Wasn't the Secret Service guy supposed to refute Hutchinson?

ExpressLane said:
If the SS agrees with Hutchinson why doesn't the J6 committee subpoena him to testify? Oh right that is because his testimony would destroy Hutchinson's testimony. The SS will never be given the opportunity to impeach her testimony.
Click to expand...
No need for a subpoena. Why hasn't the trumpkin agent been all over Fox News?
 
Matt Dillon said:
It's looking that way with the Pelosi Punch and Judy show. :dunno:

That committee is not seeking truth.
Click to expand...

You sure?

Because what I'm hearing is all factual, and provable. I don't see partisan speculation. We're hearing from people IN that admin, about what happened in that admin.

And the truth about that is quite ugly.
 
BartenderElite said:
You sure?

Because what I'm hearing is all factual, and provable. I don't see partisan speculation. We're hearing from people IN that admin, about what happened in that admin.

And the truth about that is quite ugly.
Click to expand...
Just as damning are the text/email messages that have been subpoenaed.

Hard to lie under oath when your history of communication is suddenly exposed
 
BartenderElite said:
She worked in the Trump admin. What is a "pro Trump" witness?
Click to expand...

Just because she worked in the Trump administration doesn't mean she was loyal to him. And do I really have to explain what a "pro Trump" witness is? I mean, I know you haven't seen one in this "hearing" (and you won't), but c'mon! It's self-explanatory even for you.

Shouldn't hearings be about the truth - and not pro one way or the other?
Click to expand...

Hearings like this aren't about "the truth". This one's about preventing Donald Trump from getting a second term. Be careful what you wish for. You can't stop people from running on Trump ideas.

Do criminals deserve to have their own cheerleaders testify?
Click to expand...

Of course they do! And they're not cheerleaders, they're defense witnesses.
 
Callinectes said:
Would you call that a reverse subpoena?
Click to expand...

No, I call it an open invitation which any of these guys can accept at any time.

It's been three weeks since that anonymous source close to the Secret Service alleged one of the members is willing to testify, but we haven't heard anything about it since.

You fell for another grift because you're fucking stupid.
 
Callinectes said:
And how would you know if they had already testified or not?
Click to expand...

Because you loudmouths would never shut the fuck up about it if they did.


Nobody is appearing in this circus unless those clowns know EXACTLY what they're going to say and it fits their narrative EXACTLY.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you not know how depositions work, you fucking idiot?

You really are a fucking moron, aren't you? So goddamn stupid I can't believe you haven't drowned in a bowl of soup yet.


Let me guess, you've been watching this babble like people used to watch Game of Thrones, right? Have you seen any pro-Trump "witnesses" testify yet?
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that you've been running your big, fat, fucking mouth about the 1/6 committee all year, and you haven't watched a single second of testimony?

What a total goddamn fuckin' pussy.
 
Matt Dillon said:
You've got the "being a fucking idiot" market cornered, brah.
Click to expand...

Well I don't lie here, so you are a fucking idiot.

You have to be to talk shit for two months about a stolen election and then pussy out on JPP the one day you could have done something about it.

Just leads me to think you're insincere and even you don't believe a single fucking thing you squirt out here.
 
LV426 said:
Is "a source close to the Secret Service", the actual Secret Service? No. Don't be a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

Annnnnd once again…they’re the SECRET service, they have SECRETS, so how do you know if they’re the actual secret service or not? But if it helps, close your eyes and dream about the impeachment “whistle blower”.
 
Callinectes said:
But if it helps, close your eyes and dream about the impeachment “whistle blower”.
Click to expand...

You're so fucking inarticulate I have no fucking idea what you're trying to say here.

If someone is CLOSE to something, they aren't in it, are they?

So who is this "source close to the Secret Service" who isn't actually in the Secret Service?
 
There was a reason they called a hearsay "witness" rather than the Secret Service agent. It was because they could find no secret service agent willing to testify to this "event".

I also find it interesting that nothing in the recounting of the supposedly overheard conversation shows incitement. This was simple gossip, relating a story they "overheard" (it would be hearsay even if they were told the story directly and was relating what the other person said, if you want a good example of it watch the Heard lawyers try to get her to talk about the doctor's report they submitted to evidence they should have just used the document and had her read it but instead they tried to get her to talk about it and were stopped at every moment because it was hearsay... I'm digressing, but this particular part of the "testimony" was an overheard conversation where 'they were talking about' something and she overheard them) that still wouldn't prove intent or incitement, it doesn't even show that "he knew" what was coming like they keep trying to say. It is just a stupid story, an extremely unlikely one.
 
Damocles said:
There was a reason they called a hearsay "witness" rather than the Secret Service agent. It was because they could find no secret service agent willing to testify to this "event".

I also find it interesting that nothing in the recounting of the supposedly overheard conversation shows incitement. This was simple gossip, relating a story they "overheard" (it would be hearsay even if they were told the story directly and was relating what the other person said, if you want a good example of it watch the Heard lawyers try to get her to talk about the doctor's report they submitted to evidence they should have just used the document and had her read it but instead they tried to get her to talk about it and were stopped at every moment because it was hearsay... I'm digressing, but this particular part of the "testimony" was an overheard conversation where 'they were talking about' something and she overheard them) that still wouldn't prove intent or incitement, it doesn't even show that "he knew" what was coming like they keep trying to say. It is just a stupid story, an extremely unlikely one.
Click to expand...

You understand that the incident you're referring to was a very small part of her testimony, correct?
 
Damocles said:
There was a reason they called a hearsay "witness" rather than the Secret Service agent. It was because they could find no secret service agent willing to testify to this "event".
Click to expand...

No, it actually means they did, which is why they called her as a public witness when they could have called her as a private one.


I also find it interesting that nothing in the recounting of the supposedly overheard conversation shows incitement.
Click to expand...

OK so clearly you haven't been watching the hearings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top