"You have to be dumber than a box of rocks to believe Hutchinson's testimony."

If your response to reports that Secret Service agents (who were actually in the vehicle) are willing to testify about how Hutchinson LIED is,

"Then why did these agents not bother to testify?", you aren't paying attention.

The committee holding the hearings is run by the Democrats, specifically Adam Schiff.  Only witnesses he decides on will appear at the hearings. 

That's why there has been no cross-examinations by GOP members and no subpoenas issued for anyone with contradictory testimony.

This is the same thing the House did when impeaching Trump.  They only allowed testimony they thought bolstered their pre-determined conclusion that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

You drank the Kool-Aid. This is the definition of delusional


Two secret service agents say they heard claim Trump angrily demanded to go to Capitol

Goal post moved

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You drank the Kool-Aid. This is the definition of delusional


Two secret service agents say they heard claim Trump angrily demanded to go to Capitol

Y'all got to ask yourself this;
Is the biggest problem you have in the world, a man named Trump
or is it the bastard the refuses to allow you to legally defend yourself and your family?
Or the bastard that inflates the cost of your living to save his Earth,
Or the woman that thinks she is your mother and knows what is best for you.
Y'all think about that.
 

#1 -- CNN   

#2 -- what does "heard claim" even mean?  Is that another new Liberal attempt to redefine the English language?

#3 -- Seems I heard plenty of other stories of Hillary and Biden berating their security details.  Doesn't mean anything when you consider the Secret Service is with them almost 24/7 telling them what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and what not to do.


I missed where the J6 hearings were about "Trump Berating" anyone.  Hell, he got into office by berating the Democrats AND his GOP Primary opponents. 

Tell me something new ..... for once!   

You are missing the point and arguing points that don't even matter.

Swwoooosshhhhhhh uno?



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Some people just can't get over exes. Its been over 2 years now since Trump was President - what are they afraid of or can't get over him?

You are missing the point and arguing points that don't even matter.

I'm missing the point?

This is my thread, genius!

 

Some people just can't get over exes. Its been over 2 years now since Trump was President - what are they afraid of or can't get over him?

Theyre afraid of what he showed our nation an outsider can do. TDS control the left has acquired of these people is dangerous. Nation wide M....K....Ult....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

If your response to reports that Secret Service agents (who were actually in the vehicle) are willing to testify about how Hutchinson LIED is,

Two things:
1. Since Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay you are missing a 3rd option, that she was misinformed. Her testimony is what she said she heard so if someone lied to her and she didn't know then she isn't lying
2. Consider also the possibility that the secret service agents could lie as well. They are fact witnesses so absent any credibility issues their statements are going to carry more weight of course but it is possible they could lie. We mustn't suspend objectivity for a conclusion we prefer.

For now I am not going to count any eggs until they hatch. Virginia Thomas said she would testify too then backed out so I will wait till we see actual statements of some sort (in the hearing or on TV)


As for the committee some of their actions are making their hearings appear quite partisan and not true investigatory work. I do know that what we are seeing at hearings is only part of the various evidence they have compiled so I don't know how much else they have. However they are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't realize that they need to have the hearings come across as objective. Right now they aren't doing very good at that since they didn't subpoena the fact witnesses and they haven't even explained why.

Two things:
1. Since Hutchinson's testimony is hearsay you are missing a 3rd option, that she was misinformed. Her testimony is what she said she heard so if someone lied to her and she didn't know then she isn't lying
2. Consider also the possibility that the secret service agents could lie as well. They are fact witnesses so absent any credibility issues their statements are going to carry more weight of course but it is possible they could lie. We mustn't suspend objectivity for a conclusion we prefer.

For now I am not going to count any eggs until they hatch. Virginia Thomas said she would testify too then backed out so I will wait till we see actual statements of some sort (in the hearing or on TV)


As for the committee some of their actions are making their hearings appear quite partisan and not true investigatory work. I do know that what we are seeing at hearings is only part of the various evidence they have compiled so I don't know how much else they have. However they are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't realize that they need to have the hearings come across as objective. Right now they aren't doing very good at that since they didn't subpoena the fact witnesses and they haven't even explained why.

To sum it up, "I have no opinion, but want to post something because I'm bored."

To sum it up, "I have no opinion, but want to post something because I'm bored."

Funny how he spent all those words in #1 explaining WHY HEARSAY is not allowed in court, with a few exceptions.  It's impossible to cross-examine someone testifying as to what someone else witnessed.  Since it really is a possibility that the information she swore to was not correct or truthful as she remembers it, without direct cross, second or third hand information is unreliable.

Arguing whether she lied or was lied to is a moot point.  She should never have been allowed to give that testimony in the first place.

As for the Secret Service agents lying, I guess we only have their statements to go on.  But then again, THEY were there.  SHE was not.

And, if the committee saw fit to actually subpoena the agents to the hearing, maybe we'd get to actually hear what happened and decide who's really lying.  But, the Democrats running the hearing don't want that.  They want us to only hear what they want us to know.

To sum it up, "I have no opinion, but want to post something because I'm bored."

trying to talk smaht...like one of those politicians who say things with zero meaning. Picture a dog chasing its tail

trying to talk smaht...like one of those politicians who say things with zero meaning. Picture a dog chasing its tail

It's easy to spot someone trying to give a book report in class when they haven't even read the book.

Politicians, like Kamala, and EEF frequently bring that analogy to mind.

Arguing whether she lied or was lied to is a moot point.  She should never have been allowed to give that testimony in the first place.

It's not like the agents cannot be located or ordered to go to the hearing.

trying to talk smaht...like one of those politicians who say things with zero meaning. Picture a dog chasing its tail

Like when Hyena replies to a question.

To sum it up, "I have no opinion, but want to post something because I'm bored."

Why do I have to have an opinion? Why does it bother you that I am reserving judgement until I know more?

Funny how he spent all those words in #1 explaining WHY HEARSAY is not allowed in court, with a few exceptions.  It's impossible to cross-examine someone testifying as to what someone else witnessed.  Since it really is a possibility that the information she swore to was not correct or truthful as she remembers it, without direct cross, second or third hand information is unreliable.

Arguing whether she lied or was lied to is a moot point.  She should never have been allowed to give that testimony in the first place.

As for the Secret Service agents lying, I guess we only have their statements to go on.  But then again, THEY were there.  SHE was not.

And, if the committee saw fit to actually subpoena the agents to the hearing, maybe we'd get to actually hear what happened and decide who's really lying.  But, the Democrats running the hearing don't want that.  They want us to only hear what they want us to know.

Two things
1. This isn't a court case and not subject to standard court rules.

2. Do we have the secret service agents statements? They didn't testify yet, have they been identified and made official statements? I know their identifies have been made known but I didn't see statements from them yet. I did see allegations that one of them has credibility issues however even if one were not trustworthy, the second one can still testify.

Why do I have to have an opinion? Why does it bother you that I am reserving judgement until I know more?

What makes u think it bothers me? Im not the one who looks foolish. Ur problem, not mine.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Two things
1. This isn't a court case and not subject to standard court rules.

2. Do we have the secret service agents statements? They didn't testify yet, have they been identified and made official statements? I know their identifies have been made known but I didn't see statements from them yet. I did see allegations that one of them has credibility issues however even if one were not trustworthy, the second one can still testify.

They made statements, u just werent told by the fake news about them. Which is why ur playing both sides generally makes sense to u.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk