You know why? Because he stopped being President on 1/20/21.
She was trying to get a job with him for after by hitting up Pam Bondi for advice.
Are you gonna say she's a coffee girl next?
Wasn't the Secret Service guy supposed to refute Hutchinson?
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
You know why? Because he stopped being President on 1/20/21.
She was trying to get a job with him for after by hitting up Pam Bondi for advice.
Are you gonna say she's a coffee girl next?
NOOOOOOO!
WRONG!
Repeating what someone told you isn't hearsay, what you are repeating MIGHT be hearsay, but the act of repeating something someone told you is most definitely NOT hearsay, and is in fact a witness statement.
It's an important distinction you are glossing over because you're too busy running cover for Nazis here, shamefully.
The subject might be hearsay, but the act of repeating it is not.
Hutchinson didn't "do any hearsay", OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE and she just repeated them.
None of this impugns Hutchinson's credibility at all, she is repeating things that might be hearsay, but that's not for her OR YOU to decide.
Because they already have corroborated testimony from witnesses which is why Hutchinson's testimony was public.
And you don't really know what hearsay is, since you think repeating something someone else told you is hearsay, instead of the thing being repeated.
You're trying to make the act of testifying an act of hearsay and that's just plain fucking dumb, and you know it's plain fucking dumb.
1. How is it propaganda when the only people testifying have been people who worked for Trump?
2. Of course they don't like Trump, he tried to overthrow the government based on a lie. A lie you indulged right here on JPP. So really, you bear some responsibility for Trump's attempt to overthrow the government because you indulged those conspiracy theories right here on your own shitty board.
3. The GOP -AND TRUMP- were given every single opportunity to participate in good faith, but instead of doing that, Trump decided he wanted to tamper with the witnesses. And you're running cover for that.
4. The propaganda show is what you and all your Nazi pals are doing here by trying to impugn Hutchinson's SWOTRN TETSIMONY while all your people are simply too fucking chickenshit to testify under oath, or to hold yourselves accountable for your actions.
You might not think you're personally responsible for 1/6 by indulging those lies here, but you are.
You definitely are.
What Hutchinson repeated, from other people in Trump's admin, had nothing to do with Trump's attempt to overthrow the government based on a lie you personally indulged here on JPP.
Well, this is how I know 100% that you haven't watched a single second of the 1/6 committee...instead, what you've done is glean what happened based on the posts of the Nazis you've been running cover for here on JPP.
Anyone who has watched the committee's hearings would know exactly what Trump did to cause the insurrection.
It's not our fault that you're too much of a piece of shit to be honest about anything. That is YOUR character failure, not ours.
You don't even know what hearsay is, so just stop because you're making yourself look like a fucking moron.
Exactly, and we know this because of what we've found in the 1/6 committee.
Damocles doesn't know this because he hasn't watched one second of it.
Nope.
Because the whole genesis of this stupid thing comes solely from that dumb tweet that uses not a Secret Service source, but rather "a source close to the Secret Service".
Well, "a source close to JPP says that Damocles fucks sheep", so I guess that means you fuck sheep, right? Because a source close to JPP said so and you haven't offered to refute that under oath. So it must be true, right?? So you fuck sheep, then.
And it's all hearsay that you don't fuck sheep...you told someone else that you don't fuck sheep, but that's hearsay according to your standard, so why are you always fucking sheep, Damocles? Is it because no woman will ever lie with you because you fuck sheep?
How does one refute utter bullshit? Assuming anything she said was true, which we know wasn't based on common sense, is throwing a lunch against a wall a crime?
You're such the delusional dishonest douchebag. You give mental cases a bad name.
BidenPresident
Verified User
"Ignorance is bliss." No, ignorance makes one an ignoramus.
What is it that makes you think someone Has to subpoena them?
Anyone can fill out an affidavit.
Again, what crimes? If there were any crimes, wouldn't they have been referred and charged by now? It's been over 540 days. What are they waiting for? Another series of Democrat inquisitions? Or perhaps this problematic thing for Democrats called evidence?
Then what's the point of it? You are correct, this isn't a trial. it's an inquisition.
Again, what crimes? If there were any crimes, wouldn't they have been referred and charged by now? It's been over 540 days. What are they waiting for? Another series of Democrat inquisitions? Or perhaps this problematic thing for Democrats called evidence?
So, using that logic Hillary didn’t commit any crimes either right?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
he doesn't......but you won't listen until the committee tells you....
By making a statement.
So far, all we've heard is "a source close to the secret service", BUT NOT THE ACTUAL SECRET SERVICE, said that guy was willing to testify under oath...that was three weeks ago.
"A source close to JPP says Truth Detector is on welfare". Wow, you're on welfare? Why am I not surprised?
hearsay
noun
hear·say | \ ˈhir-ˌsā \
Definition of hearsay
1: RUMOR
Not evidence. It's rumor. There is no corroboration. The people in the car dispute her rumor mongering. Therefore, most of what else she has to say is speculative rumor.
By the way, assuming anything she said was true, is throwing a lunch against the wall in anger a crime? Yes or no?
evince
Truthmatters
The right lies………. ALOT