Is Tony Ornato, the SS guy who denies Hutchinson's testimony, a liar?

[Nickyjo]

They said they are willing to testify under oath.

I didn't think any Trump haters would mind this, especially the people who readily accept all the nonsense that's said about Trump with no named sources, no sworn testimony...just some spouted nonsense.

At least here, we have named sources. I don't consider that "street talk".

Especially given the fact that Trump is so scrupulous about naming his sources, e.g., there are Middle Easterners in the caravan, illegals are rapists, Russia is not in Ukraine, I was the first, the only...

 

[lwf]

To correct something, I'd said it appears they know they can lie and get away with it because only trump and the two loyalists were there. Then I recognized that if they talked to others since the incident about it, that could provide evidence against them if they lie. Today, CNN wrote an article about it.

Accounts of Trump angrily demanding to go to the Capitol on January 6 circulated in Secret Service over past year

Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV...

www.cnn.com

So at least two more people are corroborating that this story was circulating. Sounds like Cassidy was telling the truth to me.

 

[Craig234]

Text Cartoon: One large panel, with two vertical columns, "not liar" and "liar".

Anita Hill, and Clarence Thomas.

Christine Ford, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Cassidy Hutchison, and trump and Tony Ornato.

Not hard to come up with more. Liz Cheney, and Kevin McCarthy.

 

[Mycroft]

Especially given the fact that Trump is so scrupulous about naming his sources, e.g., there are Middle Easterners in the caravan, illegals are rapists, Russia is not in Ukraine, I was the first, the only...

And there you go again...

sigh...

****ing dumbass deflection. You never learn, do you?

You are ****ing dismissed.

 

[yankintx]

You will not be able to prove she lied without audio tape of the meeting. Anything less would just be a difference in degrees characterizing what Ornato said and what she heard. I don't see an audio tape out there and if there was one, the immediate comment to it would be "taping in that office....are there other tapes from that office?" That is what doomed Nixon. So you can go ahead and beat your dead horse all you want. Doesn't matter.

One 25 yo women made the entire Trump world take a collective dump.

I recall after Dean testified, we had the exact same MO from the Right, attack the messenger. But Dean had serious integrity issues with the Watergate Committee even before his public deposition. This young lady does not bring that baggage.

 

[yankintx]

Actually I don't need anything more from political hack Ornato or his sidekick Engel. I am entirely satisfied that Engel and Trump did have a dispute in the SUV over either going back to the West Wing or going on the Capitol with Engel insisting they go back to the West Wing and Trump insisting they go on to the Capitol.

None of the rest of the SUV crap interests me one bit. The rest of the SUV debate is shiny object shit.

Spot on

I don't believe so either, the testimony was just so damaging not just politically, but legely.

 

[pocket aces]

And there you go again...

sigh...

****ing dumbass deflection. You never learn, do you?

You are ****ing dismissed.

You are hilarious. On here frantically defending the anti American shit stain because the world is finding out that he is trash.

 

[Nickyjo]

And there you go again...

sigh...

****ing dumbass deflection. You never learn, do you?

You are ****ing dismissed.

My consistent point, fairly easily provable, is that there is no need for unfounded rumors, unnamed sources, exaggeration to show what people object to about Trump. He has shown himself to be a crook fairly often, and a man who has spread bigotry. Support him for his judges, his appointments that were pro-business, his put down of our allies and support for a go it alone foreign policy if you will, but don’t pretend that one needs to lie or even exaggerate to show his flaws as a leader and person. You don’t need sources or sworn testimony. He provides all the evidence needed.

Finally my point in responding to your post was also to give examples of Trump, unlike his critics who have Trump-provided evidence, makes broad sweeping statements with no proof.

So support him for his policies, Mycroft. Even believe his repeated allegations about corrupt elections. But don’t pretend people need to make things up about him. No need.

 

[snakestretcher]

Nah, I just hate Brits who think they have a horse in our race, when they cannot even pretend to unscrew their own politicians.

You'll get over it. Furthermore when this forum becomes US members-only you can whine then. Until that happens I'm as entitled as anyone else to voice my opinions here. Don't like it? Tough shit mate.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Actually, it does matter.

If she's willing to lie about this issue and about other issues, then she cannot be trusted with anything she says.

That's an astonishing statement coming from a Trump supporter.

There is a universe of difference between lying and misremembering something.

I honestly don't expect her to get all details perfect. There was a lot going on and misremembering a thing or two here and there isnt' consequential, so long as the bulk of her testimony is corroborated by others, that's a fair standard.

 

[jnug]

That's an astonishing statement coming from a Trump supporter.

There is a universe of difference between lying and misremembering something.

I honestly don't expect her to get all details perfect. There was a lot going on and misremembering a thing or two here and there isnt' consequential, so long as the bulk of her testimony is corroborated by others, that's a fair standard.

Its already been cooperated to the extent that is either substantive or probative. Don't tell the 24/7 News Channels that will try to bleed a few more rating points out of claiming otherwise or the Trumphumpers who will focus on any shinny object at this point hoping to deflect from a reality they won't accept.

 

[Mycroft]

That's an astonishing statement coming from a Trump supporter.

There is a universe of difference between lying and misremembering something.

I honestly don't expect her to get all details perfect. There was a lot going on and misremembering a thing or two here and there isnt' consequential, so long as the bulk of her testimony is corroborated by others, that's a fair standard.

Details?

She said she was told a story about what happened. She wasn't told the story. And the story is being denied by the very people who were there. She said she wrote a memo that someone else said THEY wrote.

That's not "misremembering something". That's lying.

 

[ataraxia]

Details?

She said she was told a story about what happened. She wasn't told the story. And the story is being denied by the very people who were there. She said she wrote a memo that someone else said THEY wrote.

That's not "misremembering something". That's lying.

The story was circulating all over secret service circles for a long time. Apparently it was a big deal.

Accounts of Trump angrily demanding to go to the Capitol on January 6 circulated in Secret Service over past year

Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV...

www.cnn.com

Apparently the ss agent now denying it has been well- known to lie about other stories he has said also.

January 6 committee's Kinzinger: Secret Service agent who may dispute Hutchinson claim 'likes to lie' | Fox News

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said a Secret Service agent who may testify against Cassidy Hutchinson's retelling of events "likes to lie."

www.foxnews.com

Anyway, he has already testified to the committee privately. Now, after his recent claims, he been invited to come make his claims publicly under oath if he wishes. He has so far refused.

The invitation stands.

Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

amp.cnn.com

 

[LostInSeattle]

Details?

She said she was told a story about what happened. She wasn't told the story.

You don't know that. No conclusions can be drawn at this point.

And the story is being denied by the very people who were there.

If the other people invovled testify under oath, then at best we have a he said/she said situation.

She said she wrote a memo that someone else said THEY wrote.
That's not "misremembering something". That's lying.

We'll see.

 

[Mycroft]

The story was circulating all over secret service circles for a long time. Apparently it was a big deal.

Accounts of Trump angrily demanding to go to the Capitol on January 6 circulated in Secret Service over past year

Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn't get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV...

www.cnn.com

Apparently the ss agent now denying it has been well- known to lie about other stories he has said also.

January 6 committee's Kinzinger: Secret Service agent who may dispute Hutchinson claim 'likes to lie' | Fox News

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said a Secret Service agent who may testify against Cassidy Hutchinson's retelling of events "likes to lie."

www.foxnews.com

Lots of claims...especially from unnamed sources. Are we back to believing that nonsense?

Anyway, he has already testified to the committee privately. Now, after his recent claims, he been invited to come make his claims publicly under oath if he wishes. He has so far refused.

The invitation stands.

Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

amp.cnn.com

Yep, already testified, but not asked about this limo nonsense.

He has not been asked to "make his claims publicly". And he has not refused. None of the three people have refused.

Frankly, the dog and pony show should have called him in to testify BEFORE they trotted out that lady to lie in public.

This is all a game to give the useful idiots a narrative.

 

[bubbabgone]

What are you going on about? I have no opinion about how anxious she should be. She welcomes additional testimony. What more do you want?

Really? Given how Hutchinson's testimony has sent some into paroxysms of what they believe is justifiable hatred don't you think Liz should make sure it gets confirmed by those who were said to be involved? Has that been scheduled? Shouldn't such testimony already have been taken?

Nope...I wouldn't. She realizes that this inside the SUV crap is neither substantive nor probative and that it has turned into the shiny object for Trumphumpers to deflect to and the ever oblivious., lurid and salacious media to focus on.

For something that's "neither substantive nor probative" it sure got a bunch of excited panties into bunches here & elsewhere. Haven't you noticed?
And haven't you noticed the denials by the parties involved haven't gotten the same attention except in attack tweets by Adam?

Now you're saying the whole thing about what happened in "the Beast" should be dismissed as merely an irrelevant "shiny object". Shouldn't that dismissal have happened before/during the testimony? Or even ... yet?

I hope you're not trying to suggest this entire one-sided Congressional affair has been above reproach from formation to execution. Are you?

 

[ataraxia]

Yep, already testified, but not asked about this limo nonsense.

How do you know?

He has not been asked to "make his claims publicly". And he has not refused. None of the three people have refused.

The invitation has been extended publicly. We are waiting for an RSVP.

Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

amp.cnn.com

 

[bubbabgone]

How do you know?


The invitation has been extended publicly. We are waiting for an RSVP.

Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

amp.cnn.com

That's the point. If Cheney is "absolutely confident" and thinks the testimony is that critical she should make sure the alleged witnesses are called to testify.
In fact they should already have testified to confirm the story. Don't you think?

 

[jnug]

Really? Given how Hutchinson's testimony has sent some into paroxysms of what they believe is justifiable hatred don't you think Liz should make sure it gets confirmed by those who were said to be involved? Has that been scheduled? Shouldn't such testimony already have been taken?



For something that's "neither substantive nor probative" it sure got a bunch of excited panties into bunches here & elsewhere. Haven't you noticed?
And haven't you noticed the denials by the parties involved haven't gotten the same attention except in attack tweets by Adam?

Now you're saying the whole thing about what happened in "the Beast" should be dismissed as merely an irrelevant "shiny object". Shouldn't that dismissal have happened before/during the testimony? Or even ... yet?

I hope you're not trying to suggest this entire one-sided Congressional affair has been above reproach from formation to execution. Are you?

Who cares. Lets them ejaculate over 24/7 "News" channel nonsense. There is a sucker born every minute and in this country one born every second. The crap about the characterizations of what happened in the SUV will die long before the Donnie gang's legal and political issues will die.

As for the part of your post that I bolded above. Wake me up when perfection becomes a realistic goal. In fact I have already said, the Committee should have simply had Hutchinson testify to what they already knew....that the Agent in charge of Trump's SS detail, Engel, had a dispute with Trump in the SUV as they left the Ellipse as too whether they would go onto the Capital or back to the West Wing.

Either that was a mistake by the Committee or a simple consequence of the witness testifying to a high degree of granularity of her now volition, not realizing that the 24/7 News Channels (ALL OF THEM) would immediately leap to a conclusion from her testimony that a SS agent had been ASSAULTED by Trump and reported it as such. NOBODY, not Hutchinson, not Engel not Ornato said that. NOT ONE OF THEM. Nicely done, NEWS CHANNEL talking heads. Bunch of asshole ratings hounds...all of them.

 

[WillyPete]

That's the point. If Cheney is "absolutely confident" and thinks the testimony is that critical she should make sure the alleged witnesses are called to testify.
In fact they should already have testified to confirm the story. Don't you think?

The point is you're missing the point.

The limo incident is unimportant in context, and you can't effectively slam this woman's credibility, because she's credible.

 

[Mycroft]

How do you know?

If they had, they wouldn't need to talk to them now.

The invitation has been extended publicly. We are waiting for an RSVP.

Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

amp.cnn.com

The invitation is public...they've said nothing about the testimony being public. And guess what...they haven't made public what their previous testimony is, either.

Don't count on the dog an pony show telling you anything...unless it's something THEY want you to hear.

 

[bubbabgone]

Who cares. Lets them ejaculate over 24/7 "News" channel nonsense. There is a sucker born every minute and in this country one born every second. The crap about the characterizations of what happened in the SUV will die long before the Donnie gang's legal and political issues will die.

As for the part of your post that I bolded above. Wake me up when perfection becomes a realistic goal. In fact I have already said, the Committee should have simply had Hutchinson testify to what they already knew....that the Agent in charge of Trump's SS detail, Engel, had a dispute with Trump in the SUV as they left the Ellipse as too whether they would go onto the Capital or back to the West Wing.

Either that was a mistake by the Committee or a simple consequence of the witness testifying to a high degree of granularity of her now volition, not realizing that the 24/7 News Channels (ALL OF THEM) would immediately leap to a conclusion from her testimony that a SS agent had been ASSAULTED by Trump and reported it as such. NOBODY, not Hutchinson, not Engel not Ornato said that. NOT ONE OF THEM. Nicely done, NEWS CHANNEL talking heads. Bunch of asshole ratings hounds...all of them.

Yes. The news channels are all assholes.
But for some reason you don't appear to believe their reactions are precisely what was expected, and was the intention, of the Committee.
Knowing those characters on the Committee, I hope you don't think they struggled with their consciences over the unchallenged Hutchinson testimony.

 

[WillyPete]

The invitation is public...they've said nothing about the testimony being public. And guess what...they haven't made public what their previous testimony is, either.

Don't count on the dog an pony show telling you anything...unless it's something THEY want you to hear.

If only there was some way for Trump and his people to get their story on the record!

 

[bubbabgone]

The point is you're missing the point.

The limo incident is unimportant in context, and you can't effectively slam this woman's credibility, because she's credible.

That would make not credible those who she named in her testimony who deny what she said about them.
And you haven't heard from them in that venue. Shouldn't you wait for that?

 

[WillyPete]

That would make not credible those who she named in her testimony who deny what she said about them.
And you haven't heard from them in that venue. Shouldn't you wait for that?

No, because to me it's not an important line of inquiry. No one actually cares except those who are embarrassed.

And if they are sincere then testify, to the committee or in another setting. No skin off my @ss.