• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.
The Committee wouldn't have pursued it if they didn't think it would further their narrative.
Them not formally seeking further testimony to confirm it demonstrates what that is.
 
The Committee wouldn't have pursued it if they didn't think it would further their narrative.
Them not formally seeking further testimony to confirm it demonstrates what that is.
No it doesn't
 
The Committee wouldn't have pursued it if they didn't think it would further their narrative.
Them not formally seeking further testimony to confirm it demonstrates what that is.

A few days of the opposition hyperventilating over an irrelevancy might have been an intentional goal, sure.

In which case, they've been played like a busted ukulele.

Her testimony stands for the moment. They've invited further testimony.

Set the record straight!
 
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.
Nope....not at all. I don't think they struggled at all. Don't think it occurred to them that the 24/7's would just haul off and extrapolation an ASSAULT from Hutchinson's testimony. Frankly, that even shocked me and I am rarely shocked by the 24/7's any only longer.
 
They said they are willing to testify under oath.
Then let them do so.

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.
Do you think everyone who opposes Trump does so because they hate him?

Why do you think people hate Trump?

At least here, we have named sources. I don't consider that "street talk".
By 'street talk' I meant statements which are not sworn testimony.
 
It just hit me how trump must have loved to get to be in charge of an armed group named the SS.
 
SS has enough problems to deal with all without being dragged into this shit show.
 
A few days of the opposition hyperventilating over an irrelevancy might have been an intentional goal, sure.
If the Committee is seeking the truth, would such a thing ever be intentional
In which case, they've been played like a busted ukulele.
They own the busted ukulele and in their mind it works fine.
Her testimony stands for the moment. They've invited further testimony.
If you're seriously looking for the truth you don't ignore it when your witness's claims are denied by a couple of people she accused. You require their appearance.
Set the record straight!
Lets
 
If the Committee is seeking the truth, would such a thing ever be intentional

They own the busted ukulele and in their mind it works fine.

If you're seriously looking for the truth you don't ignore it when your witness's claims are denied by a couple of people she accused. You require their appearance.

Lets
How do you know this hasn’t been done or isn’t in the works?
 
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?
You're just repeating yourself. Seems like the one with "paroxysms" is you.
 
No it doesn't
Okay, even going by Hutchinson's unchallenged testimony alone confirms their narrative.
Nope....not at all. I don't think they struggled at all. Don't think it occurred to them that the 24/7's would just haul off and extrapolation an ASSAULT from Hutchinson's testimony. Frankly, that even shocked me and I am rarely shocked by the 24/7's any only longer.
So you don't think they expected the kind of news reporting they got from Hutchinson's testimony. And you don't think that Committee is trying to build a narrative.
 
You're just repeating yourself. Seems like the one with "paroxysms" is you.
No one is answering so I have to keep asking.
If you don't want to hear from the accused you can just say so.
 
Well, let's see...

On the one hand, we have a lady who has been caught in three lies.

On the other hand, we have FOUR people who dispute what that lady has said.

You do the math.
Who are the four people and can you quote any of them making statements in their own name, much less under oath? Magic 8 ball points to NO.
 
For some reason, every time i see the name "Tony Ornato", i think i'm seeing "Tony Orlando".
 
Have they said it was? It's been days.
Have they stated otherwise?

It is a long weekend.

It would seem that the USSS isn’t in lockstep on this question.
 
The one about her writing a memo. Someone else said...under oath and BEFORE she testified...that they wrote the memo.
And you know which of them is lying because you have super powers or what?
 
If the Committee is seeking the truth, would such a thing ever be intentional

They can seek truth and twist a pig's ear at the same time if they want to.

They own the busted ukulele and in their mind it works fine.

The youngsters would heartily agree that they "owned" the GOP, and it has been pretty amusing.

If you're seriously looking for the truth you don't ignore it when your witness's claims are denied by a couple of people she accused. You require their appearance.

They've testified already (we don't know to what, and they've been welcomed to testify again. Clearly, the committee lacks confidence in their witness.

So set'em straight! And acknowledge that if that doesn't happen, then they've behaved deceptively.
 
Have they stated otherwise?

It is a long weekend.

It would seem that the USSS isn’t in lockstep on this question.
What question? That Congressional Committees have to play fair? It's Congressional leadership that decided this particular Committee didn't have to.
 
They can seek truth and twist a pig's ear at the same time if they want to.
If the truth is what they were seeking they wouldn't look like they do or do what they're doing.


The youngsters would heartily agree that they "owned" the GOP, and it has been pretty amusing.
Pelosi is hardly a youngster. Come to think of it, who exactly do you think is a youngster on that Committee?


They've testified already (we don't know to what, and they've been welcomed to testify again. Clearly, the committee lacks confidence in their witness.
They were interviewed. You think they were asked about something that wasn't said until this week? Neat trick.

So set'em straight! And acknowledge that if that doesn't happen, then they've behaved deceptively.
It's their screenplay.
 
NO...he recommended people. Pelosi gets to pick who sits on the Panel. Even McCarthy's complaint tells you that Pelosi picks. McCarthy's only complaint was that Pelosi rejected McCarthy's recommendations. He said that has never happened before. I am not sure about that. But I do know this is a House Select Committee and the Speaker gets to place or reject the recommendations whether they are Majority or Minority recommendations for the panel.

Tell me...do you think McCarthy "PICKED" Cheney and Kinzinger? Do you think McCarthy even recommended them?

McCarthy didn't pick Cheney and Kinzinger, which is why I never said he picked Cheney and Kinzinger.

He picked 5 people, including two traitors. His picks were rejected by Pelosi.
 
Back
Top Bottom