Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would take a LOT more than just that....in fact, there is NOTHING that could lend credibility to this committee of demented avenger subverted demoralized zombies!!!until the committee calls the secret service agents it lacks credibly
why won’t the committee have the agents testify?Grab some bench. Nothing has been proven that any thing Hutchinson testified to is a lie.
Tony Ornato may be in a bit of a fix if he told others besides Hutchinson that DJT assaulted a secret service agent in Jan 6.
So I doubt his lawyers will allow him to go back to the Committee to say something different than he did in previous testimony before Committee.
They already have and they mentioned the fact that there was a conflict over going to the Capitolwhy won’t the committee have the agents testify?
hahaha the agents denied what your bombshell witness said.They already have and they mentioned the fact that there was a conflict over going to the Capitol
Really? Post quoteshahaha the agents denied what your bombshell witness said.
i have…others haveReally? Post quotes
What were the committee absolutely definitely positively wants the agents to testify. I’m saying that one particular agent Tony Ornato, who has testified previously will not volunteer to testify again.why won’t the committee have the agents testify?
the agents that were the alleged victims of truman assault want to testify…What were the committee absolutely definitely positively wants the agents to testify. I’m saying that one particular agent Tony Ornato, who has testified previously will not volunteer to testify again.
It's a joke. Just like proven jokes from the Impeachments. It's Hearsay evidence and this circus didn't allow good cross examination by cherry picking a couple of disgraced RINOs for the GOP side.I doubt that little story is very high on the DOJ's radar, comparatively.
It's just fluff in the big picture. He wanted to go to the capitol to "lead" this thing.
Courts don't allow hearsay evidence. And again this is not a court of law. Just a Mickey Mouse production of TDS.Grab some bench. Nothing has been proven that any thing Hutchinson testified to is a lie.
Tony Ornato may be in a bit of a fix if he told others besides Hutchinson that DJT assaulted a secret service agent in Jan 6.
So I doubt his lawyers will allow him to go back to the Committee to say something different than he did in previous testimony before Committee.
Tony Ornato may be in a bit of a fix if he told others besides Hutchinson that DJT assaulted a secret service agent in Jan 6.
She wasn't in the car. And tries to dramatize something she never saw.
As you define Hearsay evidence. Which is not allowed in court for a reason.If the agent(s) do not testify again ...and some poster offered a cogent opinion on why the SS is reluctant to get involved in anything that smacks of politics....but if they do not, well then, I could imagine the Committee scouring the landscape for some "others" that Omato may have described the scene that Hutchinson testified she was told by Omato.
If they find one or more.....they will be in front of the Committee's investigators and the American public will see videos of that under oath testimony. IMHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that seems clear. She wasn't in the car.
Although notably, she never claimed she was.
And it is true she never saw the wrestling match that was described to her.
Nor did she claim she did.
Rather, she testified she was told about it by a third party while they were in the presence of the guy who WAS in the car, and who WAS involved in the wrestling. And who did not object to the description. If you recall, Cheney was fairly thorough in questioning Hutchinson about any objection or denial. I suspect Cheney has an ace up her sleeve on this issue. If I was criticizing her or the Committee or Hutchinson on this particular story.....well, I'd be wary. Why were they being so careful?
But that's just me.
Personally, I find it rather preposterous that this young Republican woman, a highly-regard White House administrator would lie to the Committee while under oath. And knowing, that the two men she describes were in the room could promptly deny it...if it wasn't true. She seems too cautious and careful to expose herself in such a reckless manner.
Cassidy Hutchinson doesn't appear to have the level of hubris that, say, a Rudy Giuliani or a Don Trump possess who, in my opinion, have gotten away with fibs so often that they've kind of grown unaware or dismissive when they've been caught in a fib.
Hutchinson ain't like that, as near as I can tell from the afternoon of testimony I watched. This is a prudent cautious gal, IMHO.
No one is going to be charged based on this dingbat's testimony. What she's accusing him of doing isn't even a crime, you fucking moron.I doubt that little story is very high on the DOJ's radar, comparatively.
It's just fluff in the big picture. He wanted to go to the capitol to "lead" this thing.
All the dumbest, most credulous posters in this forum are the ones supporting it.It would take a LOT more than just that....in fact, there is NOTHING that could lend credibility to this committee of demented avenger subverted demoralized zombies!!!
And, the posters here that are adamantly supporting this abortion of American Justice are completely void of self awareness! They are the very definition of useful IDIOTS.
Holy crap, grow up.No one is going to be charged based on this dingbat's testimony. What she's accusing him of doing isn't even a crime, you fucking moron.
In other words, hearsay evidence. Only gullible morons like you believe anyone will be convicted of anything based on that. You come to resemble the worst of the Trump-hating woke morons more and more every day.Holy crap, grow up.
She reported what she was told, not what she saw. She made that abundantly clear, even for someone like you. Most normal adults know that.
In a show trial. Not a trial. But you want to make it sound like one.Holy crap, grow up.
She reported what she was told, not what she saw. She made that abundantly clear, even for someone like you. Most normal adults know that.
OK?As you define Hearsay evidence. Which is not allowed in court for a reason.
CALL: "In other words, hearsay evidence. Only gullible morons like you believe anyone will be convicted of anything based on that. You come to resemble the worst of the Trump-hating woke morons more and more every day."
Constantly attacking. It's all you know.In other words, hearsay evidence. Only gullible morons like you believe anyone will be convicted of anything based on that. You come to resemble the worst of the Trump-hating woke morons more and more every day.
