(06-30-2022, 11:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I'm sure he had a different opinion of her prior to her testifying, but I think that's likely as far as it goes.  I don't see Trump caring much, or at all, about the aides of his staff to have any real opinion on them.

(06-30-2022, 11:05 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I was more open to the possibility that she lied, but Trump volunteering that he barely knows her and then following that with disparaging stuff about her has me back to giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Trump just never bothers to hide his "tells."

(06-30-2022, 11:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: True im just half joking that seeing Trump and the more "legally i have to admit that I'm lying" pundits going hard after her might be a bit of that "doth protest too much" sort of thing. 

That's from Macbeth, right?

(06-30-2022, 11:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hamlet.

(06-30-2022, 08:20 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Ah, the old coup attempt. I lmao every time I hear that. Bunch of idiots go to the Capital and do nothing but break a bunch of stuff and it's a coup attempt. Then on the other hand the Democrats create a fantasy story about Russian Collusion and use such story to impeach a duly elected sitting President, and you all have zero problem with that. Hypocrisy much?

(06-29-2022, 09:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very possible, as I stated earlier.  But even if this is some "cunning plan" (thank you Baldrick) it still involves this witness lying under oath, which is a poor look regardless of the motive behind it.

(06-30-2022, 12:16 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Did nothing but break stuff? People died that day sir. They crowd was chanting to hang the Vice President. The intent was to not only stop the the certification of a legitimate election, but to do so by nefarious means had they gotten access to the House members.

The Mueller Report found and laid out evidence of 9 separate acts of criminal activity in said "fantasy".

(06-30-2022, 03:44 AM)pally Wrote: People are disputing the incident in the SUV between Trump and the SS saying it didn’t happen, maybe it did and maybe it didn’t.  However, what I haven’t seen or heard anyone disputing is that she was TOLD the incident happen.  Afterall, being told about the incident was her testimony not witnessing it.  In fact, so far no one involved in the conversations she related have disputed them. If she was lying then Mark Meadows, especially, among others can blow her testimony out of the water simply be testifying under oath to the contrary.  If all of these people have nothing to hide,why are they hiding.

(06-29-2022, 09:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's the information that's important, not the site it's on. 

(06-30-2022, 03:43 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: You claim to hate hypocrisy, am I correct?

You want us to ignore where the information comes from or how credible they are in our eyes, just how important it is from the federalist.

Their whole story, and kind of yours, too, is ignore most of the important information and focus on where the information comes from and how credible it is from the witness.

Or is that irony instead of hypocrisy?

Asking for a friend.

(06-30-2022, 12:35 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The fact that the Committee had already spoken to all 3 individuals prior to Ms. Hutchinson's testimony would seem to suggest they found her accounts / version of events credible based on what they heard in those closed door meetings or by other evidence that we don't yet know about.

I simply don't think they would put her in the spotlight, under oath, if they hadn't found her to be convincing and tenable.

(06-30-2022, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You would certainly think so.  However, it being so directly, and immediately refuted by people who were actually there doesn't lend itself readily to that conclusion.

(06-30-2022, 04:44 PM)Lucidus Wrote: These things haven't been refuted under oath, so it will be interesting to see if the 3 gentlemen I mentioned will do so.

Quote:Mr. Ornato has basically accused everyone that has testified of lying, so I take his assertions with a rather sizeable grain of salt. There is also a report from Carol Leonnig that some of the Secret Service members were actively "cheering" during the events of Jan 6. If true, that would certainly call into question their integrity as it pertains to their versions of what occurred. 

On that note, Donald Trump did an interview with Newsmax in which he stated:

"This lady yesterday - there's something wrong with her. Is there something wrong? She said I jumped from a car and I started strangling - think of this - I started strangling a Secret Service agent who I know very well?"

"And that I wanted guns at my rally? I didn't want guns. I have to speak too, and I don't want guns for anybody."

'The woman is living in fantasy land. She's a social climber - if you call that social. I think it's just a shame that this is happening to our country."

A couple of things stood out to me about his comments.

Given Mr. Trump's history when he attacks someone in this manner, it's usually the case that there's actually some amount of "there" there in terms of what he's being accused of.

Is Mr. Trump saying that he feels unsafe among his own supporters if they are armed? 

(06-30-2022, 04:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you have evidence that this site is reporting inaccurate information then by all means provide it.  When I do take issue with certain sites being used it either falls under the category of facts being misrepresented, distorted or inaccurate or with opinion pieces.  I used the site that came up first that had the fact based statements I was looking for from the Secret Service (can we please not refer to it as the SS, everyone?) and Trump's chief of staff.  If it had been HuffPo, Vox or The Guardian I would have used that as well.

Quote:It's the information that's important, not the site it's on. 

(06-30-2022, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would stress that the two Secret Service agents that flat out refute this testimony cannot be labeled Trump sycophants or known liars.  

(06-30-2022, 05:46 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Again with the deflection. I wasn't questioning the federalist.

OK, I'll try this again . . . going off of your comment.
And their whole angle is to ignore the most important information and focus on anything to discredit her. 

Very much like you in this thread. You're caught up on two things, a story she said she was told is refuted by the Trump loyalist that told her and whoever did or did not write a note. How much research have you done into Tony Ornato lying?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-staffer-source-behind-trump-story-lying
or
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/washington-posts-carol-leonnig-outlines-trump-deputy-tony-ornatos-troubling-history-with-the-truth-not-so-great/

Asked about the Trump defenders seizing upon this “denial” as Joe Scarborough put it, Leonnig said Ornato’s “situation is not so great” because he broke the usual conventions of his position in order to function as an “acolyte” and right-hand man to Trump.


“This is a person who worked as President Trump’s security detail leader, the number one guy protecting the boss. And the boss liked him so much, he installed him in a political White House job,” Leonnig explained. “That broke every Secret Service tradition in the book, because he stayed as a Secret Service employee, but Trump essentially had him directing the Secret Service to make sure that all of its campaigns events, all of his photo ops, everything that he wanted to do to get re-elected went off without a hitch.”


As Leonnig continued to delve into Ornato’s fealty to Trump, she noted that even if he tries to claim Hutchinson’s recollection of events didn’t happen, “Tony Ornato has said a lot of things didn’t happen.”


“He has tried to say to the press and to me indirectly that the clearing of Lafayette Square was not done for President Trump’s photo on. Well, that’s not true. He was at the center of that,” Leonnig said. She also referred to former Trump officials Olivia Troye and Alyssa Farah, who’ve both painted Ornato as a liar.


“The Secret Service often tries to deny things that are unflattering and then when the rubber hits the road, we learn there is a little bit more to it,” Leonnig said. She added that it will be up to Ornato to testify on whether he exaggerated the Trump altercation story to Hutchinson before she laid it out in her testimony.

Plenty of people are backing up her credibility . . . anybody backing up Ornato?

When are you going to comment on Trump knowing there were armed people in the crowd and still went on stage? I haven't seen that yet. Lots of deflection with penny ante bullshit, though.

Before Trump, has a President ever been told "Mr President, there are people here that are armed and will not surrender their weapons" and he still went on stage? 

No comment on how Trump knew the crowd was armed and sent them down to the Capitol?

Nah, let's not discuss that. Let's question and pour doubt onto the source. It's shit like this is where you constantly come across much more as a Republican trying to muddy the waters than a supposed disgruntled ex-Democrat.

(06-30-2022, 05:50 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: How do you figure that?

(06-30-2022, 06:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is not a difficult concept.  If she's falsifying testimony or even repeating inaccurate information it throws the validity of everything she testifies to into question.  You're clearly a person who wants to get to the truth of what happened, you should be as upset about this as anyone.



Uhh, they're Secret Service agents, they joined to protect the POTUS, which btw is a high tier position in the agency.  Notice I said the POTUS, not Trump.  Unless you have some evidence they are compromised by some undying loyalty to Trump the default position is that they are not Trump loyalists.  Or are you asking for me to prove they are not?  Because that would be silly.

(06-30-2022, 06:42 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If Leonnig's report that members of the Secret Service cheering during the events taking place at the Capitol are true, then there is certainly reason to call into question the loyalties of those who were doing so. 

On top of that, Mr. Ornato's recent track record of stating what is or isn't the case is somewhat dubious. 

(06-30-2022, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If that is indeed the case then yes, for those specific agents, sure.  Is there any allegation that these two agents involved in the second hand story are one of those guys?

(06-30-2022, 07:08 PM)Lucidus Wrote: There's been no linking of Ornato or Engel I'm aware of to the cheering. In fact, it sounds like it was agents who were "watching" the events unfold. 

However, in the case of the vehicle story:

Ms. Hutchinson claims she was told the story by Mr. Ornato, in the presence of Mr. Engel. 
The Committee has already met with Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel in private meetings.
What Ornato and Engel told the Committee during those meeting hasn't become public.
Yet, the Committee felt comfortable putting Ms. Hutchinson under oath to tell her version of events.
One would think that something had to be said in those meetings to lend credence to Ms. Hutchinson's account.

Perhaps I'm allowing deductive reasoning to lead me to an incorrect conclusion, but it seems most logical to say that they determined there was sufficient reason to be Ms. Hutchinson.