Hearsay

martin said:
Actually you did have to watch if you intended to form an opinion based on what happened instead of what you hoped would happen. Apparently you're among the legion of Trumpers in the "hoped would happen" category. Nearly all of her testimony was direct.
Click to expand...
do you know what direct testimony is? cause this wasn't -she was relaying what she was told
just HOW was anyone suppose to "counter it?" there are no opposition members on the committee
 
anatta said:
he's claiming a source told him the agent and driver say otherwise.
No i dont automatically beleive them either, but they sure do contest the hearsay
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. People believe in Peter Alexander's claim, despite it being a second handed hearsay. It's a cognitive dissonance.
 
AProudLefty said:
Thank you for your honesty. People believe in Peter Alexander's claim, despite it being a second handed hearsay. It's a cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
Alexander is claiming a source told him otherwise, but he's not claiming anything -just he has a source that claims
 
PostmodernProphet said:
her credibility has been called into question.......until this is resolved it should be treated as if she has not yet testified......you people may yet turn out to be right.......it has never happened before in your lifetime but there always remains a possibility......until then it only makes you look foolish to deny what has happened......
Click to expand...

Wrong. until someone with the guts to go under oath and dispute her testimony, it stands.
 
anatta said:
Alexander is claiming a source told him otherwise, but he's not claiming anything -just he has a source that claims
Click to expand...

Okay let's break this down.

Alexander claimed that a "source" told him that those two SS agents told him/her that they will testify to deny that it happened.

That is a second handed hearsay that those people claimed to reject.
 
Lionfish said:
1656598747391-png.1026450
Click to expand...

I want to thank this one twice, as it shows WHY courts don't allow hearsay testimony.......
 
Guille said:
Her "testimony" was literally hearsay.
Click to expand...

And hearsay is evidence and until someone disputes it will remain so. Her testimony that trump wanted metal detectors removed so those with weapons could attend the insurrection is not hearsay.
 
anatta said:
do you know what direct testimony is? cause this wasn't -she was relaying what she was told
just HOW was anyone suppose to "counter it?" there are no opposition members on the committee
Click to expand...

Having tried law cases, I do know. She relayed what she was told about the incident in the vehicle. Trump's bellowing that the armed members of the mob weren't there to hurt him she heard herself, as was the majority of what she said direct testimony.
 
Guille said:
Your tweet doesn't mean a thing. Hutchinson only had hearsay and you know it.

And, you posted it AFTER I asked. If you have to resort to shit like this that means you are wrong, not me.
Click to expand...

Plenty are sitting in jail right now based on hearsay. until those involved are willing to dispute her under oath, it is evidence. Not that it matters as what happened in the vehicle wasn't against the law to begin with. you like to ignore all the planning that went into trumps attempt to overthrow our govt which is sedition and clearly illegal.
 
martin said:
Having tried law cases, I do know. She relayed what she was told about the incident in the vehicle. Trump's bellowing that the armed members of the mob weren't there to hurt him she heard herself, as was the majority of what she said direct testimony.
Click to expand...

Horse mierda, Marty,...you couldn't try a bar fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top