Post by: rhayder on June 28, 2022, 07:35:43 PM
On Tuesday, Hutchinson – a former top aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows – claimed that, during the "Stop the Steal" rally, the former president knew that the Capitol rioters had weapons but dismissed concerns around potential violence.
"When we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing [metal detecting] mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,'" she recounted to the panel.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/ (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 28, 2022, 07:41:09 PM
Trump has a meltdown on Truth Social after Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell Jan. 6 testimony
On Tuesday, Hutchinson – a former top aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows – claimed that, during the "Stop the Steal" rally, the former president knew that the Capitol rioters had weapons but dismissed concerns around potential violence.
"When we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing [metal detecting] mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,'" she recounted to the panel.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/ (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/)
One man's "meh" is another man's "meltdown". :sleeping:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It must suck to live in a reality constructed of lies and political games.
You really should take the red pill. The Democrat Matrix is keeping you enslaved.
Post by: macsak on June 28, 2022, 07:44:06 PM
Trump has a meltdown on Truth Social after Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell Jan. 6 testimony
On Tuesday, Hutchinson – a former top aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows – claimed that, during the "Stop the Steal" rally, the former president knew that the Capitol rioters had weapons but dismissed concerns around potential violence.
"When we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing [metal detecting] mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,'" she recounted to the panel.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/ (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/)
Post by: macsak on June 28, 2022, 07:44:40 PM
solid, confident testimony...
Post by: macsak on June 28, 2022, 07:45:33 PM
Trump has a meltdown on Truth Social after Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell Jan. 6 testimony
On Tuesday, Hutchinson – a former top aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows – claimed that, during the "Stop the Steal" rally, the former president knew that the Capitol rioters had weapons but dismissed concerns around potential violence.
"When we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing [metal detecting] mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,'" she recounted to the panel.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/ (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/)
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 28, 2022, 07:56:06 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on June 28, 2022, 07:58:47 PM
solid, confident testimony...Almost as solid as your mother’s uncle’s sister’s cousin’s brother
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 28, 2022, 09:02:02 PM
Almost as solid as your mother’s uncle’s sister’s cousin’s brotherAunty Nellie
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on June 28, 2022, 09:38:31 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/12/14/dulis-the-pee-tape-hoax-is-finally-absolutely-dead-its-time-to-brand-the-rushers-who-pushed-it/
Post by: eyeeatingfish on June 28, 2022, 11:29:01 PM
Trump has a meltdown on Truth Social after Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell Jan. 6 testimony
On Tuesday, Hutchinson – a former top aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows – claimed that, during the "Stop the Steal" rally, the former president knew that the Capitol rioters had weapons but dismissed concerns around potential violence.
"When we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing [metal detecting] mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away,'" she recounted to the panel.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/ (https://www.salon.com/2022/06/28/has-a-meltdown-on-truth-social-after-cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-jan-6-testimony/)
Calling it a meltdown is just sensationalizing and its so irritating that people pick such headlines. Anytime someone is upset they call it a "meltdown" just to get attention for their story.
However her testimony, if accurate, does paint a pretty concerning picture to me. Not the part that Trump didn't feel he was in danger, that seems reasonable, but the part where he grabs the steering wheel and the guys clavicle is unbecoming for a president.
She seemed credible from what I heard on the radio but I need to watch the video to get some parts I missed.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 12:26:33 AM
Everyone needs to know how to use a search engine ...
ABC & NBC Debunk Trump Assaulting Secret Service, CBS Ignores
Quote
Predictably all three evening news broadcasts led with the allegations against former President Trump.https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kevin-tober/2022/06/28/abc-nbc-debunk-trump-assaulting-secret-service-cbs-ignores
Six minutes before the three networks went live, NBC’s chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander
tweeted that both Secret Service agents involved “are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was
assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
Post by: hvybarrels on June 29, 2022, 02:26:09 AM
She seemed credible from what I heard on the radio...
::)
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 29, 2022, 07:51:26 AM
solid, confident testimony...What happened to
"Cool story bro"
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 29, 2022, 07:52:29 AM
cool story, bro...Whoops! There it is!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 08:22:16 AM
Calling it a meltdown is just sensationalizing and its so irritating that people pick such headlines. Anytime someone is upset they call it a "meltdown" just to get attention for their story.
However her testimony, if accurate, does paint a pretty concerning picture to me. Not the part that Trump didn't feel he was in danger, that seems reasonable, but the part where he grabs the steering wheel and the guys clavicle is unbecoming for a president.
She seemed credible from what I heard on the radio but I need to watch the video to get some parts I missed.
You got hook, line, and sinkered.
Post by: macsak on June 29, 2022, 08:53:57 AM
but it's all good because EEF thinks she seemed credible...
You got hook, line, and sinkered.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 29, 2022, 09:09:46 AM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 09:22:53 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 09:23:52 AM
Watch Dan Bongino's podcast on it. He served in the secret service for Bush & Obama and knows the agents she quoted.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I didn't watch it yet, but I guess it's easy for their principal (POTUS) to grab the wheel in a limo. Like they leave the privacy shade down all the time right.
Post by: drck1000 on June 29, 2022, 09:52:40 AM
I wonder if OP will post a retraction after falling for fake news when they find out her testimony was wrong.Hold your breathe while you wait. . .
:rofl:
Post by: macsak on June 29, 2022, 10:13:17 AM
why would you do that if you thought he was such an awful person?
and then magically volunteer to testify after being turned down for any postion...
Post by: robtmc on June 29, 2022, 10:49:02 AM
You insinuating the HPD troll swallows?
You got hook, line, and sinkered.
No surprise.
Post by: drck1000 on June 29, 2022, 11:23:42 AM
It's not wrong. Trump knew they had weapons, he wanted to march them to the capitol, he facilitated by removing metal detectors. He's freaking out now over her testimony.Are you a drama major? ???
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 11:26:38 AM
Are you a drama major? ???
Natural talent possessed by most Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Left_wing whiners.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 29, 2022, 11:30:43 AM
Are you a drama major? ???Drama queen!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: QUIETShooter on June 29, 2022, 11:39:22 AM
It's not wrong. Trump knew they had weapons, he wanted to march them to the capitol, he facilitated by removing metal detectors. He's freaking out now over her testimony.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Nothing wrong with removing metal detectors to protect these people's rights.
Post by: hvybarrels on June 29, 2022, 11:42:10 AM
(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/3/c/05c051760b6a55668fde5654bdff18bb3773dbb5612525f2192fb8784da387/jussie-smollett.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcmiami.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fjussie-smollett.jpg%3Fquality%3D85%26strip%3Dall%26fit%3D5184%252C3456%26w%3D1575%26h%3D886%26crop%3D1&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 29, 2022, 11:47:42 AM
It's okay. I know when you resort to name calling, it's because you don't know any other way to respond. You're all out of excuses.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220629/5972038e6cef7bc493e80cf1d889db0e.gif)
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 11:52:00 AM
It's okay. I know when you resort to name calling, it's because you don't know any other way to respond. You're all out of excuses.
Better than what you do -- ignoring our posts that debunk your attempts to spread lies about Trump.
You can never engage over the FACTS, much less admit you were wrong.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 12:02:03 PM
It's not wrong. Trump knew they had weapons, he wanted to march them to the capitol, he facilitated by removing metal detectors. He's freaking out now over her testimony.
SSSWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH
I should start a swoosh business too.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 12:04:22 PM
Better than what you do -- ignoring our posts that debunk your attempts to spread lies about Trump.
You can never engage over the FACTS, much less admit you were wrong.
That's how xhe operates. Hit n run style.
Post by: drck1000 on June 29, 2022, 12:25:25 PM
That's how xhe operates. Hit n run style.Undeterred. Determined to show the "truth is out there".
BTW, did you hold your breath? :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on June 29, 2022, 12:29:39 PM
hutchinson applied for job with mr trump after he left officeunrequited romantic advances. . .
why would you do that if you thought he was such an awful person?
and then magically volunteer to testify after being turned down for any postion...
but totally credible, like for sure, dude. . .
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 12:50:56 PM
hutchinson applied for job with mr trump after he left office
why would you do that if you thought he was such an awful person?
and then magically volunteer to testify after being turned down for any postion...
Trump wasn't an awful person until he left office in 2020. Prior to that, he was a nice person. Like how no one called Trump a racist until 2016, despite him being in the public eye for decades.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 02:32:10 PM
https://youtu.be/BrZ3mUW_xAw
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 02:51:11 PM
Special Agent In Charge would not mistakenly say the president got into the wrong car (he got into the suv, not the limo).
SAC would never use the term "beast", which she says she was told that.
There is a 3rd agent in the limo and 3 feet between the president and the driver. But magically, trump was able to travel 3 feet, by pass this agent, by pass the SAC who sits in the front passenger seat, and grab the steering wheel and choke the driver.
And this wasnt a story 2 years ago?
TDS is real.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 07:19:48 PM
Post by: macsak on June 29, 2022, 08:54:47 PM
Rep. Jamie Raskin says anyone wanting to address Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony can do so under oath
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, said he found former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to be a "100% credible witness," and encouraged anyone who disagrees with her to also testify under oath.
"Ms. Hutchinson testified under oath in front of millions of people," Raskin said. "All we've heard is some anonymously sourced reports that someone disagrees with that. We encourage anybody who's got any evidence that's relevant to our investigation to come forward and testify under oath."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-raskin-says-anyone-disagreeing-with-cassidy-hutchinson-can-testify-under-oath/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-raskin-says-anyone-disagreeing-with-cassidy-hutchinson-can-testify-under-oath/)
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 09:04:43 PM
But the officials did say Mr. Engel, Mr. Ornato and the driver of the Suburban are prepared to confirm to the committee another damning finding from Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony: that Mr. Trump demanded his agents bring him to the Capitol so he could join his supporters, even after they emphasized the dangerous scene playing out there.Goal post business might be back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/us/politics/what-happened-trumps-vehicle-jan-6.html
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 29, 2022, 09:22:35 PM
But the officials did say Mr. Engel, Mr. Ornato and the driver of the Suburban are prepared to confirm to the committee another damning finding from Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony: that Mr. Trump demanded his agents bring him to the Capitol so he could join his supporters, even after they emphasized the dangerous scene playing out there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/us/politics/what-happened-trumps-vehicle-jan-6.html
So, she lied about Trump grabbing the wheel and the SS agent's throat, but she's not lying about anything else?
You really need to stop.
Just stop.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 29, 2022, 09:44:33 PM
She did not lie at all. She testified under oath. Anyone with different information is also welcome to testify under oath. Any takers? So far there are none. You should just give up. Stop the lies.Swoooossshhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on June 29, 2022, 10:39:30 PM
But the officials did say Mr. Engel, Mr. Ornato and the driver of the Suburban are prepared to confirm to the committee another damning finding from Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony: that Mr. Trump demanded his agents bring him to the Capitol so he could join his supporters, even after they emphasized the dangerous scene playing out there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/us/politics/what-happened-trumps-vehicle-jan-6.html
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 30, 2022, 08:06:23 AM
She did not lie at all. She testified under oath. Anyone with different information is also welcome to testify under oath. Any takers? So far there are none. You should just give up. Stop the lies.How do you know for sure she did not lie, you were there in person is the only way to say for sure. And I pretty sure you weren't. Get a clue...
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 30, 2022, 08:47:04 AM
Because her testimony was under oath and there is no similar evidence to dispute her testimony, her testimony is credible. If she lied she would be charged with perjury.
Doesn't know how her phrasing of info works. SWWWOOOOSSSHHHHHH
Post by: drck1000 on June 30, 2022, 08:53:05 AM
Doesn't know how her phrasing of info works. SWWWOOOOSSSHHHHHH#takesnoonedoesanythingillegaltooliterally
Pollyaaaannnnaaa! The sun'll come out tomorrow. . . everyone follows all laws. . . right? ;)
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 30, 2022, 10:06:17 AM
#takesnoonedoesanythingillegaltooliterallyAnd all join hands and sing Kumbaya!
Pollyaaaannnnaaa! The sun'll come out tomorrow. . . everyone follows all laws. . . right? ;)
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on June 30, 2022, 10:13:53 AM
https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intelligence-experts-refuse-to-apologize-for-smearing-hunter-biden-story/
If you lie to congress in the service of the administrative state you get a promotion or a career upgrade
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 30, 2022, 10:30:02 AM
"Spies who lie: 51 ‘intelligence’ experts refuse to apologize for discrediting true Hunter Biden story"
https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intelligence-experts-refuse-to-apologize-for-smearing-hunter-biden-story/
If you lie to congress in the service of the administrative state you get a promotion or a career upgrade
Or kill women and children (Waco fire).
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 30, 2022, 11:35:41 AM
How do you know the other person was telling her the truth?
There's a reason you don't give hearsay evidence any weight in court. In fact, it's normally inadmissible except for under very strict circumstances.
Why have her testify to what someone else said? Why not subpoena the person/persons that TOLD her? THAT would be direct testimony, not hearsay.
And, according to you, nobody who's sworn into a Congressional hearing has ever lied or stretched the truth. Give me a break!
And you still have NOT answered if you know why a subpoena is not an indicator that the witness was willing to testify.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 30, 2022, 12:27:10 PM
She testified to what someone else told her.
How do you know the other person was telling her the truth?
There's a reason you don't give hearsay evidence any weight in court. In fact, it's normally inadmissible except for under very strict circumstances.
Why have her testify to what someone else said? Why not subpoena the person/persons that TOLD her? THAT would be direct testimony, not hearsay.
And, according to you, nobody who's sworn into a Congressional hearing has ever lied or stretched the truth. Give me a break!
And you still have answered if you know why a subpoena is not an indicator that the witness was willing to testify.
Wait so the OG person hasn't testified yet? Good thing we got someone who claims they heard what that OG person said. What could go wrong. BRB Raps Hawaii is calling for Aunty Nellie.
Post by: drck1000 on June 30, 2022, 12:30:07 PM
She testified to what someone else told her.#stillnotprovenincourt
How do you know the other person was telling her the truth?
There's a reason you don't give hearsay evidence any weight in court. In fact, it's normally inadmissible except for under very strict circumstances.
Why have her testify to what someone else said? Why not subpoena the person/persons that TOLD her? THAT would be direct testimony, not hearsay.
And, according to you, nobody who's sworn into a Congressional hearing has ever lied or stretched the truth. Give me a break!
And you still have NOT answered if you know why a subpoena is not an indicator that the witness was willing to testify.
Where do people come up with those wild ideas?
[\sarcasm]
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 30, 2022, 02:51:03 PM
Post by: robtmc on June 30, 2022, 05:26:23 PM
#stillnotprovenincourtFacef*ck groups where they strategize their attacks.
Where do people come up with those wild ideas?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 01, 2022, 10:19:45 PM
You got hook, line, and sinkered.
She was well spoken and she didn't say anything that would bring her credibility into question. Is there some other piece of evidence from outside the hearing that brings her credibility into question?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 01, 2022, 10:23:15 PM
the "note" she claimed to have written was already shown to the committee by someone else who swore under oath that he wrote it
but it's all good because EEF thinks she seemed credible...
So two people, under oath gave conflicting testimony and you automatically conclude that it is her credibility in question? Not very objective, seems like you are picking who you want to believe.
I don't want her testimony to be true and I don't want it to be false. I am looking at this objectively. Nothing I saw in her testimony shows her to be unreliable, at least not yet. If the other anonymous secret service agents come and testify under oath and give a different story then great, more information is always better. But what I see here is people rushing to find reasons not to believe her rather than really seeking the truth.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 01, 2022, 10:29:53 PM
She was well spoken and she didn't say anything that would bring her credibility into question. Is there some other piece of evidence from outside the hearing that brings her credibility into question?Guess all well spoken people must be believed.
Logic brings her credibility into question. Think abt it and come by with a reply why i said to think abt it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 01, 2022, 10:33:03 PM
https://youtu.be/sFSeW6cJX-0
Listened to the whole video, nothing they talked about proves she was lying.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 01, 2022, 10:38:27 PM
Guess all well spoken people must be believed.
Logic brings her credibility into question. Think abt it and come by with a reply why i said to think abt it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 02, 2022, 07:43:32 AM
What logic brings her credibility into question? If you think it does then you say why, I can't read your mind.Read what u wrote. It explains it.
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.
Dont make me swoooooshhhh it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on July 02, 2022, 10:40:39 AM
Listened to the whole video, nothing they talked about proves she was lying.
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.
Post by: hvybarrels on July 02, 2022, 01:56:52 PM
Post by: bass monkey on July 02, 2022, 10:21:55 PM
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.
Post by: hvybarrels on July 03, 2022, 12:36:20 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 03, 2022, 03:45:13 AM
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.Goal post moved..
If they are not willing to testify under oath.. well that's a problem.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 03, 2022, 12:27:56 PM
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.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.
If they are not willing to testify under oath.. well that's a problem.
You're clueless.
Post by: robtmc on July 03, 2022, 12:33:38 PM
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 03, 2022, 04:58:13 PM
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.Thats why the goal post were moved. Easier to do that than admit being wrong
You're clueless.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 03, 2022, 05:09:31 PM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 06, 2022, 10:35:48 PM
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.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 06, 2022, 10:37:29 PM
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.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 06, 2022, 10:38:34 PM
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
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 06, 2022, 10:53:43 PM
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 07, 2022, 08:28:13 AM
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.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 07, 2022, 12:13:03 PM
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 07, 2022, 01:19:41 PM
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".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 09, 2022, 10:21:15 PM
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 09, 2022, 10:47:44 PM
Do you make up stuff subconsciously or do you do it on purpose?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.
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.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 09, 2022, 11:24:17 PM
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.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 11, 2022, 09:31:39 AM
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.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 11, 2022, 11:51:23 AM
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.
I've come to the conclusion that EEF is nothing more than a Contrary-BOT. In order to participate in topics of which he has no real insight, knowledge or opinion, he takes a contrary position just to push buttons and inject himself into the discussion.
It's like the little kid who never knows what the grownups are talking about, so he jumps in with, "My cat purrs," or "I got a gold star in class last week!"
He's trying to match brainpans with the other members here, and he only feels joy when someone takes his posts as relevant and serious. Most times, they are "mind phucks" (aka thought experiments) and arguments. Getting him to stop is what's frustrating, not that we can't articulate a response. Yet, he trolls us with that frustration as if he's somehow scored a point.
#Contrary-BOT
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 11, 2022, 12:50:53 PM
He's trying to match brainpans with the other members here, and he only feels joy when someone takes his posts as relevant and serious. Most times, they are "mind phucks" (aka thought experiments) and arguments. Getting him to stop is what's frustrating, not that we can't articulate a response. Yet, he trolls us with that frustration as if he's somehow scored a point.
#Contrary-BOT
Which is why I don't reply with a good reply anymore as much. I got stuff to do and don't need to spend time explaining an obvious statement.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 11, 2022, 08:08:17 PM
Their lack of evidence shows this is a witch hunt. I feel bad for those who have been in solitary for over a year
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 11, 2022, 10:49:24 PM
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.
What I am pointing out is that people who are inclined to dislike a negative account of what Trump did are going to look for a way to discredit this account. So they see a statement from the Secret Service that two agents are willing to testify it didn't happen. Good enough for them, Hutchinson is discredited and then comes the talk of perjury charges.
On the opposite side, the people inclined to hate Trump are going to love the negative account of what Trump did. They are going to ignore anything that would bring that account into question and praise the testimony as brave and sincere. Good enough for them, Trump bad, case closed.
Do you disagree, do you think that bias isn't effecting both sides here?
Nothing in my response was a whataboutism. My comments try to seek an objective analysis.
Witness A said X, witnesses B and C say Y. Now you have conflicting claims so you consider the possiblities:
1. Could A be telling the truth?
2. Could B and C be telling the truth?
3. Could all sides be telling the truth?
4. Could all sides be lying?
5. Is there anyway to help prove or disprove the accounts of any of the witnesses?
How are you concluding logic proves her story is BS? And when you say BS do you mean false or do you mean a lie? (They are not the same thing)
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 11, 2022, 10:50:31 PM
I've come to the conclusion that EEF is nothing more than a Contrary-BOT.
So you are saying I am like you?
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 12, 2022, 09:19:17 AM
What I am pointing out is that people who are inclined to dislike a negative account of what Trump did are going to look for a way to discredit this account. So they see a statement from the Secret Service that two agents are willing to testify it didn't happen. Good enough for them, Hutchinson is discredited and then comes the talk of perjury charges.
On the opposite side, the people inclined to hate Trump are going to love the negative account of what Trump did. They are going to ignore anything that would bring that account into question and praise the testimony as brave and sincere. Good enough for them, Trump bad, case closed.
Do you disagree, do you think that bias isn't effecting both sides here?
Nothing in my response was a whataboutism. My comments try to seek an objective analysis.
Witness A said X, witnesses B and C say Y. Now you have conflicting claims so you consider the possiblities:
1. Could A be telling the truth?
2. Could B and C be telling the truth?
3. Could all sides be telling the truth?
4. Could all sides be lying?
5. Is there anyway to help prove or disprove the accounts of any of the witnesses?
How are you concluding logic proves her story is BS? And when you say BS do you mean false or do you mean a lie? (They are not the same thing)
What "people" are you referring to? We have posted here why he discredit her. Not just a vague statement without evidence. Which lead to the logical view that she is not a good witness. Sounds like you're goal post moving by throwing in others who are not on this thread.
She will not get a perjury charge. This ties into her "I heard" which we covered and she will be plausible deniability (guess I heard him wrong). No one here posted their view about her being a bad witness because they are pro Trump and that's the only reason why she's not a credible witness. Goal post moving, BRB getting the business going again.
There was enough evidence from her 1st day of testimony that showed she was not a credible witness. Again, we explained all of this, but yet you're clinging on to wanting more evidence. So we explained more as time passed. We know you enjoy playing both sides, I'm gonna assume because you're at work and have down time.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 12, 2022, 09:42:36 AM
What "people" are you referring to? We have posted here why he discredit her. Not just a vague statement without evidence. Which lead to the logical view that she is not a good witness. Sounds like you're goal post moving by throwing in others who are not on this thread.
She will not get a perjury charge. This ties into her "I heard" which we covered and she will be plausible deniability (guess I heard him wrong). No one here posted their view about her being a bad witness because they are pro Trump and that's the only reason why she's not a credible witness. Goal post moving, BRB getting the business going again.
There was enough evidence from her 1st day of testimony that showed she was not a credible witness. Again, we explained all of this, but yet you're clinging on to wanting more evidence. So we explained more as time passed. We know you enjoy playing both sides, I'm gonna assume because you're at work and have down time.
When I said people I meant anyone who is looking at this hearing from a strong pro-Trump bias or a strong anti-Trump bias. There are some people like that here on the forum, whose biases are looking for reasons to discredit her and I don't mean to be rude but I think that includes you. The elephant is going where it wants and the rider is trying to justify it as a rational decision. I pointed out that people on the left do the same to illustrate that I am not taking sides and that both sides succumb to this thought process. Please note that I don't mean that as an insult, we all have biases that tug on us and it is hard to see how they drive our conclusions.
I think your "logic" for finding her testimony not-credible and I explained an objective investigative process to show why. You obviously do not agree so at this point I think we will end up going in circles.
You think she is discredited, I think there is not enough to reach that conclusion.
Aloha :shaka:
Post by: macsak on July 15, 2022, 07:57:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4IH4NCf7Tg
Post by: astroboy on July 15, 2022, 09:05:57 AM
Post by: astroboy on July 15, 2022, 09:16:04 AM
https://youtu.be/ylYF6-sZkgM
Post by: QUIETShooter on July 15, 2022, 09:43:50 AM
Ray Epps
https://youtu.be/ylYF6-sZkgM
FED! FED! FED! :thumbsup:
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 04, 2022, 12:07:25 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/exclusive-in-private-cassidy-hutchinson-joked-about-riot-called-j6-committee-phony-praised-trump-before-changing-story/?_nlid=gMM9kuPHdq&_nhids=5aEjulrVwg
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk