I don’t know. This is the same guy who throws his Big Mac across the room and smashes White House plates against the wall when he doesn’t get his way. Regardless, this Ornato guy appears to be one of the bigger bootlickers in Trump’s orbit, so no surprise he’s breaking his neck to defend him.
Which is why it makes more sense to keep things in the tangible rather than the realm of hearsay. This was not even the third biggest deal that came out yesterday but will soak up all the attention because it is actually refutable, being a she said/he said
We had a former General plead the 5th on a yes or no question about supporting the peaceful transfer of power. It doesn't take Columbo to figure out what that means. But let's focus on the details of a Trump tantrum. I do find it funny that Trump said he never heard of her but personally refused her continuing on his detail in Florida after office in the same statement. Which is it, can you not keep your lies straight? Not that his supporters will notice this.
I'm curious to see if they say that they say it never happened or the conversation in front of her never happened. If I were questioning, I would want clarity on that. First I would want to know what they say happened. Then I would want to know what they said in front of her, and then would probe for inconsistencies.
Interesting the focus being on whether he lunged for the wheel. That was one of the more minor revelations from her testimony.
But you can turn it into an understandable, inconclusive controversy for the lowest common denominator. We can divide up into teams and fight over the unknowable, and draw from it broad conclusions!
Oh, I get that Trump said that. But he is wrong, and I will not propagate his idiocy nor use it as a whataboutism. If Flynn was blanket using the Fifth on everything, it is not a big deal if he did it here. If he was NOT, then it is a big deal, because, well, there is one and only one reason to plead the Fifth there. But legally, you cannot infer anything from it, nor should you. This is not at you, Poppa, but more at the idea behind what Trump said.
This is probably the best line of questioning to poke around and see if you can trip either of them up to see how credible they are.
Like float said I think Flynn might be a bit gun shy when getting questioned. He damn near put himself in prison once already.
Right, because if some element is true about him being pissed, how could she know that if there was not some conversation about it in front of her? And if none of that happened at all and none of it was said in front of her, what did happen in the beast on Jan 6? Did he just go home? What did that look like? If I had to guess, something was said and exaggerated in front of her but reality was less. She isn't lying, just what she heard was random bullshitting between two dudes about a crazy day
This is where I am leaning. She testified, under oath, what she was told. The problem is, will the guy admit he exaggerated the encounter? Will the Security guy admit the guy exaggerated the encounter? The actual "truth" seems to be of little importance to this bunch, generally speaking.
If he is under oath, he is putting himself in jeopardy. If he says nothing was ever said, it is possible he himself could stumble into a falsifiable claim. E.g. how could she know x if she wasn't there AND no one ever said anything at all? For example. Intentionally lying would be very risky
I get it. 6 or so years ago, I might have optimistically agreed with your last statement. Now, not so much. We are where we are because of unabashed lying, or "alternative facts" for those that prefer that reality.
