Comments posted organically
My prediction about Ornato and Engel and Trump's alleged back seat tantrum

By Curt_Anderson
June 29, 2022 12:47 pm
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

I am reposting my basic prediction which I posted in another thread. This way, I can refer to it later if I prove to be Nostradamus. If I am wrong, OD or HtS can resurrect this.

Here is my prediction:
Secret Service agents Ornato and Engel will REFUSE to testify under oath before the 1/6 committee. That's because both are reportedly Trump yes-men. They would recoil like vampires at the thought of providing testimony regarding Hutchinson's central claims, such as:

Ornato and Engel can testify to what if anything they told Cassidy Hutchinson about Trump's insistence that he be driven to the Capitol so he could lead the mob Mussolini-style.

She said that Ornato was the person who informed Meadows that some Trump supporters attempting to enter the Ellipse rally were armed. She said that Trump angrily demanded that his armed supporters be let in. Do they deny that?

I am confident that they won't discuss any of that under oath. But I could be wrong.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "My prediction about Ornato and Engel and Trump's alleged back seat tantrum":

  1. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:19 pm

    I don't think you're wrong, Curt. I think you nailed it.

    Lying would cost these guys absolutely nothing. And in fact it would stand to elevate them and get support from the pro-insurrectionists (i.e. The Republicans and FOX).

    I'd love to see them tell their stories under oath. But as you said, I don't think they will either.

    I love seeing Republican bluffs being called.


  2. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 1:22 pm
    This article is what I've been saying. The dims (including lizzie borton) all knew about the testimony behind closed doors directly relating to the story in question. Lizzie didn't "bother to mention" (a lie through omission) the other two interviews which would have contradicted Butch.
    Long story short, Secret Service Headquarters says the agents will testify. They'll be there.

    One Paragraph Sums Up The Razor’s Edge The J6 Committee Is On Right Now

    "National Review editor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy argued in a Tuesday column that former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s disputed testimony about former President Donald Trump’s alleged behavior on Jan. 6 could blow up the entire Select Committee.

    Hutchinson testified Tuesday that she was informed by Secret Service agent and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato that Trump put his hands on the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle known as “The Beast” and lunged at special agent in charge Bobby Engel when he attempted to prevent Trump from going to the Capitol during the riot. A Secret Service spokesperson confirmed Wednesday that agents on Trump’s detail are prepared to testify to the committee.

    Those agents are expected to dispute Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump grabbed the wheel and assaulted an agent, NBC News’ Peter Alexander reported. Engel previously sat with the Jan. 6 committee for an interview.

    “All we can say is that before choosing to elicit Hutchinson’s account in a hyped public hearing, the committee heard Engel’s testimony. Presumably, if Engel gave the committee reason to believe Hutchinson’s hearsay account was wrong, Cheney would not have adduced it,” McCarthy wrote."



  3. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 1:23 pm
    Sorry, reference to the above.

    dailycaller.com


  4. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 1:43 pm
    OD,
    I am not following your thinking. McCarthy says committee had reason to believe Hutchinson because of Engel's earlier testimony. So why would Engel or Ormato testify?

    “All we can say is that before choosing to elicit Hutchinson’s account in a hyped public hearing, the committee heard Engel’s testimony. Presumably, if Engel gave the committee reason to believe Hutchinson’s hearsay account was wrong, Cheney would not have adduced it,” McCarthy wrote."


  5. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:45 pm

    You know what though, Curt. There could be another possibility. These guys could testify under oath that they didn't say the exact words she used in her testimony. You know how much Trumpists like to fall back on that old schoolyard tactic. It could well be that what they told her was still the essence of what happened.


  6. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 2:30 pm
    Ponderer,
    You know my story about my hearsay testimony. I suspect that most people, especially if there is a lapse of time, don't repeat accounts verbatim. So, yeah, Hutchinson probably paraphrased what she heard.

    But if Engel and Ornato were to testify the committee would probably have them testify separately and simultaneously. That way those two can't conspire to keep their stories straight. And they wouldn't limit their questioning to whether Trump grabbed the steering wheel or not.



  7. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 2:30 pm


    po,

    The broadcast networks are reporting that the Secret Service agents are saying it didn't happen. I can't see that they'd make a big deal out of Ms Hutchinson's testimony if they were going to tweak what she said.

    Curt,

    I think it's time to wonder if this Committee is both incompetent and dysfunctional. It's looking that way.


  8. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:33 pm

    She used the phrase "Or words to the effect of" quite effectively.

    But I guess that some here expected her to just refuse to answer any questions about anything she heard if she couldn't recite it absolutely verbatim.


  9. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:37 pm

    "The broadcast networks are reporting that the Secret Service agents are saying it didn't happen." -Hate

    Again, it costs them and risks them absolutely nothing to say whatever they want to to the broadcast networks. Their stories are actually irrelevant until they raise that right hand and swear before the committee.

    And it sounds like they may already have anyway, so...


  10. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 2:40 pm
    "I am not following your thinking. McCarthy says committee had reason to believe Hutchinson because of Engel's earlier testimony. So why would Engel or Ormato testify?"

    Butch drew them in because she referenced them in her testimony. Had she not, it might be a mute point. But she did. Ormato had testified before, and lizzie was witness to that. She chose not to say a word about it. If you have a client that tells a story and references another, you would want them both in the chair. Unless that other person will not support your client's story. Lizzie already knew that answer and chose not to say anything. That tells me she was complicit with the lie. Ergo, she also has a severe credibility problem.

    And to Pondy-
    "Sources close to the Secret Service denied Hutchinson’s claims and said both Engel and the driver are ready to testify that Trump never tried to attack either man and did not reach for the steering wheel, according to several reports.

    Engel had been interviewed by the Jan. 6 committee, three people familiar with the matter said, according to Politico. Engel reportedly said he and other law enforcement officials determined it was not feasible to get Trump to the Capitol."1
    dailycaller.com


  11. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:52 pm

    "Sources close to the Secret Service denied Hutchinson’s claims and said both Engel and the driver are ready to testify that Trump never tried to attack either man and did not reach for the steering wheel, according to several reports." -od

    So... if someone saying that they would be willing to testify isn't anywhere near the same thing as actually testifying under oath, why would you think that someone else saying that someone else would be willing to testify was any better?


  12. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:54 pm

    "Engel reportedly said he and other law enforcement officials determined it was not feasible to get Trump to the Capitol." -od

    Right... That fits with what Hutchinson said.....


    So?


  13. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 3:32 pm

    Andrew McCarthy IA a GOP but not at all a MAGA guy. He said this about Liz Cheney's comments about Mark Meadows:

    “If you pulled that kind of nonsense in a federal court, there would be a mistrial. And if you were a lawyer who did it, everybody knows that that’s improper. If you were a lawyer who did that, you would be held in contempt and there’d be sanctions.”

    Right this is not a trial. But, in truth, these hearings are very much like a Show Trial.


  14. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 3:37 pm

    “If you pulled that kind of nonsense in a federal court, there would be a mistrial. And if you were a lawyer who did it, everybody knows that that’s improper. If you were a lawyer who did that, you would be held in contempt and there’d be sanctions.”

    And if you put ketchup in your orange juice, it'll taste much more like chicken than rutabagas do.

    Also, absolutely irrelevant.


    I don't know if you've heard this before or not, but this isn't a federal court.


  15. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 3:43 pm
    Let me add to what HtS said quoting Andrew McCarthy.

    If you pulled that kind of nonsense on a basketball court, there would be a penalty. And if you were a player who did it, everybody knows that you'd be charged with a foul. If you were a coach who did that, you would be ejected from the game and the other team awarded two technical free throws.

    I believe the same applies to tennis courts.


  16. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 4:19 pm

    His point is that there's something very Tinhorn Republicky about this whole enterprise, and people see that.

    My guess is that you see it, too, and either don't care or love it because it's in pursuit of OrangeMan.

    In any case, GOPs are making serious hay while it's going on.


  17. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 4:27 pm
    "So... if someone saying that they would be willing to testify isn't anywhere near the same thing as actually testifying under oath, why would you think that someone else saying that someone else would be willing to testify was any better?"

    You didn't read the post, did you. Because their stories don't match. And the dims knew that. lizzie lied by omission by not mentioning the other testimony. She knew the testimonies didn't match at all and chose to run only the one that had no credibility at all. Also, your non witness knows more about the situation than the witnesses. Is that about it? Who was there in first person? Who has the most to lose if they lie? And I've said it overandoverandoverandover. Secret Service hierarchy has vetted their story. THEY want to clear it up, not some "assistant" that wants to be "the" girl for her next job.

    "You know my story about my hearsay testimony. I suspect that most people, especially if there is a lapse of time, don't repeat accounts verbatim. So, yeah, Hutchinson probably paraphrased what she heard."
    I agree. The issue is about the wheel grabbing and the violence. I would expect minor differences. If there isn't that, then she lied. Lizard knew their stories (Butch and Ornato) and she chose to leave known testimony out. That shows it's a kangaroo court and not really interested in the truth.


  18. by Donna on June 29, 2022 4:30 pm
    Until they testify under oath, we don't know if their stories don't match.


  19. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 4:39 pm

    od, you have in no way established that the testimonies those SS agents have given is in actuality contradictory to anything Hutchinson testified to.

    These guys can say they deny what she said, but them saying it doesn't mean that's actually what they testified to.

    Until they are testifying under oath about this, nothing they say about it establishes anything.


  20. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 5:00 pm
    Ponderer, OD, et al,
    From what I've read neither Ornato or Engel have made any public statements regarding Trump's backseat tantrum. They have not personally refuted her recounting of the story. They certainly have not commented about it under oath.

    See: Did the Secret Service 'Officially Debunk' Hutchinson's Testimony?
    Here is Snopes' bottom line:
    In sum, no, as of the morning of June 29, the Secret Service had not "officially debunked" Hutchinson's testimony. While it's certainly possible that people associated with the Secret Service might in the future call into question Hutchinson's testimony while under oath, Adams' tweet was posted in the early morning hours on the day following Hutchinson's testimony. At that point, there was no direct evidence that the Secret Service had "officially debunked" anything.


    snopes.com


  21. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 5:11 pm
    "od, you have in no way established that the testimonies those SS agents have given is in actuality contradictory to anything Hutchinson testified to.

    These guys can say they deny what she said, but them saying it doesn't mean that's actually what they testified to.

    Until they are testifying under oath about this, nothing they say about it establishes anything."

    1. Not what the Secret Service says. And okay, if you want to stick to your religion, do it. I said earlier that no fact could ever change your mind, and I'll stick to that.

    "From what I've read neither Ornato or Engel have made any public statements regarding Trump's backseat tantrum. They have not personally refuted her recounting of the story. They certainly have not commented about it under oath."
    Correct. The Secret Service conducted an investigation and that's what they are putting out after taking statements, doing polygraphs, interviews, maybe some interrogations. My statement all along has been that if the Agency is willing to put out their answer to her lies, that's a pretty good recommendation to me. The Director of the Agency must be pretty clear this is the correct story. Probability of them saying something different? Zero percent. If they do, that's a crime in the clearance world and they'll be a greeter at a B'more walmart.


  22. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:32 pm

    "I said earlier that no fact could ever change your mind, and I'll stick to that." -od

    Why don't you try providing an actual fact for once and find out?

    Anything a couple anonymous SS agents want to say is meaningless until they say it under oath. I'm sorry if the way this works doesn't meet with your approval.


  23. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 8:25 pm
    The difference is that I actually understand what is going on. I know you don't care about getting fired from a job, but these two folks have been agents for at least 20 years. Like I've said overandoverandoverandover, that although you're "partially" correct. Because of how this has been handled within the agency, it's plain as day to me. If it were the agents that said something, it would be different. That means the agency isn't involved. They have been told NOT to talk to any media, friends, co-workers, etcetcetc about the situation. They are abiding by that.

    Remember, I worked in the swamp for 10+ years. Secret Service was a lateral agency to us. I watched how information was released. I would argue that I'm laying out a scenario above your reality and experience.


  24. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:46 pm

    You hang on to that hope, od. You seem to really need something to be hopeful about throughout all this. I almost kinda feel sorry for you.

    I think whether he tried to grab the wheel and choke a guy or not, it pales to utter insignificance in the face of the fact that was he was pissed because he was being kept from being taken to the Capitol so that he could lead a knowingly armed mob he sent there to take over the place.


  25. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 8:58 pm
    Ponderer.
    That's the crux of the matter not that Trump acted like a spoiled brat.

    Legal experts are now saying Hutchinson's testimony makes it much more likely that Trump will be prosecuted. Previously, the paper-thin defense that HtS and others have offered up is that that Trump's actions should be excused because he "really believed" he was cheated out of the presidency.

    Trump's possibly sincere but mistaken belief doesn't excuse his knowingly directing an armed and angry mob to the Capitol. A mob that he wanted to lead surrounded by a phalanx of Proud Boys and Secret Service agents.


  26. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 9:29 pm


    Exactly, Curt. When he told that crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight like hell", he actually knew that they were armed.

    Not that he likely didn't already know ahead of time that they were going to be. It's undeniable now that he knew exactly what he was doing. He's dead meat.


  27. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:26 am

    I think whether he tried to grab the wheel and choke a guy or not, it pales to utter insignificance in the face of the fact that was he was pissed because he was being kept from being taken to the Capitol so that he could lead a knowingly armed mob he sent there to take over the place.

    The point is, po, we don't know that any of that took place.


  28. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 3:31 am

    Previously, the paper-thin defense that HtS and others have offered up is that that Trump's actions should be excused because he "really believed" he was cheated out of the presidency.

    That's nowhere close to what pb is saying. pb's saying that there's no credible evidence Trump did ANYTHING.

    pb does also believe that there's substantial credible evidence that there was substantial fraud in the 020 election.

    But, those two convictions are not connected to each other.


  29. by islander on June 30, 2022 4:25 am
    Secret Service agent Engel has already confirmed the main elements of Hutchinson's testimony.

    Remember, Trump told The Washington Post in April that he had wanted to accompany his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, but the "Secret Service said I couldn't go. I would have gone there in a minute." Engel testified to the Jan. 6 committee that he and Trump had disagreed about going to the Capitol and he had steered them to the White House instead.

    Also, OD, as far as Trump being physically unable to reach the driver from where he was sitting in the Presidential limousine like you thought, he wasn’t in the limousine, he was in a black SUV when he allegedly lunged at agent Engel and “tried” to grab the steering wheel.

    As we have been saying, it’s only been said that the agent’s would testify, they haven’t and they very well might not, and even if they did, they could simply answer questions using the usual escape hatches such as “I don’t remember that happening” etc. Ornato seems to already be preparing for that something like that. He is reported to have told people that Hutchinson’s testimony, “isn’t consistent with his understanding of the incident” which is not in any way the same as saying “it didn’t happen”.


  30. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 4:46 am

    isle,

    I think you're full of TDS crap.

    Keep singin, TOMORROW, just like Annie. "It's only a day away." But, the Committee's MYSTERY GUEST fiasco bombed.

    Get over it.

    Move on.

    Finally, the right is paying attention to your Show Trial...so they can pick it apart and use it to fuel Gutfeld's comedy routines.


  31. by islander on June 30, 2022 4:57 am

    Typical Hate response...


  32. by HatetheSwamp on June 30, 2022 5:13 am

    ...to a typical isle irrational TDS response.


Comment on: "My prediction about Ornato and Engel and Trump's alleged back seat tantrum"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 10:27 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (17 comments) [278 views]


We may finally find out if Trump actually has evidence of fraud in the 2020 election
Law by Curt_Anderson     July 27, 2022 10:22 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (44 comments) [464 views]


Breitbart doxes Jack Booted thugs who search Trump’s home
Media by HatetheSwamp     August 14, 2022 5:04 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [9 views]


Rally at Cheyenne FBI office planned for Sunday
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 12:15 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [101 views]


What distinguishes a cult from a religion from a philosophy?
Philosophy by Curt_Anderson     August 14, 2022 5:08 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [74 views]


Tulsi Gabbard Fills In For Host Tucker Carlson On Fox News
Media by HatetheSwamp     August 14, 2022 2:46 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [49 views]


Defamation Suit About Election Falsehoods Puts Fox on Its Heels
Law by Donna     August 14, 2022 7:42 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (5 comments) [80 views]


Don't shed any tears for Liz Cheney
Opinion by islander     August 14, 2022 8:37 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [51 views]


'The FBI Raid On Melania's Closet Was Justified,' Says Merrick Garland Wearing Gorgeous New Evening Gown And Sun Hat
Humor by HatetheSwamp     August 14, 2022 4:04 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [21 views]


Do you recognize this dweeb?
History by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 4:49 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: islander (1 comments) [43 views]


Crime selectors, pages, etc.