Today. Witnesses are alive and available to testifyGrowlTowel said:How old is the newspaper?Osodecentx said:Are you saying media accounts of what the agents will say is not hearsay? In your civil or criminal law experience can you admit as evidence what a newspaper says to prove the truth of the matter asserted?GrowlTowel said:Sure. I have been a civil trial lawyer since 2001. You lost this one counselor.Sam Lowry said:Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.GrowlTowel said:You don't do much trial work, do you?Sam Lowry said:The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheelGrowlTowel said:Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?Sam Lowry said:No, that's hearsay.Doc Holliday said:Like this?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022
Jan 6 committee
174,221 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
Almost everything in the media, except first-person accounts, is hearsay.Osodecentx said:Exactly. So if the agents won't/can't testify, whatever the media says about what their testimony would have been is hearsay. Therefore, Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed even if it is hearsay.He Hate Me said:Yeah, with exception, hearsay is not admitted in Court because it is unreliable and cannot be cross-examined.J.B.Katz said:Sam Lowry said:Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.GrowlTowel said:You don't do much trial work, do you?Sam Lowry said:The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheelGrowlTowel said:Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?Sam Lowry said:No, that's hearsay.Doc Holliday said:Like this?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022
The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.
Okay.He Hate Me said:Almost everything in the media, except first-person accounts, is hearsay.Osodecentx said:Exactly. So if the agents won't/can't testify, whatever the media says about what their testimony would have been is hearsay. Therefore, Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed even if it is hearsay.He Hate Me said:Yeah, with exception, hearsay is not admitted in Court because it is unreliable and cannot be cross-examined.J.B.Katz said:Sam Lowry said:Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.GrowlTowel said:You don't do much trial work, do you?Sam Lowry said:The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheelGrowlTowel said:Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?Sam Lowry said:No, that's hearsay.Doc Holliday said:Like this?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022
The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.
Therefore a media account of what someone might say to a Congressional committee is hearsay
The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
Sure. It has the same reliability problem as most hearsay.Osodecentx said:Okay.He Hate Me said:Almost everything in the media, except first-person accounts, is hearsay.Osodecentx said:Exactly. So if the agents won't/can't testify, whatever the media says about what their testimony would have been is hearsay. Therefore, Hutchinson's testimony is undisputed even if it is hearsay.He Hate Me said:Yeah, with exception, hearsay is not admitted in Court because it is unreliable and cannot be cross-examined.J.B.Katz said:Sam Lowry said:Enough to know a lot of lawyers don't understand hearsay. Would be curious to see the exact nature of your deficiency, if you care to elaborate.GrowlTowel said:You don't do much trial work, do you?Sam Lowry said:The statement that both agents are prepared to testify that Trump didn't assault them or try to grab the wheelGrowlTowel said:Really? Do tell. What out of court statement is being asserted to prove the truth of the matter asserted?Sam Lowry said:No, that's hearsay.Doc Holliday said:Like this?Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you mean by third party. Understand, for example, that it's not hearsay if a witness hears Trump order the SS to get rid of the mags. That's first-hand testimony.🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022Don't be distracted by claims of "hearsay." That goes to whether evidence can be admitted in *court,* not Congress.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2022
The key is that Hutchinson testified *under oath.* If she was lying, she faces felony charges. The same can't be said for those trying to discredit her testimony.
Therefore a media account of what someone might say to a Congressional committee is hearsay
Yuk it up.Golem said:Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
"Yes Congresswoman, and that's when Brett Kavanaugh pooped in my bed, stole my sandwich and told me this is a MAGA bedroom. He then said Trump told him to do it. It's just all too awful to remember, which is why I just remembered it."
Time's up for Trump.
Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
There was a 0 percent chance of events happening that way.
Wow! How long did it take you to think up that failed analogy?C. Jordan said:Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
Good point. The FBI was massively involved.C. Jordan said:Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
We have Dan Quayle to thank for that.JXL said:Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
There was a 0 percent chance of events happening that way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/14/new-details-undermine-pences-supposed-hero-turn-jan-6/
From today's story by Isaac Stanley-Becker:
Further details from the book reveal that, in the course of their conversations, Pence also echoed Trump's false claims that the election results in Arizona were faulty.Quote:
So intent was Pence on being Trump's loyal second-in-command and potential successor that he asked confidants if there were ways he could accede to Trump's demands and avoid certifying the results of the election on Jan. 6. In late December, the authors reveal, Pence called Dan Quayle, a former vice president and fellow Indiana Republican, for advice.
Quayle was adamant, according to the authors. "Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away," he said.
But Pence pressed him, the authors write, asking if there were any grounds to pause the certification because of ongoing legal challenges. Quayle was unmoved, and Pence ultimately agreed, according to the book.
The Stalin Show Trial will not consider where the 250 FBI agents were or what they did, what happened to the FBI informant arrested / released, and why Capitol security was not adequately provided.GrowlTowel said:Good point. The FBI was massively involved.C. Jordan said:Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
But a Congressman gave a tour of not the Capitol and someone heard Trump did something to the effect of maybe trying to grab a steering wheel.
Not to mention, what happened to the person that put the pipe bombs at the DNC?Harrison Bergeron said:The Stalin Show Trial will not consider where the 250 FBI agents were or what they did, what happened to the FBI informant arrested / released, and why Capitol security was not adequately provided.GrowlTowel said:Good point. The FBI was massively involved.C. Jordan said:Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
But a Congressman gave a tour of not the Capitol and someone heard Trump did something to the effect of maybe trying to grab a steering wheel.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
C. Jordan said:Yuk it up.Golem said:Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
"Yes Congresswoman, and that's when Brett Kavanaugh pooped in my bed, stole my sandwich and told me this is a MAGA bedroom. He then said Trump told him to do it. It's just all too awful to remember, which is why I just remembered it."
Time's up for Trump.
Again? So, "the walls are closing in" one more time? What's this make it now? 6 times his "time is up"?
The same thing that happened to the people that rioted in Washington and other places after Trump's election, attacked state Capitols, burned/looted/murdered, and currently attack SCOTUS justices and pregnancy centers. #memoryholed It is almost like they were Black Nationalists who commit terrorist attacks on children.GrowlTowel said:Not to mention, what happened to the person that put the pipe bombs at the DNC?Harrison Bergeron said:The Stalin Show Trial will not consider where the 250 FBI agents were or what they did, what happened to the FBI informant arrested / released, and why Capitol security was not adequately provided.GrowlTowel said:Good point. The FBI was massively involved.C. Jordan said:Also, we're learning the capitol assault was far more organized than it appeared.Guy Noir said:The coup failed because VP Pence refused to throw out the election results, contrary to the request of the President. If Pence would have followed Trump's orders then the coup would have had a good chance of success.RMF5630 said:
How can there be a Trump sponsored coup to fail when his Administration certified the election on the same day and had no one at the so-called coup?
Violent demonstration, riot, trespassing, idiots, all yes. Coup? Insurrection? Too far of a leap. Not organized, or serious enough and too localized for what you are trying to label this thing.
a) Throw out results
b) Declare the election a fraud
c) Schedule another election in the future on an undetermined date
d) Trump might still be in office to this day
Not much of a leap for me.
An illustration.
In the early 1960s, a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs suffered damage while flying over NC.
One of the bombs fell out and managed to arm itself.
Three out of four safeties failed. But the last one kept half of NC from being obliterated.
Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean something awful could easily have happened.
On Jan. 6, Trump and his minions were trying to get that last safety to fail.
And they shouldn't be liable?
But a Congressman gave a tour of not the Capitol and someone heard Trump did something to the effect of maybe trying to grab a steering wheel.
Osodecentx said:Oldbear says the agents won't testify. If they don't testify, Hutchinson't testimony is undisputed (even though it is hearsay).4th and Inches said:they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.Osodecentx said:I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.whiterock said:and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."Osodecentx said:These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.Oldbear83 said:"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"Sam Lowry said:You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.Oldbear83 said:Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.Oldbear83 said:
Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.
And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot
Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.
You can always obsess about mean tweets.
I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp
I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.
Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont
In their earlier testimony they weren't asked about whether Trump made an attempt to grab the wheel. Therefore, there is no evidence that Trump did not grab the wheel. There won't be until one or both agents testify.
you think the committee will allow them to testify? Simple yes or no will suffice
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Hurry Mueller!C. Jordan said:Yuk it up.Golem said:Doc Holliday said:Sam Lowry said:
Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony against Trump Is Devastating
"Yes Congresswoman, and that's when Brett Kavanaugh pooped in my bed, stole my sandwich and told me this is a MAGA bedroom. He then said Trump told him to do it. It's just all too awful to remember, which is why I just remembered it."
Time's up for Trump.
Time was up on Jan 20, 2020 but here we are..
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Yes.4th and Inches said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear says the agents won't testify. If they don't testify, Hutchinson't testimony is undisputed (even though it is hearsay).4th and Inches said:they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.Osodecentx said:I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.whiterock said:and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."Osodecentx said:These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.Oldbear83 said:"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"Sam Lowry said:You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.Oldbear83 said:Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.Oldbear83 said:
Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.
And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot
Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.
You can always obsess about mean tweets.
I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp
I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.
Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont
In their earlier testimony they weren't asked about whether Trump made an attempt to grab the wheel. Therefore, there is no evidence that Trump did not grab the wheel. There won't be until one or both agents testify.
you think the committee will allow them to testify? Simple yes or no will suffice
Do you?
based on evidence to this point.. nopeOsodecentx said:Yes.4th and Inches said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear says the agents won't testify. If they don't testify, Hutchinson't testimony is undisputed (even though it is hearsay).4th and Inches said:they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.Osodecentx said:I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.whiterock said:and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."Osodecentx said:These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.Oldbear83 said:"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"Sam Lowry said:You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.Oldbear83 said:Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.Oldbear83 said:
Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.
And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot
Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.
You can always obsess about mean tweets.
I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp
I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.
Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont
In their earlier testimony they weren't asked about whether Trump made an attempt to grab the wheel. Therefore, there is no evidence that Trump did not grab the wheel. There won't be until one or both agents testify.
you think the committee will allow them to testify? Simple yes or no will suffice
Do you?
Would love to be wrong
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Osodecentx said:Yes.4th and Inches said:Osodecentx said:Oldbear says the agents won't testify. If they don't testify, Hutchinson't testimony is undisputed (even though it is hearsay).4th and Inches said:they did, and then CNN post Hitchinson testimony said the committee has no corroborating evidence or discrediting evidence of her testimony.Osodecentx said:I wonder about this also. I thought I read earlier on this thread that they already testified, though.whiterock said:and now the alphabet media stirs to proactively impeach potential SS agent testimony - they were "aligned with Trump."Osodecentx said:These links are news reports that the SS agents "are prepared to testify". That is hearsay. When they do under oath it is no longer hearsay.Oldbear83 said:"driver prepared to testify that Trump didn't grab steering wheel"Sam Lowry said:You assume the driver has already said that. You don't know.Oldbear83 said:Believe what you want, since the driver has already said that just did not happen.Sam Lowry said:Yeah, but there's a picture that's claimed to show otherwise. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear without the agents' testimony. I don't know that it would be prohibitively difficult for Trump to move 18 feet, especially as enraged as he seems to have been.Oldbear83 said:
Nope. She even referred to it as "The Beast", which is Secret Service jargon for the big limo.
And we have only your assumption the testimony was credible at all.
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agent-willing-testify-trump-124545568.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agents-testify-trump-lunge-steering-wheel-capitol-riot
Just give this one up, Sam, it was a dumb lie that didn't last a day before being called out.
You can always obsess about mean tweets.
I have a lot of respect for the agents. Testimony from agents who were actually in the car would be hard to ignore.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-security-detail-was-aligned-with-him-and-personally-cheering-for-biden-to-fail-says-author-of-book-on-the-secret-service/ar-AAZ1OYp
I would assess that SS is not going to allow those agents to testify, as part of a wise and long-standing policy of keeping the SS out of partisan politics. And the folks on the committee know that. So they put up outlandish and easily refutable hearsay evidence knowing that there will not likely be direct refutation forthcoming. Only now they see it's not only not having any impact, it's threatening to blow up in their faces.
Multiple major news outlets are reporting sources saying the SS will testify to rebut if asked to.. you think the committee will ask them? I bet they dont
In their earlier testimony they weren't asked about whether Trump made an attempt to grab the wheel. Therefore, there is no evidence that Trump did not grab the wheel. There won't be until one or both agents testify.
you think the committee will allow them to testify? Simple yes or no will suffice
Do you?
Neither the committee nor the SS wants these agents to testify.
The cmee has the testimony it wants/needs, and the SS wants to stay out of politics.
That's the way it goes with neverTrumpers. Just make it up as you go, all allegation all the time. . But it's so predictable that we now know that of all possible truths, the allegation is LEAST likely.
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Hillary is in trouble, you say?
He Hate Me said:Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Hillary is in trouble, you say?
Big trouble. Someone about to Suicide.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Forever Trumper panicSam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
To a mind obsessed with paranoia and delusion, as you clearly are Sam, this would be the take.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
But those with more objective perspectives will not buy it.
Especially by 2023.
The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Have the ULTRAMAGA Russian hookers that peed on Trump during the Biggest Threat To Democracy Since The Civil War testify yet?
lol the neverTrumpers think they're winning here. confirmation bias Uber Alles!
the sound of panic you are feeling is the one coming from the media back stepping because they think her testimony flopped..Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
lol, Dem internal polling says they cant get a canidate over 50% even with Roe v Wade decision to rally behind..Sam Lowry said:But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
No lifeline, American people vote based on how their life is.. they will vote Dems out and Trump back in because the worse this gets, the more people miss him and his peaceful prosperous years.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs
#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Sam Lowry said:But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Not in the least, Sam. Your obsession with fear of Trump blinds you to what's going on here.
Everything from the timing, to the committee staffing, to the media narrative, has been handled with Biden-like incompetence, and the Trump haters don't even see it because of their vicious delusion.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The common wisdom is that Trump can't win again. I'm not totally convinced that's true, but it's the assumption that most of these politicians are likely to be working with.4th and Inches said:lol, Dem internal polling says they cant get a canidate over 50% even with Roe v Wade decision to rally behind..Sam Lowry said:But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
No lifeline, American people vote based on how their life is.. they will vote Dems out and Trump back in because the worse this gets, the more people miss him and his peaceful prosperous years.
For Cheney, that means she wants to keep him from the nomination and preferably keep him off the primary ballot. That means rallying Never Trumpers and letting him know we won't waver. She (and other sane conservatives) are hoping Republicans will react the way I have.
The Democrats want to make Trump the biggest issue of 2024. They don't think he's a viable candidate, but they love how he takes the oxygen away from everyone else. They're hoping Republicans will react the way you have.
I agree that much of it's been handled poorly. I mostly quit watching after the first hearing because the production was so bad. That's really beside the point, though. The evidence speaks for itself.Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
Not in the least, Sam. Your obsession with fear of Trump blinds you to what's going on here.
Everything from the timing, to the committee staffing, to the media narrative, has been handled with Biden-like incompetence, and the Trump haters don't even see it because of their vicious delusion.
Sam Lowry said:The common wisdom is that Trump can't win again. I'm not totally convinced that's true, but it's the assumption that most of these politicians are likely to be working with.4th and Inches said:lol, Dem internal polling says they cant get a canidate over 50% even with Roe v Wade decision to rally behind..Sam Lowry said:But what you don't know is that you're throwing them a lifeline.Oldbear83 said:The 'grasping at straws' is all Democrat right now, and we all know it.Sam Lowry said:
Two hours of testimony followed by two days of manufactured hysteria over an issue that has yet to be raised on the record. This is the sound of panic, of a lost and leaderless rabble grasping at straws while the water closes over your heads.
No lifeline, American people vote based on how their life is.. they will vote Dems out and Trump back in because the worse this gets, the more people miss him and his peaceful prosperous years.
For Cheney, that means she wants to keep him from the nomination and preferably keep him off the primary ballot. That means rallying Never Trumpers and letting him know we won't waiver. She (and other sane conservatives) are hoping Republicans will react the way I have.
The Democrats want to make Trump the biggest issue of 2024. They don't think he's a viable candidate, but they like how he takes the oxygen away from everyone else. They're hoping Republicans will react the way you have.
Liz is mad because Trump (a Democrat) attacked her dad.
I don't want Trump to run, but he would likely wipe the floor with any regard morons the Authoritarian Party would nominate.