President Joe Biden

tenacious said:
But they won't. Not only that, I'd be willing to wager money we don't get an actually quote from the agent in charge describing what happened before the 2024 election.
Click to expand...

The agent most likely to have rebuttal testimony (Tony Ornato) is already being criticized for his penchant for self-serving dishonesty by others who worked with him. This could end up in she said - he said - she said - he said circus.

Remember espola rule #1 -- always tell the truth - that way you only have one story to remember.
 
Last edited:
espola said:
The agent most likely to have rebuttal testimony (Tony Ornato) is already being criticized for his penchant for self-serving dishonesty by others who worked with him. This could end up in she said - he said - she said - he said circus.

Remember espola rule #! -- always tell the truth - that way you only have one story to remember.
Click to expand...

I hope he testifies.
Idk. In fairness to him, when push came to shove Tony chose not to drive Trump over to the Capital Building. I think that's worth something. So if he were to testify under oath I would likely believe him.
 
tenacious said:
But they won't. Not only that, I'd be willing to wager money we don't get an actually quote from the agent in charge describing what happened before the 2024 election.
Click to expand...
And if they dont its because the committee doesnt want the credibilty of their "bombshell" witness impugned. That should tell you all you need to know about these hearings.

Multiple MSM sources are reporting that they want to testify and there is nothing that legally prevents them from doing so.

It sounds like because you saw him in the front seat in NY years ago that you may have already made up mind.
 
espola said:
The agent most likely to have rebuttal testimony (Tony Ornato) is already being criticized for his penchant for self-serving dishonesty by others who worked with him. This could end up in she said - he said - she said - he said circus.

Remember espola rule #1 -- always tell the truth - that way you only have one story to remember.
Click to expand...
Sounds like more hearsay......
 
watfly said:
And if they dont its because the committee doesnt want the credibilty of their "bombshell" witness impugned. That should tell you all you need to know about these hearings.

Multiple MSM sources are reporting that they want to testify and there is nothing that legally prevents them from doing so.

It sounds like because you saw him in the front seat in NY years ago that you may have already made up mind.
Click to expand...

Idk. I can remember in 2008, when the Dems took control of the House and tried to compel Bush's SS agents to testify about Bush's conversations with his lawyers and in private meetings they had overheard; as there was concern from the Dems regarding the nature of Bush's relationship with big oil. It's been long enough I could be misremembering, but as I recollect the court cases went on for years and the agents never ended up testifying.
 
Secret Service Agents
Told To Testify
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 1998; Page A01

A federal judge ordered Secret Service officers yesterday to reveal what they know about President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, dismissing dire warnings that such testimony would jeopardize the safety of presidents by destroying their trust in the agents who guard them.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who has sided with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in several recent decisions related to his investigation of Clinton, ruled that Secret Service personnel are obligated as law enforcement officers to turn over evidence in a criminal probe and refused to create a special "protective function privilege" that would exempt them.

 
tenacious said:
Idk. I can remember in 2008, when the Dems took control of the House and tried to compel Bush's SS agents to testify about Bush's conversations with his lawyers and in private meetings they had overheard; as there was concern from the Dems regarding the nature of Bush's relationship with big oil. It's been long enough I could be misremembering, but as I recollect the court cases went on for years and the agents never ended up testifying.
Click to expand...
Lion Eyes said:
Secret Service Agents
Told To Testify
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 1998; Page A01

A federal judge ordered Secret Service officers yesterday to reveal what they know about President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, dismissing dire warnings that such testimony would jeopardize the safety of presidents by destroying their trust in the agents who guard them.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who has sided with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in several recent decisions related to his investigation of Clinton, ruled that Secret Service personnel are obligated as law enforcement officers to turn over evidence in a criminal probe and refused to create a special "protective function privilege" that would exempt them.

Click to expand...
From Politico:

Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told POLITICO that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing.

“[W]e were not asked to reappear before the Committee in response to yesterday’s new information and we plan on formally responding on the record,” he wrote in an email. “We have and will continue to make any member of the Secret Service available.”
 
Lion Eyes said:
Secret Service Agents
Told To Testify
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 23, 1998; Page A01

A federal judge ordered Secret Service officers yesterday to reveal what they know about President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, dismissing dire warnings that such testimony would jeopardize the safety of presidents by destroying their trust in the agents who guard them.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who has sided with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in several recent decisions related to his investigation of Clinton, ruled that Secret Service personnel are obligated as law enforcement officers to turn over evidence in a criminal probe and refused to create a special "protective function privilege" that would exempt them.

Click to expand...

Ahh gotcha. Okay I stand corrected. Now I'm with you guys, let's hear the agents...

MSN

www.msn.com
 
watfly said:
From Politico:

Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told POLITICO that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing.

“[W]e were not asked to reappear before the Committee in response to yesterday’s new information and we plan on formally responding on the record,” he wrote in an email. “We have and will continue to make any member of the Secret Service available.”
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow why it's important they testify within ten days. You think Trump grabbing the steering would have been a detail they forgot to add (or not add) into their first testimony?

Guess maybe I was a defense lawyer grasping at straws I could see your concern... but as someone trying to understand the truth I'm more interested in the agents testimony given before they have had the opportunity to listen to what everyone else had said.
 
tenacious said:
I'm not sure I follow why it's important they testify within ten days. You think Trump grabbing the steering would have been a detail they forgot to add (or not add) into their first testimony?

Guess maybe I was a defense lawyer grasping at straws I could see your concern... but as someone trying to understand the truth I'm more interested in the agents testimony given before they have had the opportunity to listen to what everyone else had said.
Click to expand...
No clue what the relevance of the 10 days is. Interesting "grasping at straws" comment. I hope you only mean that as a back handed insult directed at me and don't truly believe that. I'd be troubled if you think defendants can be convicted on hearsay and aren't entitled to a rebuttal witness.

While dramatic and it certainly got the MSM wetting their pants in joy, her testimony really wasn't all that relevant. Having a bad temper isn't an impeachable offense. The fact that it was mostly 2nd and 3rd hand reports is just evidence of the fact that the hearing is more of a kangaroo court. I'd argue the salacious, but not criminal, testimony is more a sign of a desperate prosecutor.

So I guess I don't really care that much about her testimony either way. What he did or didn't do in regards to Georgia and Arizona election officials is really what's relevant.
 
watfly said:
No clue what the relevance of the 10 days is. Interesting "grasping at straws" comment. I hope you only mean that as a back handed insult directed at me and don't truly believe that. I'd be troubled if you think defendants can be convicted on hearsay and aren't entitled to a rebuttal witness.

While dramatic and it certainly got the MSM wetting their pants in joy, her testimony really wasn't all that relevant. Having a bad temper isn't an impeachable offense. The fact that it was mostly 2nd and 3rd hand reports is just evidence of the fact that the hearing is more of a kangaroo court. I'd argue the salacious, but not criminal, testimony is more a sign of a desperate prosecutor.

So I guess I don't really care that much about her testimony either way. What he did or didn't do in regards to Georgia and Arizona election officials is really what's relevant.
Click to expand...
Wanting to lead an insurrectionist armed mob into the Capitol for the expressed purpose of overturning American Democracy is irrelevant to you?
 
watfly said:
No clue what the relevance of the 10 days is. Interesting "grasping at straws" comment. I hope you only mean that as a back handed insult directed at me and don't truly believe that. I'd be troubled if you think defendants can be convicted on hearsay and aren't entitled to a rebuttal witness.
Click to expand...

This is the sentence that was tripping me up when I asked why ten days was important.

watfly said:
From Politico:
Anthony Guglielmi, the service’s chief of communications, told POLITICO that select committee investigators did not ask Secret Service personnel to reappear or answer questions in writing in the 10 days before asking Hutchinson about the matter at the hearing.
Click to expand...
 
watfly said:
While dramatic and it certainly got the MSM wetting their pants in joy, her testimony really wasn't all that relevant. Having a bad temper isn't an impeachable offense. The fact that it was mostly 2nd and 3rd hand reports is just evidence of the fact that the hearing is more of a kangaroo court. I'd argue the salacious, but not criminal, testimony is more a sign of a desperate prosecutor.

So I guess I don't really care that much about her testimony either way. What he did or didn't do in regards to Georgia and Arizona election officials is really what's relevant.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not making a backhanded compliment. Merely pointing out that while in a court of law the judge get's to say what the jury gets to consider... that isn't the bar I'm following. I.e. many things that would be of interest to a trained lawyer, aren't necessarily what concerns me.

If we're going to have a good debate, it seemed fair to mention that. I make television and can speak to bad acting and a good understanding of the craft of entertainment.
 
espola said:
Wanting to lead an insurrectionist armed mob into the Capitol for the expressed purpose of overturning American Democracy is irrelevant to you?
Click to expand...
Based on hearsay, yes. First hand report, no. "Wanting" and "doing" are two separate things. Wanting is not a crime but IMO opinion it disqualifies him from being President. The FBI already ruled that it wasnt a coordinated attack on the Capitol. He is certainly guilty of not stopping it.
 
tenacious said:
I'm certainly not making a backhanded compliment. Merely pointing out that while in a court of law the judge get's to say what the jury gets to consider... that isn't the bar I'm following. I.e. many things that would be of interest to a trained lawyer, aren't necessarily what concerns me.

If we're going to have a good debate, it seemed fair to mention that. I make television and can speak to bad acting and a good understanding of the craft of entertainment.
Click to expand...
And I'm more interested in facts and due process than entertainment value. There is too much focus on the latter in the hearings which impacts its credibility.

I also don't want a tit for tat when the Rs are in charge of Congress in 6 months. Do you really want hours of Hunters sex tapes being broadcast in Congressional hearings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top