WHOOPS SHE LIED

[Truth Detector]

So you allege there was a "corrupt election", but won't explicitly say how it was corrupted or to what end it was corrupted...then you pose a rhetorical question.
You did it here using innuendo:
And you did it here:
So if they're not rhetorical questions, then what is the answer you think we all know?

So you believe that there was a 94% voter participation rate in 2020. It was a miracle.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/stat...tial-elections

[Truth Detector]

You passive-aggressively alleged the election was stolen, using the works of other people to support your position, then when confronted, you run away and avoid.

^Believes that Biden's election was a miracle. 94% voter participation. A record unmatched in US history but easily matched in third world shit holes.

[LV426]

[size=3]So you believe that there was a 94% voter participation rate in 2020.

The turnout rate in 2020 was 66%, not 94%. So already, your facts are wrong.

[LV426]

So you believe that there was a 94% voter participation rate in 2020. It was a miracle.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/stat...tial-elections

So if it wasn't a miracle, then it was...what?

[LV426]

[size=3]^Believes that Biden's election was a miracle.:

So then you do believe it was stolen.

Why else would you sarcastically be calling it a miracle?

[LV426]

The reason Truth Detector won't publicly admit that he was spreading the lie that the 2020 election was stolen is because he knows the next question from me will be why he sat here on JPP and shitposted all day on 1/6 instead of acting like a true patriot and saving the Republic from voter fraud.

[Earl]

Yes, the Democrats star witness perjured herself.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are extremely stupid.

so she had credibility with you......understood.....

[PostmodernProphet]

He has not discredited the story. Its unrefuted, what Hutchensen said.

what she said doesn't even exist......

[BartenderElite]

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.

Still going w/ the "gossip" narrative, eh?

She was right there for the majority of what she spoke about. I still don't get why people go to such great lengths to discredit testimony like hers, and brave people like her who are willing to talk about what happened.

[BartenderElite]

so she had credibility with you......understood.....

How much credibility do Trumpers have? They try to marginalize and discredit literally everyone who speaks out against Trump in some way - most of whom have been conservatives.

Per the cult, only Trump can be telling the truth. Everyone else has to be lying.

How credible is that?

Don't answer. The correct response is "not very."

[PostmodernProphet]

How smart am I....

Don't answer. The correct response is "not very."

can't I answer if I agree?.....

[Jarod]

what she said doesn't even exist......

The claims she made are unrefuted.

[christiefan915]

Maybe he is lying, was he under oath?

We don't even know if he said it. It was hearsay according to volsrock's link.

UPDATE: A Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Tony Ornato denies telling Cassidy Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/testimony-of-cassidy-hutchinson-appears-to-fall-apart-as-new-reports-surface-about-secret-service?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_ campaign=dwbrand

[christiefan915]

My bet: If he was willing to testify that it happened, this "panel" would have had him in there to "testify". And IMHO: Because they instead only have someone willing to tell stories about what she "heard" others say tells me that they do not have an actual witness who would say that it happened.

IF he was willing to testify? Why wouldn't he be, if he claims Hutchinson was lying?

Besides, Ornato never said first-person that he denies Hutchinson's claim. Some flunky did it on his behalf. So flunky's "familiarity with the matter" is based on what Ornato told him.