Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incorrect. Ornato heard it from Bobby Engel.
It is still hearsay, IMO, and again...since this is not a trail, the technicalities don't matter quite as much except insofar as those who understand WHY hearsay evidence is not admissible, will also understand that until her statement is corroborated by someone who was actually there (such as Engel or the driver or hell, not that it'd happen, Trump himself)...it should be taken with a grain of salt by the listener.
A RATIONAL person would say, "Cool story, if true. Will wait for verification, though."
Would not leap to "she could be lying so I insist that she IS lying, and not only about this but every other word she's ever spoken! Ha!" No, that's not how this works. Not how any of this works.
She might be telling the truth. Or lying. Or wrong. Or passing along info that was given to her that was untrue or incorrect coming from Ornato.
Quote:
Hutchinson is hearing it third hand from an unnamed source.
Third hand, yes. Unnamed, no.
Quote:
Is that not an anonymous source that even if Hutchinson's story is proven false she can't get hit with perjury and neither can Ornato.
Democrats knew they'd get this testimony and chose to not ask the secret service. Now the secret service says not only were they not asked the testimony is "BS."
Are you not being manipulated?
She can be hit with perjury if Ornato says, "I never said that to her." Especially if it can then be proven that he did not.
If Engel, for instance, who was also in the room where this conversation happened as well as in the vehicle when the incident happened, were to say, "Ornato never said that to her, I was there, he said no such thing. Also, it did not even happen." then...she's on the hook for perjury.
But if Ornato said it, she is in the clear. Even if HE lied. And also if Engel lied to him, and then he repeated it.
Wow, Mick Mulvaney was an acting Trump White House chief of staff for over a year.
A stunning 2 hours:
1)Trump knew the protesters had guns
2)He assaulted his own security team
3)There may be a line from ProudBoys to the WH
4)Top aides asked for pardons
5)The commission thinks they have evidence of witness tampering.
Link please. You are putting bold statements. Where are you getting your "facts"?
USSS spokesperson Anthony Gugliemi confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that the committee did not contact it in the days ahead of the hearing, after it was first reported by Politico. The committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.
So your source is saying the committee talked to them today and told you they back her story?
You would need to watch the hearings. That is where the "facts" are coming from. What is being repeated over and over and over is her testimony.
When she got back to the West Wing, she was in a room with Ornato and Engel. Engel was the agent who rode with Trump, who supposedly restrained him from grabbing the steering wheel and allegedly he tried to choke his neck. That guy. Ornato said, "did you hear what happened" and told her what he had been told by Engel. Engel, who was sitting right there, did not refute or correct him in his account.
And I don't know what the heck you're talking about with Politico and Fox News.
Engel has given testimony already before this. They have not shown most of it. It was on video, not live televised. They have shown very brief bits of it, very much downplayed. I can't even picture his face in my mind. We do not know if he has already given testimony in detail about the incident (which was not aired) or if he did not. The recorded statement we heard was that he and Trump had something like a "difference of opinion"... Very diplomatically stated. The truth, I would argue, but hardly the whole truth.
NOT watching, but I've read & heard some snippits.
I cancelled Trump after he agreed to Trillions more in deficit spending, but I must tell you, these hearings are so egregious, I'm actually thinking about maybe supporting Trump again...IF he promised to reduce spending.
Why? He was much closer to draining the swam than I ever knew before, which these fake hearings illustrates....along with the 2 or 3 fake impeachments...I didn't watch those either...but they've been proven now to be fakes.
The lengths the uber left is going to trash Trump makes me want to un-cancel him, and vote for him, so he can finish his work. I was starting to think he was a phony swamp drainer...not now. They are scared shytliss of him.
Last edited by beach43ofus; 06-29-2022 at 05:34 PM..
Engel's sworn deposition already attests to the broad details that he and Trump had a confrontation in the vehicle on where they were going. He did not elaborate on the steering wheel issue and was not asked to because it had not been revealed at the time he made his deposition. He simply chose not to elaborate on the details of their confrontation. I suspect he could add details if needed.
Engel is one of Trump's hand picked agents, and fiercely loyal to him, from the accounts I've seen. He may have wanted to gloss it over to protect "The Boss". Cassidy blew that idea right up.
You would need to watch the hearings. That is where the "facts" are coming from. What is being repeated over and over and over is her testimony.
When she got back to the West Wing, she was in a room with Ornato and Engel. Engel was the agent who rode with Trump, who supposedly restrained him from grabbing the steering wheel and allegedly he tried to choke his neck. That guy. Ornato said, "did you hear what happened" and told her what he had been told by Engel. Engel, who was sitting right there, did not refute or correct him in his account.
And I don't know what the heck you're talking about with Politico and Fox News.
Engel has given testimony already before this. They have not shown most of it. It was on video, not live televised. They have shown very brief bits of it, very much downplayed. I can't even picture his face in my mind. We do not know if he has already given testimony in detail about the incident (which was not aired) or if he did not. The recorded statement we heard was that he and Trump had something like a "difference of opinion"... Very diplomatically stated. The truth, I would argue, but hardly the whole truth.
You are repeating her hearsay testimony. Has the committee verified her testimony with the S.S. and first hand witnesses? they haven't. They put a witness with NO first hand knowledge that she heard. Why do they need her testimony? Go with the first hand witness. They had 1 1/2 years to get it.
BREAKING: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection has issued a subpoena to former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone, saying it required his testimony after obtaining evidence about which he was “uniquely positioned to testify.”
Prediction: If Cipollone testifies to the committee and doesn't hide behind the 5th....Trump will face criminal charges from the DOJ.
I would like to see the guys in the war room in the Willard hotel. They would all be taking the fifth.
The number of Trump staff taking the fifth is amazing. It throws the GOP under the bus. Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) perfect example. Love to see him taking the fifth on live TV.
If Navarro is accurate there are 100 GOP members of the House and Senate who may have played a role in the insurrection.
Meadows almost went over to meet with them, luckily he cancelled, smart move.
Objectively speaking. There has been a witch hunt on Trump from before he was sworn in. You are smart enough to know this. Yes some Trump dirt is real, but there has been a witch hunt.
I think this is all, everything you mentioned, more witch hunt. For example, is Trump an obnoxious guy who pushed election nonsense? Yes. Did Trump actually incite a riot, especially to the degree the law requires for a conviction? Emphatically no.
Maybe the Democrats could get a charge in a very blue district with all democrats in the courtroom. But we are really approaching banana republic level stuff here.
I don't think Trump will run either, but many Democrats are afraid that he will and could win.
This J6 committee is a performance to damage Trump with innuendo and manipulations, with just enough truth sprinkled in.
We'll see. Your scenarios are as valid as mine. That's why this message board exists. None of us has a clue what is going to happen until it does. It's the speculation based on ever changing clues that makes the whole game fun.
None of us should ever take ourselves too seriously. If you come here and it makes you angry, you should find another hobby.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
