Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
I'd assume there are rules about USSS agents testifying that probably require clearance from the agency. Plus, as I understand it, the Ornato guy was an agent who took leave to become a political appointee in Trump's White House and then went back into the USSS detail after Trump lost. I suppose it's possible they've asked him to testify, but he's refused to testify willingly like others in Trump's orbit.

The pressing question of the hearing(s) wasn't whether Trump attacked a Secret Service agent, but whether he knew the mob was armed and wanted to join them at the Hill. She testified that she had *firsthand* knowledge of both of those things. Maybe they felt they didn't need his testimony to establish that. (And FWIW, they had some of his text messages to establish at least the first point - Trump's knowledge that some in the crowd had come armed).

What's interesting is that we're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that she's lying - under oath - and a political appointee (Ornato) is telling the truth - not under oath. Maybe the Committee is using a favorable witness and she is lying (and would face perjury charges, nevermind the death threats she's received and the political career in the GOP that she's flushed down the toilet by testifying). Or maybe they'd love to get him under oath and ask him those very same questions but he refuses to do so willingly. Again, as it stands now, he's saying all of this through the USSS spokesperson.
Funny how the snowflakes claim she lied in front of a congressional hearing under oath all the while they continue to ignore congressional subpoenas.
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
So you call the Jan 6 committee hearings a”dog and pony show” and insinuate it’s a sham bc the Rs can’t cross examine (by the way one of the most conservative members of Congress just so happens to co-chair and did all of the questioning yesterday and you’re either ignorant of the way this committee came about or you do know and choose to gaslight), yet you reach back into your hat rack and put the tinfoil on to suggest the former POTUS & Sec of St somehow off people.
First of all, it is a dog and pony show. I fully expect them to trot out Jussie Smollett any day now. Secondly, to infer that Liz Cheney is somehow an unbiased participant in this fiasco because she is republican is hilarious. I'm not even sure what the Dems are trying to accomplish here but I fully expect them to screw it up and eventually start eating their own young. Everyone wants Trump gone. We all do, but the truth is that without Trump to rail against the Dems are just a bunch of empty suits with zero substance. They simply must have Trump and will do everything humanly possible to keep him relevant because without him they have to face the fact that their policies are an absolute failure. To your last point, everyone knows the Clintons have people killed:runaway:. For your trouble

 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,191
21,205
1,743
"We all want Trump out."

While simultaneously defending against or dismissing any attempts to investigate and any criticism of Trump.

While simultaneously professing to not be paying any attention to the investigations or hearings. :derp:
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,662
5,421
1,743
Somewhere
First of all, it is a dog and pony show. I fully expect them to trot out Jussie Smollett any day now. Secondly, to infer that Liz Cheney is somehow an unbiased participant in this fiasco because she is republican is hilarious. I'm not even sure what the Dems are trying to accomplish here but I fully expect them to screw it up and eventually start eating their own young. Everyone wants Trump gone. We all do, but the truth is that without Trump to rail against the Dems are just a bunch of empty suits with zero substance. They simply must have Trump and will do everything humanly possible to keep him relevant because without him they have to face the fact that their policies are an absolute failure. To your last point, everyone knows the Clintons have people killed:runaway:. For your trouble

How would you even know if you haven't been paying attention?

There is a term for this...do you know what it is called? Cognitive dissonance.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,869
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
First of all, it is a dog and pony show. I fully expect them to trot out Jussie Smollett any day now. Secondly, to infer that Liz Cheney is somehow an unbiased participant in this fiasco because she is republican is hilarious. I'm not even sure what the Dems are trying to accomplish here but I fully expect them to screw it up and eventually start eating their own young. Everyone wants Trump gone. We all do, but the truth is that without Trump to rail against the Dems are just a bunch of empty suits with zero substance. They simply must have Trump and will do everything humanly possible to keep him relevant because without him they have to face the fact that their policies are an absolute failure. To your last point, everyone knows the Clintons have people killed:runaway:. For your trouble

I want democracy defended, therefore I applaud what the Committee is doing - even if somewhere deep down some of them have ulterior motives that are at least partly political.

And I guess the question to wrestle with is if the Committee is motivated by pure politics, what about the witnesses who have, almost 100% to a person, been Trump supporters. Hell, the Arizona guy who was practically in tears because of his experiences said the next day that he'd vote for Trump again.

I guess it boils down to one of two things: either I'm deeply naive, or you're deeply cynical.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,662
5,421
1,743
Somewhere
I'm actually all for a legitimate investigation of Trump. You know, one where witnesses are called and both sides get to question them.
That doesn't work when one side refuses to participate at all--which was their choice. When they did that, they lost their ability to credibly complain about not being able to cross examine.

This is pretty simple to understand. Are you tracking at all?
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
"We all want Trump out."

While simultaneously defending against any attempts to investigate and any criticism of Trump.

While simultaneously professing to not be paying any attention to the investigations or hearings. :derp:
lol. Why do you keep editing your posts? Did you think of something "clever" to ad after reading someone else's response? Bahahaha, haven't watched one second of the hearings. I do however, read several news sources every day and your star witness made some pretty questionable claims yesterday counselor.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
39,065
10,957
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
I'm actually all for a legitimate investigation of Trump. You know, one where witnesses are called and both sides get to question them.
Yeah, they HAD THAT CHANCE...and they REFUSED to do it.

Trump has even called it a Mistake now (of course he blamed it on Kevin McCarthy). Hell Even McCarthy said they should have participated now.

Wow you really aren't paying attention are you.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,869
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
lol. Why do you keep editing your posts? Did you think of something "clever" to ad after reading someone else's response? Bahahaha, haven't watched one second of the hearings. I do however, read several news sources every day and your star witness made some pretty questionable claims yesterday counselor.
This pretty well says it all.
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
Yeah, they HAD THAT CHANCE...and they REFUSED to do it.

Trump has even called it a Mistake now (of course he blamed it on Kevin McCarthy). Hell Even McCarthy said they should have participated now.

Wow you really aren't paying attention are you.
That's a hard sell. They tried to participate early and Ol' Nance wasn't having any of it. Did twitter not cover that part?
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
I want democracy defended, therefore I applaud what the Committee is doing - even if somewhere deep down some of them have ulterior motives that are at least partly political.

And I guess the question to wrestle with is if the Committee is motivated by pure politics, what about the witnesses who have, almost 100% to a person, been Trump supporters. Hell, the Arizona guy who was practically in tears because of his experiences said the next day that he'd vote for Trump again.

I guess it boils down to one of two things: either I'm deeply naive, or you're deeply cynical.
You're deeply naïve and I'm a little bit cynical:thumbup:
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
39,065
10,957
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
That's a hard sell. They tried to participate early and Ol' Nance wasn't having any of it. Did twitter not cover that part?
One of the Hand Picked people McCarthy requested to put on the Committee actually was revealed last week WITH evidence that he sought a Pardon for all 140+ House GOP members who voted AGAINST certifying the election.
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
One of the Hand Picked people McCarthy requested to put on the Committee actually was revealed last week WITH evidence that he sought a Pardon for all 140+ House GOP members who voted AGAINST certifying the election.
So you now admit that the Rs did try to participate in the committee? Evidence put forth an vetted by whom? Woops there I go being cynical again.