Remember when Secret Service agents claimed they'd testify under oath that Cassidy Hutchinson was wrong about Trump in the SUV on January 6, and then they admitted later that yeah she's actually right?

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Those are exactly the words used in this latest round of testimony. We still do not know for sure whether the grabbing of the steering wheel and attempted choking ever happened and if all that was some kind of joke/ story told to Hutchinson.

... Hee Hee! The liberal lads can do insults
if they care to... THAT just shows they are blue 'cause
they've lost this arguement.

If the Hutchenson girl is correct that Ornato told her
the story - you'd surely think that a Thursday night
"Prime Time" hearing on the telly would be the
perfect place to have Ornato CONFIRM the story.

OR have one o' the lads who was inside the car
TELL ALL of AMERICA (or at least whomever is watching)
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! ... Give a first-hand accounte.

But NO... That didn't happen.

And it surely begs the question - WHY NOT??

#### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Hee Hee! The liberal lads can do insults
if they care to... THAT just shows they are blue 'cause
they've lost this arguement.

If the Hutchenson girl is correct that Ornato told her
the story - you'd surely think that a Thursday night
"Prime Time" hearing on the telly would be the
perfect place to have Ornato CONFIRM the story.

OR have one o' the lads who was inside the car
TELL ALL of AMERICA (or at least whomever is watching)
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! ... Give a first-hand accounte.

But NO... That didn't happen.

And it surely begs the question - WHY NOT??

#### Salty

It would actually be more respectful to his people had he actually tried to go instead of hiding at the WH dinner table!

He got those suckers all worked up to hang Pence and then actually left them hanging!

[1blackman1]

The Secret Service agents in the vehicle (including Ornato, who was a White House staff at the time) have declined to voluntarily testify under oath to the Jan 6 committee. That is so interesting considering that they were supposedly jumping out initially to dispute Hutchinson's testimony. Now they are worried about being under oath and having to answer questions. Why would that be? All you Trumpys claimed they were gonna put her lies out there. What happened with that. Guess maybe disputing her isn't worth having to admit all the other stuff they would have to testify to under oath.

[Yssup Rider]

They only know what their propagandists tell them.

If they were ready to expose Hutchinson’s “lies” under oath they would have done it right away.

Maybe now the Trumpites will accept the truth.

Or not.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Hee Hee! The liberal lads can do insults
if they care to... THAT just shows they are blue 'cause
they've lost this arguement.

If the Hutchenson girl is correct that Ornato told her
the story - you'd surely think that a Thursday night
"Prime Time" hearing on the telly would be the
perfect place to have Ornato CONFIRM the story.

OR have one o' the lads who was inside the car
TELL ALL of AMERICA (or at least whomever is watching)
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! ... Give a first-hand accounte.

But NO... That didn't happen.

And it surely begs the question - WHY NOT??

#### Salty

Why not? Because they refused. They couldn’t debunk the truth.

And your be.key’s gotta hurt after swallowing so much Trump disinformation for so long.

Back to possum stew, mate!

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The Secret Service agents in the vehicle (including Ornato, who was a White House staff at the time) have declined to voluntarily testify under oath to the Jan 6 committee. That is so interesting considering that they were supposedly jumping out initially to dispute Hutchinson's testimony. Now they are worried about being under oath and having to answer questions. Why would that be? All you Trumpys claimed they were gonna put her lies out there. What happened with that. Guess maybe disputing her isn't worth having to admit all the other stuff they would have to testify to under oath.

... Ornato was NOT in the vehicle that President Trump
was in - and the lads who were have ASKED to testify
- and the committee don't want them.

... Not onley are YOU being lied-to by the Committee, mate
- you're giving false info on this to the forum lads.
And I'm not gonna let that happen.

#### Salty

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The Secret Service agents in the vehicle (including Ornato, who was a White House staff at the time) have declined to voluntarily testify under oath to the Jan 6 committee. That is so interesting considering that they were supposedly jumping out initially to dispute Hutchinson's testimony. Now they are worried about being under oath and having to answer questions. Why would that be? All you Trumpys claimed they were gonna put her lies out there. What happened with that. Guess maybe disputing her isn't worth having to admit all the other stuff they would have to testify to under oath.

Wow! That's an interesting take from a guy who assured us that these people were going to come to the committee and tell us everything that was said to Hutchison and prove that this committee had done their due diligence in telling the American people, the facts and nothing but the facts, but NOW, no big deal, just take our word for it.


As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if they now do not want to appear, means they did lie. That the story going around is that SOMEBODY, told Hutchinson, as a joke, and that everything she said was made up and all this committee had to do was verify this story outside the hearing room before going on air. When one wants to prove they didn't lie, they raise their hand and take an oath to be truthful under penalty of perjury.


Now, will these people be held in contempt of Congress, tried and put in jail like Bannon?



Unless and until these guys testify, anything Hutchinson said, one being an assault by the President of the United states on a subordinate and perhaps attempted murder! How would we know if the assaulted party won't testify?


So what happened to the truth tellers?

[dilbert firestorm]

Hutchinson said she was an insurrectionist!

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Ornato was NOT in the vehicle that President Trump
was in - and the lads who were have ASKED to testify
- and the committee don't want them.

... Not onley are YOU being lied-to by the Committee, mate
- you're giving false info on this to the forum lads.
And I'm not gonna let that happen.

#### Salty

Link. Any link.

I’ll start.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/22/trum...gren-says.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...tify?_amp=true

https://www.thedailybeast.com/liz-ch...n-6-under-oath

[1blackman1]

HF, I honestly do not know what the fuck you’re trying to say in that inchoate rambling word mash.

It appears Hutchinson testified truthfully as to what she, and evidently others, were told occurred. Whether Ornato, Engle or whomever else was lying or exaggerating or embellishing the story has nothing to do with Hutchinson’s testimony being truthful, which was and is the issue at hand.

Trumpys, you, the ECCIE Idiot Crew, Fox News and Newsmax said that Hutchinson was lying. Which is simply appearing to be false. It appears she testified truthfully to what she was told by Ornato.

As soon as she testified, supposedly the Secret Service was gonna send Ornato, Engle and the driver out to refute the content of the story under oath. Ornato even supposedly was gonna refute telling the story to Hutchinson under oath. Now they have lawyered up and are no longer willing to go under oath to do either of the above. I suspect that’ll change if they are subpoenaed but I’m not sure the committee needs their testimony so why bother. If they wanted to go testify under oath they could do so. Otherwise, Hutchinson’s under oath testimony will stand.

Why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp I don’t know. It’s not rocket science.

[Salty Again]

THIS is how you do yer lawyering, 1blackman1?... How Sad.

WHAT are you tryin' to pull? ... So Hutchinson is NOT lying
because that's the story she was told??! ... Then the FACTS
of the story are a LIE... So then just because she repeated
a lie - that makes everything alright??

And WHY would the Secret Service be sending out the lads
who were in the car TO REFUTE her story IF IT WAS THE TRUTH!

WHY - and for WHAT REASON??

Didn't Engle just testify last Thursday?? ... Wasn't HE the bloke?
The fellow called what happened "a heated discussion" - NO mention
whatsoever of President Trump grabbing the steering wheel or
grabbing a fellow by the neck... In fact, the news media say
he "DOWNGRADED" the story.

WHY also - would those lads all need to "lawyer up" if they
could just simply TELL THE TRUTH??

See? ... That's the difference between YOU and ME.
I WANT THEM to testify and tell the truth... And you want them
to hide behind barristers and keep their mouths SHUT.

Thursday night - PRIME TIME - and nobody to corrobourate her story.

NOBODY!

#### Salty

[Yssup Rider]

Holy mother of pearl.

Salty, you continue to rant and rave but haven’t yet offered one shred of evidence supporting your position.

1b1 on the other hand, has.

What part of “prove it” don’t you get?

[Salty Again]

... What evidence?? ... I'm going by his-own comments and views.
Opinion-pieces are no good.

#### Salty

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Sounds like "you" problem.

It "appears"? Since when is "it appears", good enough when people that can corroborate the story, will not APPEAR? There is now reasonable doubt as to whether the story was true.

"Evidently" others? Who? Who else heard this story? Did they testify as much or does it merely "appear" for convenience, that there were others?

Good fucking grief. If you ever said that in a courtroom before a judge, you'd be laughed out of the room. You do understand the difference between lying and exaggerating don't you?

Definition of exaggerate

1: to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth : OVERSTATE

So to exaggerate, is to lie.

You mean like Rittenhouse "appeared" to have not acted in self defense? What "appeared" to you in that case was wrong on your part. Maybe you are wrong on this too. Never said Hutchinson was lying. Another example of you making shit up to fit your narrative. As a matter of fact, I assumed that Hutchinson was telling the truth because the committee wouldn't allow somebody to lie and that surely they checked out this story before putting her on national TV but "apparently" they didn't. I said then as I am saying now, I'm questioning what she was told and until I hear direct testimony, ( do I have to remind you the value of direct testimony ) I will continue to doubt her story.

How the hell would you know that until Ornato testifies? Again, how often do you tell a judge that something appears to be this or that. You must hear "where is you evidence counselor" an awful lot.

Yeah, it will stand as "UN-determined" since no direct, available evidence will be presented appearently.

Thank goodness because your rocket just crashed and burned along with your lack of lawyerly acumen.

Definition of acumen

: keenness and depth of perception, discernment, or discrimination especially in practical matters

[Yssup Rider]

Jeepers HF, you done what abouted and hijacked your own post mid rant.