Secret Service deleted J6 text messages after investigators demanded them

AssHatZombie said:
they don't want secret service testimony, because that hutchinson thot lied.
Click to expand...

Actually I would *love* to have Secret Service testimony. I bet they have them some great #TRE45ON tales... tantrums, whining, the vulgar names he calls other people, nasty racist and/or misogynist epithets, throwing his cheeseburgers against the limo windows, how much work it is to get grease off the seats, etc.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Actually I would *love* to have Secret Service testimony. I bet they have them some great #TRE45ON tales... tantrums, whining, the vulgar names he calls other people, nasty racist and/or misogynist epithets, throwing his cheeseburgers against the limo windows, how much work it is to get grease off the seats, etc.
Click to expand...

but you're not on the committee.

only dems smart enough to run from truth are on the committee. watch them RUN!
 
Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony stands.

Right wing imaginary versions are not supported.

And that comes as no big surprise.

Most of what Trump supporters believe about politics is just flat wrong.

Too bad.

I know they really wanted it all to be true so bad.

Sorry, Trump supporters, he lost.

And he was bad for America. Driving us apart, causing bitter resentment. He was never a president for all of America like President Biden is.

So judgemental. Trump is totally win/lose. Biden is win/win.
 
AssHatZombie said:
but you're not on the committee.

only dems smart enough to run from truth are on the committee. watch them RUN!
Click to expand...

Okay then, Jasper. :laugh:

Let's pretend that they DO call the SS agents who were in the SUV that took #TRE45ON away from his party. Let's say further that their testimony corroborates Ms. Hutchinson's. Then what? The fact that he had a tantrum because he couldn't go to his big party and insurrection is pretty meaningless in the whole scheme of things. At best, it shows his intent to try to subvert the election.

Let's say they testify and do NOT corroborate her testimony. Same thing -- it's meaningless.

BTW, she stated under oath that this story is what she was directly told by someone apparently present. She did NOT testify that she witnessed or overheard it. The fact that the agent who told her the story has yet to provide a sworn affidavit that it didn't happen and he didn't tell her the story is telling, isn't it? Wouldn't YOU do that, to clear your name?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Okay then, Jasper. :laugh:

Let's pretend that they DO call the SS agents who were in the SUV that took #TRE45ON away from his party. Let's say further that their testimony corroborates Ms. Hutchinson's. Then what? The fact that he had a tantrum because he couldn't go to his big party and insurrection is pretty meaningless in the whole scheme of things. At best, it shows his intent to try to subvert the election.

Let's say they testify and do NOT corroborate her testimony. Same thing -- it's meaningless.

BTW, she stated under oath that this story is what she was directly told by someone apparently present. She did NOT testify that she witnessed or overheard it. The fact that the agent who told her the story has yet to provide a sworn affidavit that it didn't happen and he didn't tell her the story is telling, isn't it? Wouldn't YOU do that, to clear your name?
Click to expand...

You are trying to be logical with AssHatZombie.

Good luck with that!
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
Okay then, Jasper. :laugh:

Let's pretend that they DO call the SS agents who were in the SUV that took #TRE45ON away from his party. Let's say further that their testimony corroborates Ms. Hutchinson's. Then what? The fact that he had a tantrum because he couldn't go to his big party and insurrection is pretty meaningless in the whole scheme of things. At best, it shows his intent to try to subvert the election.

Let's say they testify and do NOT corroborate her testimony. Same thing -- it's meaningless.

BTW, she stated under oath that this story is what she was directly told by someone apparently present. She did NOT testify that she witnessed or overheard it. The fact that the agent who told her the story has yet to provide a sworn affidavit that it didn't happen and he didn't tell her the story is telling, isn't it? Wouldn't YOU do that, to clear your name?
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Trumpism: The hatred party, hoping against hope that things which are not real are. Refusing to admit the truth. Getting all hot and bothered when the truth they are trying so hard to deny is voiced. It's very telling that not one single Trump supporter can come in here and discuss politics without getting personal. What the heck does the other poster have to do with the discussion? Nothing!

There is no need to even bring up the other poster to make a valid point. A valid point stands on it's own merit. It actually detracts from it to pull the insult card. A good point shuts down a faulty one best all by itself.

It is best to just stick to good valid points when trying to make a point.

Those who can't do it will go personal almost every time. And that is like waving the white flag. Like saying: "I don't think I have a valid point, so I am going to deflect from it by going personal."
 
The whole point here is Hutchinson's testimony stands.

It has not been refuted by any other sworn testimony.

Boom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top