Steering Wheel Gate was a hoax.

[hadit]

She wasn't there. She testified to what Ornato told her. He resigned. You're really dumb.

The bottom line here is that the Orange Man Bad brigade went nuts over the idea that TRUMP! tried to grab the wheel of the limo, repeating the story incessantly as if they were proving something nefarious about him. It was gently pointed out to them at the time that it was preposterous to even think that it happened, but, as usual, their minds were impervious to logic and/or reason and they kept hammering at it, thinking they were making some serious point, and stuff. She should never have recounted the story under oath, as she had no way of knowing if it was true or not, and her questioners should have noted the same at the time. They were, however, just like Dan Blather, more interested in causing damage than in getting to the real truth.

Pretending now that it was never a big deal is dumb.

 

[hadit]

As I've already said, folks, widen your gaze. Defenders of all things Don are jumping up and down about Cassidy being contradicted as if it is meaningful. It isn't. It does not discredit her first hand testimony about what she saw in person. Nor does it damage the credibility of the Jan. 6 committee's findings.

But the rubes think it does. Or at least they want to believe it does. More accurately put, THEY NEED TO BELIEVE IT DOES.

Actually, when a person testifies under oath to what they are not sure is true, it DOES detract from their credibility. It goes to establish an agenda instead of a dispassionate recounting of fact. IOW, what purpose was served by her recounting the story? Answer, none, and now the usual suspects are desperately trying to pretend they knew all along, that it never was a big deal, etc., when at the time they went nuts.

 

[hadit]

The Jan 6 Clown Show has no credibility. Why did they showcase the liar and her hearsay instead of the limo driver?

Hmmmmmm……

That is the point. This testimony undercuts the credibility of the entire proceeding. What purpose was served by including a second-hand story that was not verified to be true? That's the question everyone should be asking.

 

[Lesh]

The bottom line here is that the Orange Man Bad brigade went nuts over the idea that TRUMP! tried to grab the wheel of the limo, repeating the story incessantly as if they were proving something nefarious about him. It was gently pointed out to them at the time that it was preposterous to even think that it happened, but, as usual, their minds were impervious to logic and/or reason and they kept hammering at it, thinking they were making some serious point, and stuff. She should never have recounted the story under oath, as she had no way of knowing if it was true or not, and her questioners should have noted the same at the time. They were, however, just like Dan Blather, more interested in causing damage than in getting to the real truth.

Pretending now that it was never a big deal is dumb.

Huchinson testified about far more than this.

Most notably she testified about Trump knowing there were armed people in the rally crown and him wanting the metal detectors removed so they could travel through the crowd freely

Idiot Trumpers think that if they can attack this small part of her testimony they can undermine all of it.

They can't do either

 

[Lesh]

That is the point. This testimony undercuts the credibility of the entire proceeding. What purpose was served by including a second-hand story that was not verified to be true? That's the question everyone should be asking.

She was illustrating Trump's state of mind that day

Including his throwing food against the wall

 

[berg80]

The bottom line here is that the Orange Man Bad brigade went nuts over the idea that TRUMP! tried to grab the wheel of the limo, repeating the story incessantly as if they were proving something nefarious about him. It was gently pointed out to them at the time that it was preposterous to even think that it happened, but, as usual, their minds were impervious to logic and/or reason and they kept hammering at it, thinking they were making some serious point, and stuff. She should never have recounted the story under oath, as she had no way of knowing if it was true or not, and her questioners should have noted the same at the time. They were, however, just like Dan Blather, more interested in causing damage than in getting to the real truth.

Pretending now that it was never a big deal is dumb.

The actions that took place in the car were only a big deal in the sense of learning Trump wanted to go to the Capital to be with his mob. We know he did.

 

[hadit]

The actions that took place in the car were only a big deal in the sense of learning Trump wanted to go to the Capital to be with his mob. We know he did.

The story is false, and should not have been included. The only reason they included it was to further inflame Orange Man Bad passions. That is the point.

 

[Lesh]

The story is false, and should not have been included. The only reason they included it was to further inflame Orange Man Bad passions. That is the point.

False? Ornato lied to her?

 

[berg80]

The story is false, and should not have been included. The only reason they included it was to further inflame Orange Man Bad passions. That is the point.

He acknowledged on tape that he wanted to go to the Capital but the SS said no. That's the story. Everything else is noise.

 

[hadit]

Huchinson testified about far more than this.

Most notably she testified about Trump knowing there were armed people in the rally crown and him wanting the metal detectors removed so they could travel through the crowd freely

Idiot Trumpers think that if they can attack this small part of her testimony they can undermine all of it.

They can't do either

Oh, okay, you think that the credibility of someone's entire testimony is not undermined when they include things they don't know to be true. Or is that only as long as they're testifying about Orange Man Bad?

Thought experiment: Would someone testifying that they overheard Quid Pro Joe shaking down Zelenskyy for a kick-back have their credibility threatened if they also included a story someone else told them wherein Quid Pro purchased cocaine for Hunter, as story later proven to be false? The Steele dossier was largely rendered moot by the inclusion of the peepee story. Yes, including things not known to be true in sworn testimony is problematic, even if the target is Orange Man Bad.

 

[hadit]

False? Ornato lied to her?

You tell me. The driver said it never happened. Which of them lied?

 

[hadit]

He acknowledged on tape that he wanted to go to the Capital but the SS said no. That's the story. Everything else is noise.

No, you're HOPING that is the story. It is not. The story is that the House democrats were so eager to destroy TRUMP! that they included testimony they did not verify to be true. Dan Blather lost his career over something very similar.

 

[hadit]

The actions that took place in the car were only a big deal in the sense of learning Trump wanted to go to the Capital to be with his mob. We know he did.

And that is where the testimony should have gone, not into the false story of trying to grab the wheel, a story that inflamed the Orange Man Bad brigades, which was the intention.

 

[Nostra]

Huchinson testified about far more than this.

Most notably she testified about Trump knowing there were armed people in the rally crown and him wanting the metal detectors removed so they could travel through the crowd freely

Idiot Trumpers think that if they can attack this small part of her testimony they can undermine all of it.

They can't do either

How does she know Trump knew there were armed people in the crowd? For that matter, how would Trump know?

You Clowns are unhinged.

 

[Nostra]

She was illustrating Trump's state of mind that day

Including his throwing food against the wall

Prove it.

 

[Nostra]

False? Ornato lied to her?

No, she lied.

Prove her story, Simp.

 

[hadit]

Prove it.

And therein lies what they are desperately trying to avoid. Once a witness has testified under oath to something they do not know is true, and which is later shown to be false, the rest of their testimony is suspect as well. If she's willing to recount a story she doesn't know to be true, hoping to paint a picture of Orange Man Bad, what else is she willing to fudge in things no one else can disprove?

 

[Care4all]

And therein lies what they are desperately trying to avoid. Once a witness has testified under oath to something they do not know is true, and which is later shown to be false, the rest of their testimony is suspect as well. If she's willing to recount a story she doesn't know to be true, hoping to paint a picture of Orange Man Bad, what else is she willing to fudge in things no one else can disprove?

I highly doubt she chose for the public hearing, what behind the closed door testimony she had given to the investigators ....would be chosen to give before the public.

Why blame Cassidy? She was always clear, it was what she was told, not first hand.

The investigators in my head, would be the ones to blame, if blame needs giving out!

 

[eagle1462010]

I highly doubt she chose for the public hearing, what behind the closed door testimony she had given to the investigators ....would be chosen to give before the public.

Why blame Cassidy? She was always clear, it was what she was told, not first hand.

The investigators in my head, would be the ones to blame, if blame needs giving out!

She got nice book deals saying that BS.

Like Steele. Unverified BS.

DNC is a fertilizer company now.

 

[hadit]

I highly doubt she chose for the public hearing, what behind the closed door testimony she had given to the investigators ....would be chosen to give before the public.

Why blame Cassidy? She was always clear, it was what she was told, not first hand.

The investigators in my head, would be the ones to blame, if blame needs giving out!

I agree, they should have never allowed testimony that was not verified to be true. By including this, they revealed that their intention was not to get the truth, but to destroy TRUMP!.