(D)willfully fails or refuses to present himself or herself for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney Generalpursuant to such order, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than four years (or 10 years if the alien is a member of any of the classes described in paragraph (1)(E), (2), (3), or (4) of section 1227(a) of this title), or both.

 

[eohrnberger]

LoL

Demanded. What utter nonsense.

Whatever.

I asked for cites for your claim that videos showed police were holding open doors and letting them in that had been hidden from the public. Cites are requested all the time.

No, you didn't.
I quoted your post in my previous where you did ask and it didn't contain any of these 'after thought' specifics that you now include.
Quit making shit up as you go along.

But ok, I ‘demanded’ and so since you didn’t actually have anything credible you decided to just lie and post a link, claiming it showed something that it clearly didn’t because it was ‘demanded’ of you. A link that I had actually used multiple times in the past that easily debunked the lie.

Speaking up of making up shit as you go along . . .

No it actually doesn’t in full context. Incredible you refuse to admit that clear important fact, and/or simply can’t comprehend it.

Already asked and answered.

It showed police holding the doors getting people to leave,

Thanks you.

then police trying to stop more people from coming in and then getting outnumbered and overpowered by a mob of people coming in.

and now you are moving the goal posts. This wasn't included in your post asking for the video, which I've quote previous.

A far cry from trying to claim that police were holding doors open letting people in.

Oh stop lying and projecting. There was not one bit of backpedaling or goal post moving, nor is it bluster.

No, you are. Sorry that you don't, or can't realize it, but you are. Simple fact.

You keep saying I demanded it. That’s nonsense and makes zero sense, just part of your need to double down. I asked for the citations to what you were claiming.

So again, but ok I ‘demanded’

Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.
In the same post you said:

"You keep saying I demanded it. That’s nonsense"

and also

"So again, but ok I ‘demanded’"

You appear to be so confused about everything so much so you can't even keep this simple thing straight.
Go take some time and figure it out.

and since you didn’t actually have anything credible you just chose to make something up instead, to meet the ‘demand’, thinking no one would be able to figure it out. That’s even more pathetic.

Have a nice night indeed.

 

[eohrnberger]

They got a transcript from DHS. Nothing important in there. I already went over this.

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.

Don't bother applying to law school.

There sure as hell are. Problem is, the SS did the deleting. Everyone would have loved to have access to those texts. I doubt they made the SS look good. I don't doubt that they would have made Ornato look like a liar, but we'll probably never know for sure.

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.

Were 10,000 National Guardsmen ever assembled at Andrews? 10K sounds like a huge number, which would track with trump's ignorance and tendencies toward round figures and overkill. Sounds like trump was just riffing, like always. No formal order - check.

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.

And the important thing is that trump didn't call for the Guard even after the Capitol had been sacked. So what are you really arguing here? Do you think Ornato's testimony helps trump here? All he did was blame others, with zero documentation to back up his claims. FFS, if the POTUS called for the guard to be deployed DURING A RIOT AT THE CAPITOL, nobody is going to get in the way of that. Use your head.

His own kids were begging him to do something, and he refused, for HOURS.

Isn't this supposition?

Ornato's story is BS.

Yeah, you don't like that testimony upsetting the carefully scripted Committee's presentation, so no wonder you hate it.

What I'm seeing is your inability or unwillingness to see what would be obvious to any fifth-grader. That, and a TON of projection.

What I'm seeing is hyper-partisan political blinders and willingly parroting the Dem issued talking points.

At least I don't have that problem.