WHOOPS SHE LIED

[Truth Detector]

LMAO!

Your bad, right?

Where did I say they "stole the election?" You sad, repugnant, dishonest mental case. Run along.

 

[Truth Detector]

My bet: If he was willing to testify that it happened, this "panel" would have had him in there to "testify". And IMHO: Because they instead only have someone willing to tell stories about what she "heard" others say tells me that they do not have an actual witness who would say that it happened.

That AND, there will be no cross because, well the panel is partisan.

 

[LV426]

I am questioning the veracity of an election where Biden got 15,367,303 more votes than Obama and received the most votes of any President in history.

To what end are you "questioning the veracity?"

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No, you are providing cover for a guy who sent a mob of armed people to storm the capitol. That's what I call support. Hutchinson was one of a handful of the highest ranking people in the White House. You act like she's some AA who is relating office gossip. She IS the gossip. Her account of her conversations with Ciippilone are direct testimony. Her conversations with Meadows are direct testimony. Those conversations are absolutely devastating. And you dismiss it as gossip, which is incredibly dishonest. You sir, are a liar.

its obvious now why the demmycrats have been wasting our time for six years trying unsuccessfully to convict Trump of something.........they're total idiots......

 

[Damocles]

worse....she testified he "said something to the effect of"...........she couldn't even remember the exact words.......

Truth. The credibility of this "witness" is way beyond compromised.

 

[Truth Detector]

To what end?

"Questioning the veracity" is just a passive-aggressive way of alleging election theft because the goal of the questioning is to...what?

To provoke thought and debate dipshit. Something you are incapable of because you are a mentally challenged sociopathic lying dumbass.

 

[LV426]

My bet: If he was willing to testify that it happened, this "panel" would have had him in there to "testify". And IMHO: Because they instead only have someone willing to tell stories about what she "heard" others say tells me that they do not have an actual witness who would say that it happened.

OK, but that was just 5-10 minutes of her 2+ hours of testimony...so how come you don't want to talk about the other 115 minutes she was under oath?

 

[Jarod]

My bet: If he was willing to testify that it happened, this "panel" would have had him in there to "testify". And IMHO: Because they instead only have someone willing to tell stories about what she "heard" others say tells me that they do not have an actual witness who would say that it happened.

Well why doesn't some Republican Trumpper sycophant respond by presenting this guy with an affidavit to sign, and then send it to the networks?
Hell he could write one up one himself and get it notarized?

One does not have to be called by a congressional committee to offer sworn testimony on a subject.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"She told me"... anything that follows is hearsay.

to be fair, there is an exception if the "she" in the above is a party to the law suit.........obviously the exception doesn't apply here.........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Adam Schiff said Hutchinson was a very reliable witness.

that almost certainly discredits her.......

 

[LV426]

Where did I say they "stole the election?"

OK...

This is an OUTRAGE and a total embarrassment for America. The Party of CHAOS (jackass) planned it this way so that they could find a way to STEAL this election.

How is it that Democratic members of the State claimed that they were sure that by the end of the counting Biden would win when Trump had a 500,000 vote margin??

I think we all KNOW the honest answer to that question.

What is the "honest answer" you think we all know?

 

[Damocles]

Well why doesn't some Republican Trumpper sycophant respond by presenting this guy with an affidavit to sign, and then send it to the networks?
Hell he could sign one himself and get it notarized?

Well, first this "panel" would never accept it, it is a partisan hacktackular television show with handpicked reliable folks from the "other party" so they can pretend they are "bipartisan"... this is in no way a court hearing with cross questioning.

The reality is, though, when all you have against him is a witness talking about what she overheard during a conversation... nobody needs to do that. Only the 30% who think Brandon is doing a good job will ever care.

Believe me. I wish you guys would do better at this. I don't want Trump to run again. I certainly don't want him to win again. I do not like him.

The only thing I have to say is that if this is their "blockbuster" witness, you all have nothing at all and you know it, whether you are willing to admit it here or not. You had to feel it in the pit of your stomach each and every time this gossip said, "And they said something to the effect of"... during her "testimony".

 

[BidenPresident]

that almost certainly discredits her.......

Only to scumbags like you.

 

[LV426]

Well why doesn't some Republican Trumpper sycophant respond by presenting this guy with an affidavit to sign, and then send it to the networks?
Hell he could write one up one himself and get it notarized?

One does not have to be called by a congressional committee to offer sworn testimony on a subject.

Because the truth is that he never said this, Nazis made up a source and then credited that source with this wild claim about a Secret Service agent willing to testify.

The agent himself hasn't said SHIT.

 

[Truth Detector]

OK...
What is the "honest answer" you think we all know?

That the election was corrupted. But to low IQ, uninformed, uneducated, mental cases like you, it was a "MIRACLE!" Now run along douchebag.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I never mentioned the valet. When someone recounts a conversation they had with someone else, the conversation is first hand testimony, not hearsay. You are absolutely, totally clueless. Just wow.

and yet, if offered to show the truth of what the conversation relayed, it is hearsay and not admissible.......she would in fact be allowed to say she had a conversation with the valet.......but not what the conversation was about......sorry you have a fucked up understanding of hearsay, but such is life......

 

[LV426]

Well, first this "panel" would never accept it, it is a partisan hacktackular television show with handpicked reliable folks from the "other party" so they can pretend they are "bipartisan"...

but the reality is, when all you have against him is a witness talking about what she overheard during a conversation... nobody needs to do that. Only the 30% who think Brandon is doing a good job will ever care.

You are all being taken for suckers by Nazis who credit an unnamed source with saying that this agent is willing to testify.

THAT is hearsay.

 

[LV426]

That the election was corrupted.

"Corrupted" how, and to what end?

Why was it corrupted? So that it could produce an outcome different from the one you anticipated? And wouldn't that outcome then be a stolen election?

You're terrible with using rhetoric.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

they might as well call you to the stand so you too can guess.

that was a three point shot......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

They love violence and fascism.

..