Before this is over we will hear from Michael Aveneti.Dnicknames said:4th and Inches said:easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..Dnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.
If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.
Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.
How Trump compromises and neutralizes witnesses
7,094 Views |
114 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Golem
I agree, let's hear it under oathDnicknames said:4th and Inches said:easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..Dnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.
If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.
Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
So what about those JDAs with unaligned parties? Is anyone denying that Trump uses them?
Wait! I doHarrison Bergeron said:Wait ... do you still think the Russian Hoax was real? I mean you actually are one of the 0.5% that believe it? You're just joking with us right?Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration. Trump got off because of the GOP lack of morality
We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence. No GOP bc they chose not to be on the committee.
The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.
You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.
No sweetheart, the Stalins would not allow the GOP to sit members, again violating polity and tradition for their Show Trial. You need to read some newspapers.
Waco1947 ,la
No, they're not.Sam Lowry said:
So what about those JDAs with unaligned parties? Is anyone denying that Trump uses them?
They were ecstatic to seize on the Fox News talking point that Secret Service agents say Hutchinson's testimony wasn't accurate. As you've pointed out, the SS agents have not testified under oath, and this is the same Secret Service Mike Pence distrusted so greatly that he would not get in the car sent to take him away from the capitol.
Trump's superpower has always been his ability to use lawyers and the legal system to thwart any accountability.
The interesting hook in this thread is the massive fraud Trump perpetrated by raising money, which he then used to fund and enforce the silence of lots of people who could/might otherwise testify against him. This is the POTUS people on this thread are supporting for reelection.
15/ ...by teasing a 2024 presidential run as an unannounced candidate, which itself was a campaign finance crime. Yet what the $250 million Trump raised through this criminal scheme allowed him to do was pay for the current massive cover-up of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
17/ The concern is that DOJ will do with this evidence what it did with the evidence it received of a similar character during the Mueller investigation: nothing. The scope of Trump’s ex post facto crimes of Obstruction was so vast that the DOJ threw up its hands and walked away.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
19/ Not only is Trump no longer POTUS and thus eligible for indictment, the witnesses he’s tampering with are also indictable. This makes it much harder for DOJ to ignore the campaign-finance, wire-fraud, witness-tampering, and obstruction crimes that the Committee is uncovering.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
21/ I say “Trump gave” money to Meadows, but of course this isn’t accurate. Trump never spends his own money on his crimes. Rather, he’s spending money sent to him by poor grandmothers across the country whose finances have been ravaged by the pandemic.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
It’s money from the poor.
23/ As already noted, one of the reasons Trump got away with at least 12 documented federal felonies itemized in the Mueller Report is that he was president, and could only be indicted by Mueller—in Mueller’s mind—with AG say-so. Barr refused to agree to any prosecution of Trump.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
25/ Having twice gotten away with a massive witness-tampering scheme because DOJ wouldn’t indict a sitting president, Trump is now gambling on DOJ cowardice a third time—he believes they won’t indict an announced 2024 GOP presidential contender who is the presumptive frontrunner.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) June 30, 2022
The thread and the hearings are about Jan 6th. You repeatedly discuss the "Russian Hoax" rather than the current evidence?Harrison Bergeron said:Wait ... do you still think the Russian Hoax was real? I mean you actually are one of the 0.5% that believe it? You're just joking with us right?Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration. Trump got off because of the GOP lack of morality
We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence. No GOP bc they chose not to be on the committee.
The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.
You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.
No sweetheart, the Stalins would not allow the GOP to sit members, again violating polity and tradition for their Show Trial. You need to read some newspapers.
Fox News talking point? Are you serious? At no point in time have I posted a Fox News talking point in this or the Jan 6th thread.. My links come from elite sources like politico and CNN and Axios. My CNN talking point says they have no corroboration and they've also said that the Secret Service is willing to testify that part of Hutchinson's testimony is not correct.
Fox news talking point.. weak sauce!
Fox news talking point.. weak sauce!
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
The very same people on this farcical committee pushed the Russian collusion hoax, THAT is why it's relevant. It's speaks to the absolute lack of any credibility of the committee.Guy Noir said:The thread and the hearings are about Jan 6th. You repeatedly discuss the "Russian Hoax" rather than the current evidence?Harrison Bergeron said:Wait ... do you still think the Russian Hoax was real? I mean you actually are one of the 0.5% that believe it? You're just joking with us right?Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
We spent $40M on a the Russian Hoax, which turned out the be a Clinton campaign attack in conjunction with the Obama administration. Trump got off because of the GOP lack of morality
We have a Stalinesque Show Trial by the same Russian Hoaxters whereby no GOP on the committee, no cross examination, and previous proven instances of faking evidence. No GOP bc they chose not to be on the committee.
The tow "bombshells" already have been disproven - no Capitol tour and no grabbing of a steering wheel.
You morons that buy this stuff are like the guys that wear three masks while driving alone. You'll believe anything a fool tells you.
No sweetheart, the Stalins would not allow the GOP to sit members, again violating polity and tradition for their Show Trial. You need to read some newspapers.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Here are just a handful of the News agencies that reported that the Secret Service agents are willing to refute under oath what this person has insinuated.4th and Inches said:
Fox News talking point? Are you serious? At no point in time have I posted a Fox News talking point in this or the Jan 6th thread.. My links come from elite sources like politico and CNN and Axios. My CNN talking point says they have no corroboration and they've also said that the Secret Service is willing to testify that part of Hutchinson's testimony is not correct.
Fox news talking point.. weak sauce!
USA Today
Politico
CNN
CBS News
The Daily Beast
Yahoo News
Axios
There could be a couple of Conservative leaning publications in this group, there are certainly several that are not conservative.
Stormy Daniels is the only reason we ever heard from a sleazeball like Michael Aveneti. Who was just sentenced to 4 years for stealing from a former client. Avenati obviously doesn't have the ability to buy and lawyer his way out of paying the price for HIS criminal behavior.Harrison Bergeron said:Before this is over we will hear from Michael Aveneti.Dnicknames said:4th and Inches said:easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..Dnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.
If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.
Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.
And the only reason Stormy Daniels got her 15 mins of fame and profited from a trashy book is that Trump had sex with her. Had he kept his pants zipped--a gospel evangelicals and Catholics preach to women but not to women--then we'd never have heard of Michael Avenati.
Remember that?
You all know Trump is a scumbag.
You all know he committed crimes.
The ones of you who aren't total dupes know he committed a coup.
So why do you still support him? Let's acknowledge that you don't value American democracy and want to subject all Americans to a leader a majority of voters soundly defeated. So why is that? What did Trump do that you think is worth the cost of American democracy, beyond appointing a Supreme Court that has just put us in constitutional crisis.
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
Hearsay Judge.Sam Lowry said:Don't you wish!4th and Inches said:
Well, good news! it was pointed out to me the other day that this is not a trial so there's no such thing as witness tampering just like there's no such thing as hearsay!
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The best part about Trump is watching the leftist nut jobs and baby killers react to him. The icing is listening to leftists claim their reactions to Trump are the reasons "orange man bad."ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
Without cross-examination it's just leftist bull****, even if they used to work for Republicans.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
No, no they don't. Which of them ran for office?Dnicknames said:ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hutchinson was so horrified by what she saw and knew about Trump on January 6th, that she went on record a week later to say she was going to be working for Trump at Mar-A-Lago after he left office.
They will now be branded as RINOs by Trump supporters.Dnicknames said:ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
Which is funny because Trumps and his supporters are the actual RINOs. Trumps is truly a Republican in Name Only- he cares only about himself. Hell he was Democrat not that long ago.J.B.Katz said:They will now be branded as RINOs by Trump supporters.Dnicknames said:ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
J.B.Katz said:They will now be branded as RINOs by Trump supporters.Dnicknames said:ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
As they should. RINOs and white suburban women are killing this nation.
Like you.
What is it like to know everything you believe brought destruction to a once great nation? Think about it. Nothing you have ever supported worked. How does that make you feel?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
She's a 25-year-old woman who somehow got plucked out of obscurity by Steve Scalise and was obviously trusted by Mark Meadows until her sense of honor and decency took over.midgett said:
Hutchinson was so horrified by what she saw and knew about Trump on January 6th, that she went on record a week later to say she was going to be working for Trump at Mar-A-Lago after he left office.
My kids are older.
She was a true believer.
She had a front row seat to a lot that happened, because Meadows even bumped people from planes to include her in the company. My guess is that she was a competent note taker with a good memory, and that Meadows is neither of those things. She was a capable assistant
I wonder what made her get her own lawyer.
If she'd been my kid, I'd have been begging her to do that.
As it is, she should never take a sip out of a cup again if she didn't pour the drink herself. Trump and his minions are vindictive. A lot of you on this forum are part of that drone army, piling onto anyone who represents a threat to the Dear Leader regardless of what he's done.
The fact that you are willing to sacrifice American democracy for such an unworthy, morally despicable leader is really disappointing.
As for Meadows, I earnestly pray that, now that he's up **** creek, he gets spanked with any paddles rather than bailed out by them. What a duplicitous tool. Even his voter regislatration wasn't honest--all while he was shouting voter fraud.
The QAnon is strong in this one.J.B.Katz said:Stormy Daniels is the only reason we ever heard from a sleazeball like Michael Aveneti. Who was just sentenced to 4 years for stealing from a former client. Avenati obviously doesn't have the ability to buy and lawyer his way out of paying the price for HIS criminal behavior.Harrison Bergeron said:Before this is over we will hear from Michael Aveneti.Dnicknames said:4th and Inches said:easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..Dnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.
If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.
Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.
And the only reason Stormy Daniels got her 15 mins of fame and profited from a trashy book is that Trump had sex with her. Had he kept his pants zipped--a gospel evangelicals and Catholics preach to women but not to women--then we'd never have heard of Michael Avenati.
Remember that?
You all know Trump is a scumbag.
You all know he committed crimes.
The ones of you who aren't total dupes know he committed a coup.
So why do you still support him? Let's acknowledge that you don't value American democracy and want to subject all Americans to a leader a majority of voters soundly defeated. So why is that? What did Trump do that you think is worth the cost of American democracy, beyond appointing a Supreme Court that has just put us in constitutional crisis.
That's the great irony of TDSers. He is a Democrat. Governed like a Democrat. Captured the traditional Democrat base. That's probably why he drives the country club Republicans crazy.LateSteak69 said:Which is funny because Trumps and his supporters are the actual RINOs. Trumps is truly a Republican in Name Only- he cares only about himself. Hell he was Democrat not that long ago.J.B.Katz said:They will now be branded as RINOs by Trump supporters.Dnicknames said:ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
The people testifying against him - under oath - have an R next to their name.
No, there is another.Harrison Bergeron said:The QAnon is strong in this one.J.B.Katz said:Stormy Daniels is the only reason we ever heard from a sleazeball like Michael Aveneti. Who was just sentenced to 4 years for stealing from a former client. Avenati obviously doesn't have the ability to buy and lawyer his way out of paying the price for HIS criminal behavior.Harrison Bergeron said:Before this is over we will hear from Michael Aveneti.Dnicknames said:4th and Inches said:easy huh, how you get the committee to call them if they dont want rebutting testimony? Asking for well everybody..Dnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, *****, Cipollone, and Meadows. Or they will plead the 5th.
If Cassidy was making up her sworn testimony, they will need to say that under oath. I don't think she is lying about what she heard or watched.
Let's see what Pat Cipollone says under oath…Let's see what the SS Agent in charge that day says under oath.
And the only reason Stormy Daniels got her 15 mins of fame and profited from a trashy book is that Trump had sex with her. Had he kept his pants zipped--a gospel evangelicals and Catholics preach to women but not to women--then we'd never have heard of Michael Avenati.
Remember that?
You all know Trump is a scumbag.
You all know he committed crimes.
The ones of you who aren't total dupes know he committed a coup.
So why do you still support him? Let's acknowledge that you don't value American democracy and want to subject all Americans to a leader a majority of voters soundly defeated. So why is that? What did Trump do that you think is worth the cost of American democracy, beyond appointing a Supreme Court that has just put us in constitutional crisis.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Waco1947 said:Good to hear a sane voice. Thank youDnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.
The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.
ShooterTX said:
That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.
Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.
The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.
whiterock said:Waco1947 said:Good to hear a sane voice. Thank youDnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.
The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.
Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.
Isn't it amazing how quickly everyone dismisses nearly unanimous press reporting on their refutation of Hutchinson's account?Forest Bueller said:whiterock said:Waco1947 said:Good to hear a sane voice. Thank youDnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.
The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.
Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.
thats because one is every major outlet saying it and the other is "testimony" at some useless panel wasting our tax dollars that is outside the scope of congressional committees..whiterock said:Isn't it amazing how quickly everyone dismisses nearly unanimous press reporting on their refutation of Hutchinson's account?Forest Bueller said:whiterock said:Waco1947 said:Good to hear a sane voice. Thank youDnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.
The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.
Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.whiterock said:ShooterTX said:
That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.
Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.
The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.
Wangchung said:The best part about Trump is watching the leftist nut jobs and baby killers react to him. The icing is listening to leftists claim their reactions to Trump are the reasons "orange man bad."ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
I wonder what you'd say if you found out Trump encouraged women he got pregnant to getvabortions? Not that it's hard to simply remove the baby killer line.
Entire 'investigation ' is a political farce.Forest Bueller said:whiterock said:Waco1947 said:Good to hear a sane voice. Thank youDnicknames said:D. C. Bear said:
Haven't followed the hearings much since it won't make a difference in how I vote, but it did see where the Secret Service seemed to totally contradict recent "bombshell" testimony about Trump in the car lunging for the steering wheel etc.. These hearings are clearly not about "finding the truth." No one calls a person to testify second-hand like that without first going to the sources who were there in the vehicle. That kind of embarrassing failure calls everything else into question.
The secret service hasn't contradicted anything she said. If they plan to do that, they can - under oath. Perhaps the Deputy Chief of Staff who told her the story would like to refute her under oath? That would be easy to clear up…
It's not hard to plant a story to contradict her statements, or to rant on TruthSocial. It's a different animal to say it under oath. Notice who testified under oath, and who has declined to testify? Notice which group pleads the 5th?
Except for the part where the agents want to testify that she lied, according to news outlets across the spectrum.
The best that can be said is that the two hearsay's cancel each other out.
Well at least the SS guys and the driver were actually there, so there's that.
Only a hyper partisan could possibly believe it has been conducted fairly or in an unbiased manner.
Who in the world really expects fair and non-partisan investigations out of Congress?.Such an investigation would be a very rare breath of fresh air.
I simply consider the source of the allegation and ignore it.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:The best part about Trump is watching the leftist nut jobs and baby killers react to him. The icing is listening to leftists claim their reactions to Trump are the reasons "orange man bad."ScottS said:
The only crime Trump is guilty of his having an R next to his name.
I wonder what you'd say if you found out Trump encouraged women he got pregnant to getvabortions? Not that it's hard to simply remove the baby killer line.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Sam Lowry said:There it is, folks. Fraud and obstruction aren't a bug, they're a feature.whiterock said:ShooterTX said:
That is a hell of a lot of speculation with zero evidence... par for the course with this crowd of crazies.
Or, it's just a POTUS with the ability to raise funds helping protect his former team from lawfare intended to make anyone afraid to work for him.
The allegation is a spin that inadvertently casts him in a positive light.
The Democrats have been using both in earnest, against Trump, since 2016. Glad you recognize that.