Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so basically POTUS is a toddler. jeez. this is insane.

Yeah, that behavior is not admirable but it's not impeachable or criminal. Wasn't LBJ as badly behaved or worse?

The more important parts of her testimony were how Meadows and Trump knew everything and wanted violence.

He assaulted his security detail. That is a crime.

A small c crime. For a president, it's not important.

Sheesh.

I don't understand this....you don't think it's important that a president assaulted someone on his team? But, I guess he knew he assaulted women before he was elected.

I like presidents who don't assault people, or try to overthrow the government, or say that the VP deserves to be hanged.

The fact that Trump assaulted a person on his security detail is important Because it shows his state of mind and his willingness to use violence to get to the capital and participate in the insurrection.

It doesn’t matter so much what he says, but the actions that he took show he was willing to use violence to force his way to the Capitol. He wasn’t a passive participant in this uprising to overthrow the government. He took action; violent action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

Flynn pled the 5th

[Anonymous]

I’d also like to hear someone say there was never ketchup on the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

+1. This is they typical trump defense. If it’s untrue, swear it under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if CH is "big", you try standing next to KM. And if the facts are too much for you, attack what a woman looks like.

You guys REALLY need some new material.

When Tucker gives you your talking points, come back so we can rip them apart with the truth.

She looked pretty good today. Like she had lost weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Yeah witness credibility: we don’t like what the witness is saying and she’s female. See also: Fiona Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:trump always uses the same sad defense. Why do his followers continue to fall for it?

Because they are gullible. Like taking candy from a baby.

+1. Fools in the true sense of the word. Trump supporters are our village idiots (but fatter).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if CH is "big", you try standing next to KM. And if the facts are too much for you, attack what a woman looks like.

You guys REALLY need some new material.

When Tucker gives you your talking points, come back so we can rip them apart with the truth.

She looked pretty good today. Like she had lost weight.

She’s a very pretty woman but what doesn’t that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Sure, because they wouldn’t lie for Trump?!

[Anonymous]

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if CH is "big", you try standing next to KM. And if the facts are too much for you, attack what a woman looks like.

You guys REALLY need some new material.

When Tucker gives you your talking points, come back so we can rip them apart with the truth.

She looked pretty good today. Like she had lost weight.

She’s a very pretty woman but what doesn’t that have to do with anything?

a PP had criticized her weight compared to that of a woman standing next to her in a photo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Federal Rules of Evidence 801 (d). Look it up Trumper.

[Anonymous]

He wanted the National Guard called up when BLM walked by the WH but when Oath Keepers are literally scaling a building with guns.........................crickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Witness credibility has been called into question.

Why this committee would hold a hearing with a witness with 2nd hand information that has not been verified proves that this committee is purely political and not terribly credible.

Say it under oath.

Flynn pled the 5th

Meadows is fighting the subpoenas via his lawyers.

Flynn plead the 5th when asked if violence was warranted at the Capitol on 1/6. The only correct answer should have been a clear "no." But he refused to even say that. Holy crap what an evil scumbag.