Insurrection Hearings 6/28 and beyond

[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.

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

I suspect it has been verified.

[Anonymous]

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

It was salsa! Deep state conspiracy can't get their condiments right.

Just because he puts ketchup on everything he eats doesn't mean he was doing it this time.

[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.

How many levels of hearsay is this? And not even under oath, lol.

[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.

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

DP. Ugh. Evidence was years ago and I barely made it through. Can you give me a hint? Or just tell me?

[Anonymous]

What’s her name?
Madison Cassidy?
Never heard of her,
Never heard of her.

But what I have heard is bad,
Very bad. Not good.
She wanted a job at Mar-a-Lago.
And I said no.

Beautiful Mar-a-Lago, so beautiful.
So beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Cassidy's lawyer responds

[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.

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

Will the committee allow them to testify?
They seem to not want any information that goes against their narrative.
I agree they should testify. And, they are willing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Turns out that this is fake news. Sorry to disappoint.....

It may be untrue but it is not “false news”. We actually heard her recount it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Will the committee allow them to testify?
They seem to not want any information that goes against their narrative.
I agree they should testify. And, they are willing.

Of course.

And the committee has no narrative but what we all saw on TV!

[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.

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

When the people who were actually present call BS on the testimony, I listen.
Doesn't matter her gender or how she identifies. If it is BS, it's BS.

[Anonymous]

Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

[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.

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

I suspect it has been verified.

You give this committee too much credibility.

[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.

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

When the people who were actually present call BS on the testimony, I listen.
Doesn't matter her gender or how she identifies. If it is BS, it's BS. [/quote


But they haven’t called “bs” on it. You’re using unsworn hearsay counter my sworn hearsay! I believe it happened but would be willing to change my mind is the agents swore it under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Engel did speak to the committee, per this story from a couple weeks ago:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/08/trump-raised-jan-6-capitol-appearance-secret-service-agent-select-panel-00038217

And said he and Trump disagreed on whether they should go to the Capitol after the speech.

Seems unlikely the committee would have had her tell that crazy-sounding tale if they didn't have corroboration from some other source.

That Politico article said that Trump rode back in the Beast.

I'm so confused. Was he in the Beast? Or another vehicle? What can I believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

When the people who were actually present call BS on the testimony, I listen.
Doesn't matter her gender or how she identifies. If it is BS, it's BS. [/quote


But they haven’t called “bs” on it. You’re using unsworn hearsay counter my sworn hearsay! I believe it happened but would be willing to change my mind is the agents swore it under oath.

Make sure the committee calls them, then. Because, I am betting they are figuring out a way NOT to call them.