A bad day for Trump
-
@Horace said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Deeply unsettling. Ax, how do you feel about this allegation?
Fake news. I feel bad about you being taken in by it.
-
@Axtremus said in A bad day for Trump:
@Horace said in A bad day for Trump:
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
Deeply unsettling. Ax, how do you feel about this allegation?
Fake news. I feel bad about you being taken in by it.
I'm sorry to have made you feel badly. I feel badly about making you feel badly.
-
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.
-
@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.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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.
Paywall...
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@George-K 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.
Paywall...
I feel badly that Ax has more subscriptions than I do. That’s two times Ax has made me feel badly. I only made him feel badly once.
-
@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.
-
-
@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.
-
-
@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?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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.
-
@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.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
-
