What logic brings her credibility into question? If you think it does then you say why, I can't read your mind.

Her very specific terminology (clavicle, magnetometer) is a little unusual but this does not prove anything.
She mistakenly called the SUV the beast (the limo is the beast) but this doesn't prove anything conclusive either
She is a hearsay witness but this is a mark against the committee for not bringing in the fact witnesses, not a mark against her.

None of what she said was impossible or implausible.
-Angry Trump throws a dish? Very plausible
-Angry Trump tries to steer vehicle to get what he wants and grabs secret service officer? Nothing implausible there.

I think people are looking for reasons to disbelieve her.

I mean if you believe what she believes she heard & wrote, instead of the secret service which were actually in the vehicle,  & stated it didn't happen & no one asked them for verification or testimony, then that's your choice.   

I mean if you believe what she believes she heard & wrote, instead of the secret service which were actually in the vehicle,  & stated it didn't happen & no one asked them for verification or testimony, then that's your choice.

Other secret service agents have confirmed that what she heard has been discussed in the offices for the past year. I believe that is what she was told. If the agents that were in the vehicle want to say he was angry because he wanted to go to the capital and didn't lunge, let them testify under oath.. not a problem.

If they are not willing to testify under oath.. well that's a problem. 

The agents are asking to testify, but the committee probably won't allow it. Something about making the kangaroo court look even dumber than it already does.

Other secret service agents have confirmed that what she heard has been discussed in the offices for the past year. I believe that is what she was told. If the agents that were in the vehicle want to say he was angry because he wanted to go to the capital and didn't lunge, let them testify under oath.. not a problem.

If they are not willing to testify under oath.. well that's a problem.

Goal post moved..

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Other secret service agents have confirmed that what she heard has been discussed in the offices for the past year. I believe that is what she was told. If the agents that were in the vehicle want to say he was angry because he wanted to go to the capital and didn't lunge, let them testify under oath.. not a problem.

If they are not willing to testify under oath.. well that's a problem.

Did you miss my post where the DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE J6 HEARING (Adam Schiff in particular) decide who to allow as witnesses?  Nobody is allowed to testify if they aren't called by the committee.

You're clueless.

You're clueless.

Millennials, especially the female ones, tend to be that way. 
You have to wait until they consult their iFag phone before they know something.
Or at least how they are supposed to feel.

Did you miss my post where the DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE J6 HEARING (Adam Schiff in particular) decide who to allow as witnesses?  Nobody is allowed to testify if they aren't called by the committee.

You're clueless.

Thats why the goal post were moved. Easier to do that than admit being wrong

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

You're always going to believe them no matter how much they get caught lying to you.

The satisfaction you get from being "right" is more important than watching your country get torn apart by corrupt idiots.

Who is them?

Maybe the country is getting torn apart bu corrupt Trump idiots... just saying. In reality it is being town apart by both sides and they have both convinced themselves they are right.

The agents are asking to testify, but the committee probably won't allow it. Something about making the kangaroo court look even dumber than it already does.

The saving grace is that if criminal/civil charges are filed against Trump then his defense attorneys can subpoena them to Trump's defense.

Read what u wrote. It explains it.

Dont make me swoooooshhhh it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Not if I swooosh you first....


SWOOOOOSHHH

I mean if you believe what she believes she heard & wrote, instead of the secret service which were actually in the vehicle,  & stated it didn't happen & no one asked them for verification or testimony, then that's your choice.

I don't have a belief here, I neither have a desire for her statements to be true/false nor am I saying her statements are true or false. What matters is looking at things objectively.

Hearing her statement and concluding she lied because two secret service agents said so isn't being objective. (Unless you want to make the case cops never lie). Being objective means looking at all witness statements skeptically. Could Hutchinson be lying? Could she be telling the truth? Could the secret service agents be lying or telling the truth? What other bits of evidence can we seek out to verify or disprove the witness statements? What I see here is people looking for a reason to disbelieve Hutchinson rather than a way to get closer to the truth.

I don't have a belief here, I neither have a desire for her statements to be true/false nor am I saying her statements are true or false. What matters is looking at things objectively.

Hearing her statement and concluding she lied because two secret service agents said so isn't being objective. (Unless you want to make the case cops never lie). Being objective means looking at all witness statements skeptically. Could Hutchinson be lying? Could she be telling the truth? Could the secret service agents be lying or telling the truth? What other bits of evidence can we seek out to verify or disprove the witness statements? What I see here is people looking for a reason to disbelieve Hutchinson rather than a way to get closer to the truth.

Enter hypothetical president.

Enter hypothetical president.

In his world, if a witness says a woman was raped, and the "victim" says it never happened, he'd still say the witness hasn't been proven to be wrong.

"Without evidence," he thinks the witness is still telling the truth even without the alleged victim's corroboration.

That's not "objectivity."  That's living in an alternate reality.  Sure, anyone CAN lie, But, the most unreliable testimony in any courtroom is that of witnesses.  What they think they saw or heard is quite often disproven with the physical evidence.  It can take just one detail in the witness' testimony to be proven inconsistent or false to discredit the entire account.

"I was driving down H-2 that day at noon when I saw the defendant hit the bicyclist."

"Then how do you explain this ATM video from Kaneohe showing you making a withdrawal from your account at exactly 12:15 on the day in question?"

Just that one detail shatters any weight their testimony may have had.  Same goes for the hearing.  To find out that the agents don't corroborate her story, and the note she swore she wrote was actually not from her, brings her entire testimony down as being not credible.

Handwriting experts?  LOL!  All it takes is a side-by-side enlargement of a sample from her to see if the note matches.  Most laymen can see that since most people have very different writing styles.

In his world, if a witness says a woman was raped, and the "victim" says it never happened, he'd still say the witness hasn't been proven to be wrong.

"Without evidence," he thinks the witness is still telling the truth even without the alleged victim's corroboration.

That's not "objectivity."  That's living in an alternate reality.  Sure, anyone CAN lie, But, the most unreliable testimony in any courtroom is that of witnesses.  What they think they saw or heard is quite often disproven with the physical evidence.  It can take just one detail in the witness' testimony to be proven inconsistent or false to discredit the entire account.

"I was driving down H-2 that day at noon when I saw the defendant hit the bicyclist."

"Then how do you explain this ATM video from Kaneohe showing you making a withdrawal from your account at exactly 12:15 on the day in question?"

Just that one detail shatters any weight their testimony may have had.  Same goes for the hearing.  To find out that the agents don't corroborate her story, and the note she swore she wrote was actually not from her, brings her entire testimony down as being not credible.

Handwriting experts?  LOL!  All it takes is a side-by-side enlargement of a sample from her to see if the note matches.  Most laymen can see that since most people have very different writing styles.

This sums it up. Had the other agents who were there agreed, then her statement can be held as truthful. But they are not, which is why the DNC brought her in and not the agents who were there. They knew they had to make up a story and need some deniability, "she just heard wrong".

In his world, if a witness says a woman was raped, and the "victim" says it never happened, he'd still say the witness hasn't been proven to be wrong.

"Without evidence," he thinks the witness is still telling the truth even without the alleged victim's corroboration.

That's not "objectivity."  That's living in an alternate reality.  Sure, anyone CAN lie, But, the most unreliable testimony in any courtroom is that of witnesses.  What they think they saw or heard is quite often disproven with the physical evidence.  It can take just one detail in the witness' testimony to be proven inconsistent or false to discredit the entire account.

"I was driving down H-2 that day at noon when I saw the defendant hit the bicyclist."

"Then how do you explain this ATM video from Kaneohe showing you making a withdrawal from your account at exactly 12:15 on the day in question?"

Just that one detail shatters any weight their testimony may have had.  Same goes for the hearing.  To find out that the agents don't corroborate her story, and the note she swore she wrote was actually not from her, brings her entire testimony down as being not credible.

Handwriting experts?  LOL!  All it takes is a side-by-side enlargement of a sample from her to see if the note matches.  Most laymen can see that since most people have very different writing styles.

Do you make up stuff subconsciously or do you do it on purpose?

I never said I thought she was telling the truth and nowhere did I say that contradictory witnesses should be disregarded. All of that needs to be taken into account. Your problem is you are looking at it with the angle of not wanting to believe her, not consciously perhaps but you are doing it.

I don't think you know what objectivity is. Your confirmation bias is showing.

Even your example of a rape shows the problem with your thinking. Case in point, victims lying to protect the suspect is very common in domestic violence situations. Husband beats up the wife, someone sees it, but the wife says she got hurt tripping. Being objective means considering that even the victim may be lying. Sometimes it is he-said she-said and that gets very difficult but sometimes other evidence can be found to corroborate one version of events or the other. Look at that case where the police sgt was hitting his girlfriend in the bar. Video evidence but she said she wasn't hurt and they were playing so it got dropped. Was he really beating her, do you believe her because she was there and said she wasn't hurt? Tough call.

Do you make up stuff subconsciously or do you do it on purpose?

I never said I thought she was telling the truth and nowhere did I say that contradictory witnesses should be disregarded. All of that needs to be taken into account. Your problem is you are looking at it with the angle of not wanting to believe her, not consciously perhaps but you are doing it.

I don't think you know what objectivity is. Your confirmation bias is showing.

Even your example of a rape shows the problem with your thinking. Case in point, victims lying to protect the suspect is very common in domestic violence situations. Husband beats up the wife, someone sees it, but the wife says she got hurt tripping. Being objective means considering that even the victim may be lying. Sometimes it is he-said she-said and that gets very difficult but sometimes other evidence can be found to corroborate one version of events or the other. Look at that case where the police sgt was hitting his girlfriend in the bar. Video evidence but she said she wasn't hurt and they were playing so it got dropped. Was he really beating her, do you believe her because she was there and said she wasn't hurt? Tough call.

U basically proved his point. "Someone sees it". Not someone heard from someone who saw it. Then the prosrcution uses the hears from someone who saw it as their bombshell witness only.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

U basically proved his point. "Someone sees it". Not someone heard from someone who saw it. Then the prosrcution uses the hears from someone who saw it as their bombshell witness only.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I have already acknowledged that a fact witness is always going to be preferable to a hearsay witness. Nowhere did I suggest that Hutchinson's testimony was more credible than that of the secret service officers.

Note that I have also said that the committee is hurting themselves by not sending subpoenas to the fact witnesses and that a proper investigation should seek testimony from all who were present.

I have already acknowledged that a fact witness is always going to be preferable to a hearsay witness. Nowhere did I suggest that Hutchinson's testimony was more credible than that of the secret service officers.

Note that I have also said that the committee is hurting themselves by not sending subpoenas to the fact witnesses and that a proper investigation should seek testimony from all who were present.

You're implying that we are posting wrong views and info and trying to be what you think is "objective". I know you didn't make a statement about her test being more credible. Because that is not how you post. You will post "whataboutism" and play both sides. And when responding to use, you won't directly say that we're wrong, but again use your whataboutism which would imply that.

Logic can be used to deduct that she is BSing. It's very simple.