06-30-2022, 05:01 PM
(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.
Agreed. It will be even more interesting, and telling, if they are given the chance to do so by the Jan. 6th committee.
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?
This is true, but Trump will also lash out at anyone who he feels is attacking him. He doesn't need to feel afraid or threatened to engage in that behavior. I would stress that the two Secret Service agents that flat out refute this testimony cannot be labeled Trump sycophants or known liars. Also, does it bother anyone else that testimony that would never come close to being allowed in court is being broadcast as fact by Congress? I rather think this whole thing is far too important to allow second hand testimony, or at the very least to lend it automatic validity.