When Will The F-ckwits at Fux Noise Realize The Jan6 Committee is not as Stupid as their Viewers?

[TrollBuster9090]

The Jan6 committee just set another awesome trap for the Republican/Trump clown crew, and they stepped in it.

First, Hutchinson testified UNDER OATH that Ornato told her the story in Engel's presence, and that Engel did not dispute it at the time. That's it. She didn't claim she saw it; and it doesn't qualify as hearsay.

Second, saying that anonymous, back channel 'sources' dispute that this happened is NOT a 'both sides' equivalence. If you want a 'both sides' story, get Ornato or Engel to deny the story, ALSO under oath.

But they're not going to do that, because they can't. What they'd like to do is put Ornato on the stand, and ask him to confirm or deny telling Hutchinson that story. But if they do that, it opens up the door to the committee asking him if the story is accurate or not, and if not, in what way is it inaccurate?

They'd rather just leave Ornato on 'background' saying the story is inaccurate. Not put him in the spotlight to say it's inaccurate because Trump was in a different SUV, and not 'The Beast.' Or, it's inaccurate because Trump actually grabbed the parking break instead of the wheel. Or, it's inaccurate because Trump actually said "I'm the fucking king of the universe!" instead of "I'm the fucking President of the United States!"

Yeah, let's not get into that. Let's just leave the details of the denial nice and fuzzy.

So, the committee let Hutchinson tell a story, and then let Fox News question it's credibility for three days; and spread the story that Ornato denies it.

...and then, BAM! Serve Ornato with a subpoena, leaving them all with that 'oh SHIT' look on their faces...

[FBaggins]

1. It absolutely qualifies as hearsay

Double hearsay really (she heard it from someone who heard it from someone else).

But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. This isn’ta court.

What they'd like to do is put Ornato on the stand, and ask him to confirm or deny telling Hutchinson that story. But if they do that, it opens up the door to the committee asking him if the story is accurate or not

Not necessarily. They could send an affidavit under oath.

[agingdem]

3. #1..the J6 committee hearings... not a court of law...no stand

#2..the J6 committee doesn't care about Ornato's he said/she said parsing of words..they've had corroborating testimony for months

#3..they want Cipollone in that witness chair..not everything is
executive privilege..(he's not a priest, the Oval Office is not a confessional)..

#4..the J6 committee wants Meadows to come out of hiding..

#5..Liz Cheney wants to fuck Jim Jordan's world...you go Liz!!

[SCantiGOP]

2. I shut a guy down on a forum today

He was arguing with several people, and he said no Republicans had been allowed to testify (??) and that none would be allowed.
I asked him if he thought Trump, Giuliani, Meadows or any of the other major players would be turned down if they wanted to appear. Several other people chimed in with lists of those requested to appear or even subpoenaed, but our MAGA troll had disappeared.

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. Doesn't matter. The stupid viewers are what draws in the revenue, not the Committee