So how else can you see this:
1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
So if a person is proven to be a liar, do you then pick and choose what YOU choose to believe?
A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
https://twitter.com/peteralexander/status/1541910389289635841
1 Like
You are Sgt. Schultz. You have seen “NOTHING…NOTHING!!!”
You want to repeat what someone else told you (becoming a regular thing with Democrats) and have absolutely no idea of the totality of the evidence presented.
You are willfully ignorant of the facts, and you aim to keep it that way. No point in discussing further with you as all you want to do is run in circles. Most Americans, including an increasing number of Democrats, have concluded that things weren’t exactly on the up-and-up in 2020.
Watch the movie, look at EVERYTHING that was presented and then you can ask questions. Until then, you are just a parrot repeating talking points.
it appears from this one sentence perfectly distilled by vox editors that it was a bad decision based on a particular gambler’s preferences. but this ignores what i am sure is a mountain of other details
has nothing to do with trump himself.
cant you be a little more circumspect?
When there are a dozen or more other examples, including Trump admitting to playboy that racist comments attributed to him are most likely accurate, a pattern emerges, no?
Obviously. That’s why none of it went anywhere. Understand, wrong doesn’t mean criminally wrong. He did himself and no one else any good.
An anonymous source vs. testimony under oath?
Which do you think is more credible? I know what you’ve said about anonymous sources.
Now…the more relevant question to determine if any perjury might have taken place…
…are they prepared to testify that Mr. Ornato didn’t TELL Ms. Hutchinson that Trump did all this?
Mr. Engel was there when the story was told, according to Ms. Hutchinson…so let’s see if Mr. Engel refutes Ms. Hutchinson’s assertion that this is what she was told.
It’s amazing that anything more needs to be argued on that specific count. Your simple framing makes it laughable enough.
But it’s not just an anonymous source: we know who the players are and their names. The only identity being protected here is the . . . source for some reason, not the two players involved. E and O could have, you know, easily talked to the media themselves. Hey, go on Fox and tear that liar to pieces.
If someone flat-out lied about me during Congressional testimony, that’s probably what I’d try to do (or the equivalent). But no: instead, we get this veiled source, and a statement that (for the kids in the back) does not refute anything she said. Again: She never claimed Trump did this. So why are they denying that, even with all the qualifications, rather than denying the actual thing that’s being disputed?
I asked earlier in the thread and never got an answer about a key point of fact: Without them Googling, I don’t think those claiming Hutchinson is a “proven liar” (LOL) even fully know what it is that they think she’s lying about. Like I said, who did she say told her this lie? I’ve posted Cheney’s questioning of Hutchinson on this twice now, but it’s like trying to communicate with a team of Ralph Wiggums.
2 Likes
The listed reporter is NOT anonymous and has put his professionalism on the line. Second, IF the committee was searching for the truth, they’d have gone right to the source and heard it from the horse’s mouth. The fact that didn’t happen indicates rather strongly, being credible wasn’t the intent. Then intent was to sheoplize any and all that would feed from their trough and then regurgilbleat it today in every circle they travel…period.
1 Like
Of course. It’s a sanctioned “leak” - possibly Mr. Ornato himself, and certainly at his direction.
But the same is true of most leaks, which is my secondary (or tertiary? I lose count) point.
The same is true of every anonymous source you’ve ever disparaged and reflexively dismissed on this board.
The way this was brought out is what’s laughable. They didn’t ask those directly involved, they got it second hand so that they have an out.
Not their (E and O) job. They aren’t investigating Trump, the committee is. If they go with hearsay testimony and don’t call up the people with direct knowledge, they have only demonstrated their failure as investigators. And everyone would know full well why they weren’t called.
And few would be surprised.
1 Like
Ahem, asked what? What specifically do you think is disputed here?
Btw - Ornato and Engel both testfied extensively to the Committee.
Here…since you’re having such a rough time understanding the word anonymous;
anonymous
ə-ˈnä-nə-məs
ADJECTIVE
of unknown authorship or origin
an anonymous tip
not named or identified
an anonymous author
lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
the anonymous faces in the crowd
It’s not their job to do what now?
Great. Now were they asked this question and was it answered? If so, where’s the testimony? If not, why not?
2 Likes
Reread our exchange. It’s all there.
