Jan 6 Committee SUBORNED PERJURY.. Stunning Information of Closed-Door Testimony Revealed.

[jc456]

If it was subpoenaed then either the Committee already has it....or the Trump cover up team is fighting the subpoena they way they have fought all the others.

you still miss the point, why?

 

[jc456]

Because she didn't testify that it happened. She testified that was TOLD it happened.

Yea...that

told what happened that she knows nothing about?

 

[Faun]

Like I asked earlier:

Why would a committee, with an obvious politically driven purpose, ever publicly subpoena anyone with information that might undermine their case?

They don't have to subpoena members of the secret service. Unlike Trump and his orbiting bodies, they said they will fully comply with the committee's requests.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have the told it under oTh?

Hearsay is hearsay, whether or not it is under oath... Makes no difference. Firsthand verses thirdhand and no reports to back it up the thirdhand account... I'm going with firsthand accounts.

 

[Leo123]

Funny how all the TDSers suddenly care about testimony under oath after we had over 4 years of Democrat false allegations about Trump.

 

[Coyote]

Like I asked earlier:

Why would a committee, with an obvious politically driven purpose, ever publicly subpoena anyone with information that might undermine their case?

They don't have to subprona, they can accept volunteers. Didn't they extend an invitation?

IMO, all the fuss about this one insignificant part of her testimony is designed to deflect from the bulk of her testimony. I have no doubt she heard the story as she reported it. I suspect Ornato embellished it to make a better story. So are the events he described accurate? Maybe not. but that is on him and he has a reputation for lying.

 

[Faun]

Because she didn't testify that it happened. She testified that was TOLD it happened.

Yea...that

These idiots don't get that. They also don't get that Ornato could deny telling her that and it still doesn't prove she lied. Then it becomes a he said/she said stand off. Though should that happen AND Engel also denies Ornato told her that, then it's reasonable to believe she lied about that.

 

[Leo123]

Hearsay is hearsay, whether or not it is under oath... Makes no difference. Firsthand verses thirdhand and no reports to back it up the thirdhand account... I'm going with firsthand accounts.

Yes and remember, in a real trial, the defense attorney would object to hearsay testimony. This is nothing but a bullshit inquisition aimed at tearing down Trump because Lizzy (Miss Piggy) got her nose out of joint when Trump said mean things about her daddy.

 

[Coyote]

Hearsay is hearsay, whether or not it is under oath... Makes no difference. Firsthand verses thirdhand and no reports to back it up the thirdhand account... I'm going with firsthand accounts.

Only given under oath.

 

[Faun]

They don't have to subprona, they can accept volunteers. Didn't they extend an invitation?

IMO, all the fuss about this one insignificant part of her testimony is designed to deflect from the bulk of her testimony. I have no doubt she heard the story as she reported it. I suspect Ornato embellished it to make a better story. So are the events he described accurate? Maybe not. but that is on him and he has a reputation for lying.

On top of which, Ornato wasn't in the vehicle either. If he recalled that event to Hutchinson, it's only because he too heard it from someone. Possibly Engel.

 

[TemplarKormac]

you still miss the point, why?

Because he's doing so intentionally.

 

[Leo123]

They don't have to subprona, they can accept volunteers. Didn't they extend an invitation?

IMO, all the fuss about this one insignificant part of her testimony is designed to deflect from the bulk of her testimony. I have no doubt she heard the story as she reported it. I suspect Ornato embellished it to make a better story. So are the events he described accurate? Maybe not. but that is on him and he has a reputation for lying.

They won't accept exculpatory testimony, they are not a court of law. They are simply an inquisition meant to slur, slander and slam Trump because they are scared stiff he will run in 2024.

 

[Leo123]

Only given under oath.

Yeah? So what? One can testify they heard something from someone who heard something and be under oath. It's still hearsay and, as I mentioned, in a REAL court, the defense attorney would call bullshit hearsay on that testimony and object.

 

[TemplarKormac]

IMO, all the fuss about this one insignificant part of her testimony is designed to deflect from the bulk of her testimony.

Because if we were at all truly interested in the facts of the matter, we would naturally care about the veracity of her testimony. In whole and in part.

Also, making a claim that the president assaulted his agents in the SUV is not "insignificant.' It requires proof that neither the witness nor committee has.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Only given under oath.

According to the transcripts, they already were under oath, and they already discounted this story. Epic Fail.. That is why we know they Suborned Perjury.

 

[Lesh]

These idiots don't get that. They also don't get that Ornato could deny telling her that and it still doesn't prove she lied. Then it becomes a he said/she said stand off. Though should that happen AND Engel also denies Ornato told her that, then it's reasonable to believe she lied about that.

Who says Engle won't lie to support his boss?

 

[TemplarKormac]

They don't have to subprona, they can accept volunteers. Didn't they extend an invitation?

It is unwise legal practice to volunteer any information, exculpatory or otherwise, without doing so under oath or subpoena.

Podcast - Rule 8: Do Not Volunteer Information | Insights | Holland & Knight

Dan Small continues his in-depth 10-part series on the rules for witness preparation.

www.hklaw.com

 

[Lesh]

Yeah? So what? One can testify they heard something from someone who heard something and be under oath. It's still hearsay and, as I mentioned, in a REAL court, the defense attorney would call bullshit hearsay on that testimony and object.

Then why even talk about it.

There was more in her testimony...things that mattered.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Furthermore, if this accusation were true, they would have subpoenaed the records pertaining to the event itself.

 

[Rambunctious]

LOLOLOL

Suuuure, rambtard. Sure.

That must explain why you couldn't quote those agents saying what you claim they said.

I can't quote them the committee won't allow them to testify... why would that be dummy?.... but since we are working on hearsay here... They have told a friend to tell the media and the committee that they would like to clear this up... they said through this friend of the SS that Trump never did the things that bitch said he did... so fuck her and also fuck you too.... bidentard... did you see the market again today dummy?.... are you enjoying the biden presidency??? LMFAO.... what an idiot you are to vote for that corrupted old man....