Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/

According to this, Tony Oronato’s actions that day are of great interest to the committee. And Pence knew not to trust certain agents that day.

It’s very strange for a USS member to become political staff also.

Extremely odd.

Also he lied about another witness’s testimony regarding LaFayette square. It’s interesting for sure how much rests on this guy’s knowledge and actions. But to be sure, if he isn’t truthful, it will all come out anyway.

Aren’t there two other people stating she lied as well?

No. There is a report from an anonymous source. Not even names attached, much less sworn testimony. She had no reason to make it up. It’s not even the important part of her testimony.


I think the most important part of her testimony is the bit about him knowing the crowd was armed and heading to the Capitol, the part about him knowing they were chanting for the death of the VP, and his own subsequent statements about the VP. They guy was trying to overthrow the election with violence. The end.

I don’t think that’s right. There were definitely two others, one named, the other the limo driver. If one part of her testimony is in question by SS, then the rest can’t be trusted either. Furthermore, they would have arrested Trump long ago on solid evidence, if they had it. The committee would not be necessary.

1) then they should all testify under oath. At the moment, one person has testified as to what another person said. Unless of until someone else testifies under oath to take exception, there is zero validity as to what someone reports via twitter
2) this is distracting from the more damning parts of the testimony, that there was foreknowledge of the violence that was to take place, that Trump was upset that his supporters who were brandishing weapons at the ellipse were being scanned for weapons, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/

According to this, Tony Oronato’s actions that day are of great interest to the committee. And Pence knew not to trust certain agents that day.

It’s very strange for a USS member to become political staff also.

Extremely odd.

Also he lied about another witness’s testimony regarding LaFayette square. It’s interesting for sure how much rests on this guy’s knowledge and actions. But to be sure, if he isn’t truthful, it will all come out anyway.

Aren’t there two other people stating she lied as well?

No. There is a report from an anonymous source. Not even names attached, much less sworn testimony. She had no reason to make it up. It’s not even the important part of her testimony.


I think the most important part of her testimony is the bit about him knowing the crowd was armed and heading to the Capitol, the part about him knowing they were chanting for the death of the VP, and his own subsequent statements about the VP. They guy was trying to overthrow the election with violence. The end.

I don’t think that’s right. There were definitely two others, one named, the other the limo driver. If one part of her testimony is in question by SS, then the rest can’t be trusted either. Furthermore, they would have arrested Trump long ago on solid evidence, if they had it. The committee would not be necessary.

1) then they should all testify under oath. At the moment, one person has testified as to what another person said. Unless of until someone else testifies under oath to take exception, there is zero validity as to what someone reports via twitter
2) this is distracting from the more damning parts of the testimony, that there was foreknowledge of the violence that was to take place, that Trump was upset that his supporters who were brandishing weapons at the ellipse were being scanned for weapons, etc.

They said they were willing to testify under oath. It’s whether they are allowed that will be interesting. And you can’t cherry pick statements. If it turns out she lied or remembered wrong, then the entire testimony comes under question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/

According to this, Tony Oronato’s actions that day are of great interest to the committee. And Pence knew not to trust certain agents that day.

It’s very strange for a USS member to become political staff also.

Extremely odd.

Also he lied about another witness’s testimony regarding LaFayette square. It’s interesting for sure how much rests on this guy’s knowledge and actions. But to be sure, if he isn’t truthful, it will all come out anyway.

Aren’t there two other people stating she lied as well?

No. There is a report from an anonymous source. Not even names attached, much less sworn testimony. She had no reason to make it up. It’s not even the important part of her testimony.


I think the most important part of her testimony is the bit about him knowing the crowd was armed and heading to the Capitol, the part about him knowing they were chanting for the death of the VP, and his own subsequent statements about the VP. They guy was trying to overthrow the election with violence. The end.

I don’t think that’s right. There were definitely two others, one named, the other the limo driver. If one part of her testimony is in question by SS, then the rest can’t be trusted either. Furthermore, they would have arrested Trump long ago on solid evidence, if they had it. The committee would not be necessary.

1) then they should all testify under oath. At the moment, one person has testified as to what another person said. Unless of until someone else testifies under oath to take exception, there is zero validity as to what someone reports via twitter
2) this is distracting from the more damning parts of the testimony, that there was foreknowledge of the violence that was to take place, that Trump was upset that his supporters who were brandishing weapons at the ellipse were being scanned for weapons, etc.

She already gave her sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Until the "unnamed source" comes forward and testifies under oath, anything contradicting her existing sworn testimony is nothing but unsubstantiated rumor and has zero relevance to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/

According to this, Tony Oronato’s actions that day are of great interest to the committee. And Pence knew not to trust certain agents that day.

It’s very strange for a USS member to become political staff also.

Extremely odd.

Also he lied about another witness’s testimony regarding LaFayette square. It’s interesting for sure how much rests on this guy’s knowledge and actions. But to be sure, if he isn’t truthful, it will all come out anyway.

Aren’t there two other people stating she lied as well?

No. There is a report from an anonymous source. Not even names attached, much less sworn testimony. She had no reason to make it up. It’s not even the important part of her testimony.


I think the most important part of her testimony is the bit about him knowing the crowd was armed and heading to the Capitol, the part about him knowing they were chanting for the death of the VP, and his own subsequent statements about the VP. They guy was trying to overthrow the election with violence. The end.

I don’t think that’s right. There were definitely two others, one named, the other the limo driver. If one part of her testimony is in question by SS, then the rest can’t be trusted either. Furthermore, they would have arrested Trump long ago on solid evidence, if they had it. The committee would not be necessary.

1) then they should all testify under oath. At the moment, one person has testified as to what another person said. Unless of until someone else testifies under oath to take exception, there is zero validity as to what someone reports via twitter
2) this is distracting from the more damning parts of the testimony, that there was foreknowledge of the violence that was to take place, that Trump was upset that his supporters who were brandishing weapons at the ellipse were being scanned for weapons, etc.

They said they were willing to testify under oath. It’s whether they are allowed that will be interesting. And you can’t cherry pick statements. If it turns out she lied or remembered wrong, then the entire testimony comes under question.

Sorry, that's not how it works. You'd have to have someone specifically dispute every other part of her testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/

According to this, Tony Oronato’s actions that day are of great interest to the committee. And Pence knew not to trust certain agents that day.

It’s very strange for a USS member to become political staff also.

Extremely odd.

Also he lied about another witness’s testimony regarding LaFayette square. It’s interesting for sure how much rests on this guy’s knowledge and actions. But to be sure, if he isn’t truthful, it will all come out anyway.

Aren’t there two other people stating she lied as well?

No. There is a report from an anonymous source. Not even names attached, much less sworn testimony. She had no reason to make it up. It’s not even the important part of her testimony.


I think the most important part of her testimony is the bit about him knowing the crowd was armed and heading to the Capitol, the part about him knowing they were chanting for the death of the VP, and his own subsequent statements about the VP. They guy was trying to overthrow the election with violence. The end.

I don’t think that’s right. There were definitely two others, one named, the other the limo driver. If one part of her testimony is in question by SS, then the rest can’t be trusted either. Furthermore, they would have arrested Trump long ago on solid evidence, if they had it. The committee would not be necessary.

In your delusional MAGA dreams. The steering wheel story is not her story. She told what Ornato told her. If it was embellished, he did it, not her. She is very precise in relating what people said. That skill is why she was important in the White House. Half of her job was accurately telling her boss what other people said and telling other people what her boss said. She was not an embellisher. She is careful with her words. She was surrounded by liars in the White House.

Her CYA file must be miles long. She was smart enough to know when push comes to shove she would be left hanging.

[Anonymous]

Well, I personally don't think I would trust the testimony of the SS in this case. Too many hooker scandals and drunk on duty issues

[Anonymous]

Never ever in the history of testimony has someone ever given false testimony!

The ratings of these hearings are deplorable. The vast majority of the country has moved on. This grandstanding non both sides is wasting time and money. The country has moved on and is worried about inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and high gas prices. They really do not care as much as the small minority of posters here seem to think they do or should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never ever in the history of testimony has someone ever given false testimony!

The ratings of these hearings are deplorable. The vast majority of the country has moved on. This grandstanding non both sides is wasting time and money. The country has moved on and is worried about inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and high gas prices. They really do not care as much as the small minority of posters here seem to think they do or should.

Completely false. Millions are watching. Millions want accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never ever in the history of testimony has someone ever given false testimony!

The ratings of these hearings are deplorable. The vast majority of the country has moved on. This grandstanding non both sides is wasting time and money. The country has moved on and is worried about inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and high gas prices. They really do not care as much as the small minority of posters here seem to think they do or should.

That’s your best defense of Trump here? You must think he’s guilty too.

[Anonymous]

The driver can’t refute her story because her story is that this is what Ornato told her. The driver wasn’t in Ornato’s office when he told her. If it happened, Ornato and Engle aren’t going to admit it because they will protect Trump. There is no doubt that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was pissed when told he couldn’t. We know that because Trump said so when he got back to the White House. McEnany corroborated that he was mad and still wanted to go to the Capitol. If your only dispute with Hutchinson’s testimony is whether Trump could reach the steering wheel, that’s an irrelevant detail that may have been exaggerated by Engle telling Ornato or by Ornato telling Hutchinson. You still have Trump reaching for the driver, Engle grabbing Trump’s arm, and Trump grabbing Engle. Hutchinson didn’t make all that up. It’s the story she was told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I personally don't think I would trust the testimony of the SS in this case. Too many hooker scandals and drunk on duty issues

For sure a lot of lines were crossed by Secret Service - especially under Trump.

But either way, one and only one person can refute what she testified to, and that is Ornato, because what she testified to is what Ornato told her. If Republicans want Ornato to refute what she said then they need to issue a subpoena for his sworn testimony.

Until then all you have is unsubstantiated rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The driver can’t refute her story because her story is that this is what Ornato told her. The driver wasn’t in Ornato’s office when he told her. If it happened, Ornato and Engle aren’t going to admit it because they will protect Trump. There is no doubt that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was pissed when told he couldn’t. We know that because Trump said so when he got back to the White House. McEnany corroborated that he was mad and still wanted to go to the Capitol. If your only dispute with Hutchinson’s testimony is whether Trump could reach the steering wheel, that’s an irrelevant detail that may have been exaggerated by Engle telling Ornato or by Ornato telling Hutchinson. You still have Trump reaching for the driver, Engle grabbing Trump’s arm, and Trump grabbing Engle. Hutchinson didn’t make all that up. It’s the story she was told.

The driver was in the office when Ornato told her the story. Also, the do not dispute that Trump was irate when he was told they could not go to the Capitol. Sounds like they told her more than they wish they had, but regardless, it doesn’t matter whether he laid hands on the guy or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The driver can’t refute her story because her story is that this is what Ornato told her. The driver wasn’t in Ornato’s office when he told her. If it happened, Ornato and Engle aren’t going to admit it because they will protect Trump. There is no doubt that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was pissed when told he couldn’t. We know that because Trump said so when he got back to the White House. McEnany corroborated that he was mad and still wanted to go to the Capitol. If your only dispute with Hutchinson’s testimony is whether Trump could reach the steering wheel, that’s an irrelevant detail that may have been exaggerated by Engle telling Ornato or by Ornato telling Hutchinson. You still have Trump reaching for the driver, Engle grabbing Trump’s arm, and Trump grabbing Engle. Hutchinson didn’t make all that up. It’s the story she was told.

Oh boy. I thought Engle was the driver. No? Then the driver can’t refute that Ornato told her that story, but he could certainly have already corroborated that Trump lunged at the wheel. He could certainly corroborate that someone’s clavicle was endangered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The driver can’t refute her story because her story is that this is what Ornato told her. The driver wasn’t in Ornato’s office when he told her. If it happened, Ornato and Engle aren’t going to admit it because they will protect Trump. There is no doubt that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was pissed when told he couldn’t. We know that because Trump said so when he got back to the White House. McEnany corroborated that he was mad and still wanted to go to the Capitol. If your only dispute with Hutchinson’s testimony is whether Trump could reach the steering wheel, that’s an irrelevant detail that may have been exaggerated by Engle telling Ornato or by Ornato telling Hutchinson. You still have Trump reaching for the driver, Engle grabbing Trump’s arm, and Trump grabbing Engle. Hutchinson didn’t make all that up. It’s the story she was told.

Oh boy. I thought Engle was the driver. No? Then the driver can’t refute that Ornato told her that story, but he could certainly have already corroborated that Trump lunged at the wheel. He could certainly corroborate that someone’s clavicle was endangered.

Oh I thought Engel was in the car? Anyway. Doesn’t really matter. Obviously they were shook by whatever happened and told her something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never ever in the history of testimony has someone ever given false testimony!

The ratings of these hearings are deplorable. The vast majority of the country has moved on. This grandstanding non both sides is wasting time and money. The country has moved on and is worried about inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and high gas prices. They really do not care as much as the small minority of posters here seem to think they do or should.

Good thing under Biden we FINALLY had Infrastructure Week!
For the rest of your complaints, most of us can be concerned about more than one thing at a time. Yesterdays hearing didn’t even take away from legislation, the members are on recess!