For those who understand the context, this is a brutal takedown.
That's very good
For those who understand the context, this is a brutal takedown.
This is the claim that I am the most skeptical of tbh.Been thinking about the “grabs steering wheel and then tries to throttle agent”.
It is something that was reported to her rather than she saw herself so it could well be apocryphal or exaggerated.
I presume this means we will get Ornato testimonyThis is the claim that I am the most skeptical of tbh.
He wouldn't be sitting in the front passenger seat, so that means he would have had to lunge over the drivers seat to get at the steering wheel, and to then grab at someone's throat at the same time...?
Not saying I don't believe her, but how it's described doesn't sound quite right. As you say, she wasn't there first hand, so maybe something has been lost in the detail?
I'd say it's entirely possible she heard a heightened account of what happened in the SUV. However, it's not like that part being inaccurate invalidates her testimony. At no point today did she claim to have seen the events firsthand, only described a conversation in which she was told happened in the vehicle once arriving back at the West Wing. As far as I can remember, the rest of her testimony was first hand accounts of what she actually heard/saw.This is the claim that I am the most skeptical of tbh.
He wouldn't be sitting in the front passenger seat, so that means he would have had to lunge over the drivers seat to get at the steering wheel, and to then grab at someone's throat at the same time...?
Not saying I don't believe her, but how it's described doesn't sound quite right. As you say, she wasn't there first hand, so maybe something has been lost in the detail?
Yeah, if someone's told her an exaggerated or even untrue story, she's not lying by relaying what she's heard.I'd say it's entirely possible she heard a heightened account of what happened in the SUV. However, it's not like that part being inaccurate invalidates her testimony. At no point today did she claim to have seen the events firsthand, only described a conversation in which she was told happened in the vehicle once arriving back at the West Wing. As far as I can remember, the rest of her testimony was first hand accounts of what she actually heard/saw.
Like that Tweet earlier from Mick Mulvaney said, a big portion of today's testimony was probably to checkmate Meadows, Cipollone, Ornato, or some of the others who have refused to provide testimony to this point into having no alternative but to do so.
Speaking of which he’s been pretty quiet - no “ I categorically did not ask for a pardon and exverything she said was a tissue of lies” for instanceI'd say it's entirely possible she heard a heightened account of what happened in the SUV. However, it's not like that part being inaccurate invalidates her testimony. At no point today did she claim to have seen the events firsthand, only described a conversation in which she was told happened in the vehicle once arriving back at the West Wing. As far as I can remember, the rest of her testimony was first hand accounts of what she actually heard/saw.
Like that Tweet earlier from Mick Mulvaney said, a big portion of today's testimony was probably to checkmate Meadows, Cipollone, Ornato, or some of the others who have refused to provide testimony to this point into having no alternative but to do so.
Part of me thinks absolutely nothing will happen to any politicians involved, or Trump and his family. Even after all this
Trump certainly seems to be taking today’s testimony in stride.
It will likely stop a presidential run tho.The biggest part.

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.