A bad day for Trump
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Secret Service Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato.
This is <checks notes> hearsay, of course, but if it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for TNCR, right?
A source close to former Trump Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Tony Ornato says he did not brief Jan. 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson on one of the major allegation she made to the committee Tuesday.
Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified to lawmakers Tuesday that Ornato told her former President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that the Secret Service take him to the Capitol on January 6. Ornato further told Hutchinson, according to her, that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that.
However, a source close to Ornato told Fox News that Ornato watched the hearing yesterday and was shocked when Cassidy made the allegation about the steering wheel.
Both Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump's Secret Service detail who was in the car, and Ornato, who was not in the car, testified to the January 6 Committee in private over the past year, the source close to Ornato said.
Engel and Ornato never brought up part about steering wheel, according to that source. Both want to testify on the record again and refute the part about Trump grabbing or trying to grab the wheel. The driver of the SUV, who is unnamed, will also cooperate with the committee.
A source close to the USSS says Hutchinson was truthful when she said that Trump was furious inside the SUV. Trump did want to go to the Capitol on January 6 and was yelling and shouting. However, the steering wheel part is false, per this source.
What lawyer ( and most of those idiots are lawyers) would not verify hearsay with a primary source?
wrote on 29 Jun 2022, 23:01 last edited by@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Secret Service Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato.
…This is <checks notes> hearsay, of course, but if it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for TNCR, right?
Hearsay under oath ≠ hearsay not under oath.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
This article breaks down various parts of Hutchinson's testimony, carefully classifying for which parts she testified as a direct witness and for which other parts she provided second hand recounting ("hearsay"), and calling out the significance of each:
It turns out for the most part she was a direct witness to events recounted in her testimony; only on the "Trump tried to grab the steering wheel" part did she recounted the event second hand.
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
Now, I figure if the woman would lie about something as easily discernable as people fighting over a steering wheel, the truth ain't in her.
wrote on 29 Jun 2022, 23:03 last edited by@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
-
wrote on 29 Jun 2022, 23:04 last edited by
A bad day for Mr. Trump
would be a good day for almost anyone else.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
wrote on 29 Jun 2022, 23:11 last edited by@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
-
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
wrote on 29 Jun 2022, 23:18 last edited by@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
- Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
No, not specifically. However, there are two things that come into play.
-
She was inconsistent in her use of "The Beast" vs a Secret Service SUV. Which was it? Were you confused? Was the person who told you this confused? In either case, why should she be believed if she can't get her story straight as to where it happened, as told by a third party.
-
If her testimony can be countered by people who were there (i.e. the Secret Service agents), why believe anything else she said?
-
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
- Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
No, not specifically. However, there are two things that come into play.
-
She was inconsistent in her use of "The Beast" vs a Secret Service SUV. Which was it? Were you confused? Was the person who told you this confused? In either case, why should she be believed if she can't get her story straight as to where it happened, as told by a third party.
-
If her testimony can be countered by people who were there (i.e. the Secret Service agents), why believe anything else she said?
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 00:28 last edited by@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
- Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
No, not specifically.
OK, I will just wait until a falsehood has been established (if that ever happens) before going further with this line of inquiry.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 00:36 last edited by Jolly@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
Now, quit the gags and stick to the subject.
-
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 00:38 last edited by@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
As I said above, a legal principle is "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus."
-
Has it been established that there is a falsehood in Hutchinson’s testimony?
-
Is the aforementioned legal principle applicable here? Think of it this way: every one lies about something at some points in their lives, a strict universal application of that principle would disqualify every testimony. Yet we live in the world where many testimonies have been accepted. So clearly that principle is only applied under some conditions but not others.
- Yes. If the Secret Service has notified the committee that agents will be happy to be sworn in to refute her testimony, I consider her to be lying.
- Weasel words.
-
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
Now, quit the gags and stick to the subject.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 00:39 last edited by Axtremus@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
You brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
You brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 00:42 last edited by@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, and you look enough like a "slant-eyed bastard" as he termed most folks of Asian descent, that I doubt you'd have said boo-shit to the man.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, and you look enough like a "slant-eyed bastard" as he termed most folks of Asian descent, that I doubt you'd have said boo-shit to the man.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 01:01 last edited by@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, …
Of course not, you are the one who brought out Uncle Henry with a quote attributed to Uncle Henry. I asked an Uncle Henry question only after you brought out an Uncle Henry quote.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
This article breaks down various parts of Hutchinson's testimony, carefully classifying for which parts she testified as a direct witness and for which other parts she provided second hand recounting ("hearsay"), and calling out the significance of each:
It turns out for the most part she was a direct witness to events recounted in her testimony; only on the "Trump tried to grab the steering wheel" part did she recounted the event second hand.
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
Now, I figure if the woman would lie about something as easily discernable as people fighting over a steering wheel, the truth ain't in her.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 01:39 last edited by@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
This article breaks down various parts of Hutchinson's testimony, carefully classifying for which parts she testified as a direct witness and for which other parts she provided second hand recounting ("hearsay"), and calling out the significance of each:
It turns out for the most part she was a direct witness to events recounted in her testimony; only on the "Trump tried to grab the steering wheel" part did she recounted the event second hand.
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
Now, I figure if the woman would lie about something as easily discernable as people fighting over a steering wheel, the truth ain't in her.
How does your Uncle Henry’s wisdom affect your view of President Trump?
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 05:20 last edited by
Uncle Henry also liked having money in his pocket.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 05:22 last edited by
Fun with Jessie...
Link to video
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 11:44 last edited by
Wasn’t Trump attacked by the left for not showing up at the Capitol when he told the protesters he would be?
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 11:48 last edited by
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 12:51 last edited by Mik
As Greenwood says further down in the Tweet:
"It's literally impossible to count how many times during the Trump years some blockbuster! Russiagate event materialized - the thing that was going to be the fatal blow - and journalists spent all day on Twitter reflexively peddling it, only to watch it fall apart over and over."
THIS alone is why I don't believe any of this crap.
-
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 12:55 last edited by
There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.
She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.
Just another ploy ginned up by this guy...
-
There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.
She changed to a Democrat lawyer three weeks before her testimony.
Just another ploy ginned up by this guy...
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 13:50 last edited by@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
There is a speech pattern in her testimony that occurs over and over again. IIRC, it's words to the effect. It's obvious she was coached up for her testimony by a lawyer or legal team that knew her story was full of hearsay and holes, and needed to CYA the silliness.
You keep repeating the falsehood that her testimony is “full of hearsay.” The fact is that her testimony has a lot more “direct witness” material than hearsay. E.g., among things recounted in her testimony:
-
Trump saying to remove the magnetometers and let armed protesters in … she’s a direct witness to Trump saying those things.
-
Then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s warning about the criminal liability leading up to Jan. 6 … she’s direct witness to Cipollone making the warning
-
Kevin McCarthy’s phone call to Hutchinson expressing surprise and anger that Trump said (while speaking to a crowd) that he was going to the Capitol and McCarthy telling the Trump team not to go to the Capitol … she’s direct witness and party to that phone call, McCarthy called her.
-
After the Capitol was breached, then White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s angry reaction to Trump’s inaction, Cipollone’s verbalized worry about the Trump team being responsible for people dying as a result … she’s direct witness to Cipollone’s reactions and statements.
Itemizing the events recounted in her testimony (and the USA Today article I linked to earlier did that) and you would see that there are a lot more “direct witness” matters than “hearsay” in her testimony.
-
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
My old Uncle Henry used to say, If a person will lie about one thing, they'll lie about something else.
How often does Uncle Henry think Trump is lying?
Nice deflection.
I brought out a Uncle Henry quote, I asked a direct Uncle Henry question; no deflection at all. You are the one deflecting from my direct question.
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, and you look enough like a "slant-eyed bastard" as he termed most folks of Asian descent, that I doubt you'd have said boo-shit to the man.
wrote on 30 Jun 2022, 13:53 last edited by Catseye3@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
No, you've never met Uncle Henry, you don't know Uncle Henry, and you look enough like a "slant-eyed bastard" as he termed most folks of Asian descent, that I doubt you'd have said boo-shit to the man.
So because your Uncle Henry disliked people of Asian descent, people of Asian descent are by definition fearful of Uncle Henry??
Did Uncle Henry know about the Bataan Death March, by chance?
