WHOOPS SHE LIED

PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

You're a BIG FUCKING IDIOT for thinking that anything Hutchinson says is contradicted by the Secret Service since that fake controversy was triggered by a Nazi on twitter crediting "a source close to the Secret Service saying the agent will testify."

That was also two weeks ago, so why the fuck hasn't this guy testified under oath and in public to the 1/6 commission?

Are we awaiting his testimony just like we're awaiting the investigation into who leaked the Dobbs draft???
 
LV426 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have not said anything at all to that effect. I said: If the person who was there actually was willing to say what they want him to say he would be "testifying" and it wouldn't be an overheard conversation with a bit that said: "and they said something to the effect of..." in it.

If you get one of the SS agents that this happened to to tell us about it, then you have some testimony. Not of a criminal conspiracy, but you have testimony that isn't hearsay and inadmissible in any court.
 
Damocles said:
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.

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.

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".
Click to expand...

1) Who cares if the panel would accept it? Why would that matter? I said deliver it to the networks, not the panel.
2) I do not care if he lunged for the wheel or not, that it really beside the point of the story, an amusing footnote. It's interesting that is the part the Right has chosen to dispute.
3) I thought she provided some crucial stuff, but that hearsay part about the limo was not it.
4) I do not think there is a single blockbuster witness in most real life investigations, usually its the cumulation of several witnesses. I suspect the bi-partisin committee is presenting the entire story.
 
LV426 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They lie, he did not say it, quick search proves it.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, there is no evidence at all he contradicted the story, that is just made up Trumpper shit.
 
LV426 said:
"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.
Click to expand...

This ^Is why you cannot debate a dishonest, low IQ mental case on steroids. :palm:
 
Jarod said:
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?
Click to expand...

if the 1/6 committee wants to regain credibility they will call him........if they want to pretend they didn't really call Hutchinson and sweep it under the rug they won't........it's THEIR responsibility......
 
Jarod said:
1) Who cares if the panel would accept it? Why would that matter? I said deliver it to the networks, not the panel.
2) I do not care if he lunged for the wheel or not, that it really beside the point of the story, an amusing footnote. It's interesting that is the part the Right has chosen to dispute.
3) I thought she provided some crucial stuff, but that hearsay part about the limo was not it.
4) I do not think there is a single blockbuster witness in most real life investigations, usually its the cumulation of several witnesses. I suspect the bi-partisin committee is presenting the entire story.
Click to expand...
1. It really doesn't. There just is no reason to make an affidavit that something didn't happen. It's silly to pretend that it would make a difference to you.
2. Nah, it just underlines the nature of the "witness". Her "testimony" was rife with absurd nonsense. The reason "the right" focused on this was because the left was using them in the news as examples, they are simply using the examples they saw in the news.
3. I don't believe she provided anything, she undermined her own credibility, gossiped, and then got a pat on the back, the points that were "outrageous" and used in the news as examples are the ones we are talking about here. Get Maddow to talk about something with more meat in it and maybe you'd have a point.
4. However it was brought to us with that description. She was their "blockbuster witness", and she was not very credible.
 
Jarod said:
1) Who cares if the panel would accept it? Why would that matter? I said deliver it to the networks, not the panel.
2) I do not care if he lunged for the wheel or not, that it really beside the point of the story, an amusing footnote. It's interesting that is the part the Right has chosen to dispute.
3) I thought she provided some crucial stuff, but that hearsay part about the limo was not it.
4) I do not think there is a single blockbuster witness in most real life investigations, usually its the cumulation of several witnesses. I suspect the bi-partisin committee is presenting the entire story.
Click to expand...

It is a clown show with nothing more than hearsay as its evidence. It is not bi-partisan. It is partisan. There is no cross examination or contrary witnesses.

It is a clown show intended for fools who will gulp down their bullshit and parrot it. There was no crime. There will be no charges. If there are, they will end in a debacle like the Mueller clown show and precious two clown show impeachments.

Democrats are continuing to remove any doubt how mentally disturbed and stupid they are. It will be a BIG boost in November for the RED tsunami coming. :palm:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if the 1/6 committee wants to regain credibility they will call him........if they want to pretend they didn't really call Hutchinson and sweep it under the rug they won't........it's THEIR responsibility......
Click to expand...

He has not discredited the story. Its unrefuted, what Hutchensen said.
 
Damocles said:
I have not said anything at all to that effect.
Click to expand...

You haven't used those exact words, but the intention is crystal clear.

The only reason you are disingenuously pretending that she's not credible is because you simply cannot fathom what happened on 1/6 and that the people you've been running cover for on JPP and indulging were responsible for it.

You are doing this because you are trying to discredit her entire testimony by discrediting this one part...but the facts are that Hutchinson would not have testified publicly to any of this shit if it wasn't already corroborated by the investigations, trials, depositions, interviews, and recordings.

Meanwhile, you all have been taken by an unnamed source from a Nazi on twitter...desperate to find anything to discredit Hutchinson, you chose to focus on the part of her testimony that had the least to do with the coup.

So the only reason you'd seek to do that is because you either have consciousness of guilt (which you should have anyway for indulging Nazis on the internet), or you simply don't want to admit that your personal judgment and instincts SUCK.


If you get one of the SS agents that this happened to to tell us about it, then you have some testimony.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the 1/6 Commission doesn't already have SS testimony, and why would the 1/6 commission have her testify publicly, if everything she's testifying to isn't already corroborated by the work the commission is doing?

Also, all this because a Nazi on twitter credited an unnamed source close to the Secret Service that particular agent was willing to testify...that agent hasn't said SHIT, and until he does -under oath- Hutchinson's version of events stand as the only truthful one thus far.


Not of a criminal conspiracy, but you have testimony that isn't hearsay and inadmissible in any court.
Click to expand...

That's the DOJ's problem to figure out.

The 1/6 commission is merely getting to the bottom of what your Nazi pals did from 2020 through 1/6.
 
 
Damocles said:
I have not said anything at all to that effect. I said: If the person who was there actually was willing to say what they want him to say he would be "testifying" and it wouldn't be an overheard conversation with a bit that said: "and they said something to the effect of..." in it.

If you get one of the SS agents that this happened to to tell us about it, then you have some testimony. Not of a criminal conspiracy, but you have testimony that isn't hearsay and inadmissible in any court.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Trump tried to take the wheel of the Beast doesn't change the fact that he tried to pull off a coup.
 
 
Damocles said:
1. It really doesn't. There just is no reason to make an affidavit that something didn't happen. It's silly to pretend that it would make a difference to you.
2. Nah, it just underlines the nature of the "witness". Her "testimony" was rife with absurd nonsense. The reason "the right" focused on this was because the left was using them in the news as examples, they are simply using the examples they saw in the news.
3. I don't believe she provided anything, she undermined her own credibility, gossiped, and then got a pat on the back, the points that were "outrageous" and used in the news as examples are the ones we are talking about here. Get Maddow to talk about something with more meat in it and maybe you'd have a point.
4. However it was brought to us with that description. She was their "blockbuster witness", and she was not very credible.
Click to expand...

The reason would be to discredit what she said and to offer his side.

What undermines the nature of the Witness? She offered lots of evidence, yet this piece of trivia is all they want to refute.

I could care less what Maddow talks about, I do not watch and its not relevant to the work the Bi-partisin Committee is doing.

Who called her blockbuster? Maddow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top