This time we've got him! No really we do. We're serious. Adam Schiff has all the evidence..

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

I already offered him a bet around all the transcripts being released in full by September.  The committee has already promised this apparently.  He apparently believes them.

 

He declined the bet that would rid the board of me forever.

 

Because he's a coward.

 

 

You're so ***** dumb I'm amazed you're actually able to type on a keyboard.

 

"Debate me bro" "I'll put out this bet and if some rando on the internet doesn't accept, that means they're a loser."

 

JFC, get a damn life.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

I literally said she heard it secondhand and then you say I missed that she heard it from someone else? Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

You act like there are all of these people chomping at the bit to testify that the Jan 6th committee is wrong, but actually they all fall into the following categories:

• Fight subpoenas
• Plead the 5th
• Make demands that they know an investigative body would never accept

They know that people will eat it up when they talk to the media of the big bad Jan 6th committee but what they will never, ever, ever do, is actually testify under oath that what they are saying is true.

 

I did miss the "secondhand" part.  But that doesn't make it any better because you should know better than to trust something that is secondhand.  Or that sounds unbelievable.  Which is why I mentioned the pee tape.  Obviously that must have struck a nerve because I didn't address that post to you specifically.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I did miss the "secondhand" part.  But that doesn't make it any better because you should know better than to trust something that is secondhand.  Or that sounds unbelievable.  Which is why I mentioned the pee tape.  Obviously that must have struck a nerve because I didn't address that post to you specifically.

 

When did I say I trusted it?

 

I said that secondhand sworn testimony is more trustworthy than something people say in the media. 

 

If you had asked me, I'd say that I believe she believes she heard that, but not that I'd necessarily believe it was 100% accurate. I'd want more info from someone present who would testify under oath. Here is someone testifying under the penalty of perjury that she heard something. Was the thing that she heard actually true is another question.

 

Maybe it happened. Maybe the guy telling her exaggerated. Maybe one person interpreted it one way and another did another way. I do not know.

 

But what I do know is that people shooting their mouths off in the media are very difficult to believe over someone testifying under oath.

[Doc]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

When did I say I trusted it?

 

I said that secondhand sworn testimony is more trustworthy than something people say in the media. 

 

If you had asked me, I'd say that I believe she believes she heard that, but not that I'd necessarily believe it was 100% accurate. I'd want more info from someone present who would testify under oath. Here is someone testifying under the penalty of perjury that she heard something. Was the thing that she heard actually true is another question.

 

Maybe it happened. Maybe the guy telling her exaggerated. Maybe one person interpreted it one way and another did another way. I do not know.

 

But what I do know is that people shooting their mouths off in the media are very difficult to believe over someone testifying under oath.

 

So since she was under oath, you sort-of believe that Trump lunged for the steering wheel while the car was moving?  Or that there were AR-15s in the crowd because Trump never though there would be anyone there trying to hurt him (and really this is immaterial because there were no AR-15s at the Capitol, much less inside)?  Because Trump is just crazy, right?

 

Again, all hearsay so she has cover if they miraculously allow the men in The Beast to testify.  But again, they will not. 

[Doc Brown]

Serious question in all this silliness.  Is the ultimate goal to make Trump less palatable to Republican primary voters in 2024?

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So since she was under oath, you sort-of believe that Trump lunged for the steering wheel while the car was moving?  Or that there were AR-15s in the crowd because Trump never though there would be anyone there trying to hurt him (and really this is immaterial because there were no AR-15s at the Capitol, much less inside)?  Because Trump is just crazy, right?

 

Again, all hearsay so she has cover if they miraculously allow the men in The Beast to testify.  But again, they will not. 

 

• I believe that she believes Trump lunged for the steering wheel
  • I am skeptical as to the truth of this as I would assume Trump sits at the back, not next to the driver. Unless he reached past the driver with his tiny little hands.
• I believe that there were reports of AR-15s and other guns in the crowd.
  • I honestly have no idea as to the truth here. Seems like an AR-15 would be a difficult weapon to hide and they are so prevalent in our minds right now so people might just assume they see one.
    • Could have been the stock of a carbine or not a gun at all but something that looked like one.
    • I haven't watched all of today's hearings but I would like to see a comparison between what was reported and what we have actual documentary evidence of.
      • "Report of a man with a glock" is notable but very different from pictures or videos of someone with a glock or a confiscated glock.
  • In any case, there were multiple reports of people in the crowd with guns, which is the fact she was testifying to.
• It's not hearsay because this is not a court or a judicial hearing. The rules of criminal procedure do not apply.
  • However, if this were a court case against Trump:
    • They would likely need testimony from someone inside the car to present that story to the jury
    • Any testimony she had about what Trump actually said would be admissible as not hearsay under rule 801(2)(a)

If the men in the beast are so sure, they should offer to testify with no strings attached. If the committee refuses, they should be criticized for it.

 

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Serious question in all this silliness.  Is the ultimate goal to make Trump less palatable to Republican primary voters in 2024?

 

Pretty sure Trump can handle that one all on his own.

 

The purpose is to create a record of what led to the events on January 6th. Despite what many on this board seem to believe, this committee has no ability to indict or prosecute anybody.

[unbillievable]

Someone explain how you lunge for the steering wheel from the back of a limo.

 

Are we picturing a 250lb, 75 year old man, planking over the arm rest of a moving car?

 

 

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Serious question in all this silliness.  Is the ultimate goal to make Trump less palatable to Republican primary voters in 2024?

 

They're gonna impeach him again!

 

They have to do something, since he's living rent-free in their heads.

[Westside]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

• I believe that she believes Trump lunged for the steering wheel
  • I am skeptical as to the truth of this as I would assume Trump sits at the back, not next to the driver. Unless he reached past the driver with his tiny little hands.
• I believe that there were reports of AR-15s and other guns in the crowd.
  • I honestly have no idea as to the truth here. Seems like an AR-15 would be a difficult weapon to hide and they are so prevalent in our minds right now so people might just assume they see one.
    • Could have been the stock of a carbine or not a gun at all but something that looked like one.
    • I haven't watched all of today's hearings but I would like to see a comparison between what was reported and what we have actual documentary evidence of.
      • "Report of a man with a glock" is notable but very different from pictures or videos of someone with a glock or a confiscated glock.
  • In any case, there were multiple reports of people in the crowd with guns, which is the fact she was testifying to.
• It's not hearsay because this is not a court or a judicial hearing. The rules of criminal procedure do not apply.
  • However, if this were a court case against Trump:
    • They would likely need testimony from someone inside the car to present that story to the jury
    • Any testimony she had about what Trump actually said would be admissible as not hearsay under rule 801(2)(a)

If the men in the beast are so sure, they should offer to testify with no strings attached. If the committee refuses, they should be criticized for it.

 

 

Pretty sure Trump can handle that one all on his own.

 

The purpose is to create a record of what led to the events on January 6th. Despite what many on this board seem to believe, this committee has no ability to indict or prosecute anybody.

The “committee” cannot indict or prosecute anyone but they can try to destroy a persons life with lies and hearsay while posing as truth finders.

 

I’m actually shocked anyone would put any faith in such a political stunt as this “committee” is. You and your fellow far left radicals on this board have no sense of shame. How weak and pathetic the Democratic Party has become. Shameful.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[T master]

13 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Trump supports hate America. They want to destroy our system of government. 

 

Seeing as this POTUS is a dimwit & couldn't run a successful hot dog stand & can't have a original thought or statement with out plagiarizing anothers statement what does that say about Biden ?  

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Seeing as this POTUS is a dimwit & couldn't run a successful hot dog stand & can't have a original thought or statement with out plagiarizing anothers statement what does that say about Biden ?  

He's running a very successful foreign policy. NATO expanding, Trump's friend Putin checked and the democratic nation's of the world working together better. 

 

 

Good job Mr. President! 

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Westside said:

The “committee” cannot indict or prosecute anyone but they can try to destroy a persons life with lies and hearsay while posing as truth finders.

 

I’m actually shocked anyone would put any faith in such a political stunt as this “committee” is. You and your fellow far left radicals on this board have no sense of shame. How weak and pathetic the Democratic Party has become. Shameful.

1. The only people who disagree with the direction the committee is going are the people who won’t testify or, if they do, just plead the fifth the entire time. That should tell you something. 
 

2. It’s not hearsay. 
 

3. Almost every witness has been a Republican. The only role Dems have played are opening statements, closing statements, and sometimes they ask questions. 
 

I’m actually shocked that anyone would put faith into people who only agree with them when there is no penalty for lying, but immediately change their tune when they could be in trouble if they lie. You and your far right radicals on this board are being hoodwinked by conmen. I feel bad for you. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by ChiGoose

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

a possible media pivot has been spotted:

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

12 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

• It's not hearsay because this is not a court or a judicial hearing. The rules of criminal procedure do not apply.
  • However, if this were a court case against Trump:
    • They would likely need testimony from someone inside the car to present that story to the jury
    • Any testimony she had about what Trump actually said would be admissible as not hearsay under rule 801(2)(a)

 

Actually it is hearsay as it meets the definition (somebody told me something somebody else said or did) but hearsay is admissible here.  The police might characterize such statements as "a lead".  And if the intent of the Committee, beyond putting on a good show for the faithful, is to produce some sort of recommendation that gets forwarded to the DOJ to bring charges this kind of "evidence" and testimony won't be admissible in any judicial setting there.  I suspect this witness wouldn't be called or wiling to testify in a courtroom setting.  Already the statement about Trump lunging for the steering wheel has been refuted by the driver and Secret Service on duty that day.  Something they've stated they're willing to testify to under oath.  Will the committee call them?

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Actually it is hearsay as it meets the definition (somebody told me something somebody else said or did) but hearsay is admissible here.  The police might characterize such statements as "a lead".  And if the intent of the Committee, beyond putting on a good show for the faithful, is to produce some sort of recommendation that gets forwarded to the DOJ to bring charges this kind of "evidence" and testimony won't be admissible in any judicial setting there.  I suspect this witness wouldn't be called or wiling to testify in a courtroom setting.  Already the statement about Trump lunging for the steering wheel has been refuted by the driver and Secret Service on duty that day.  Something they've stated they're willing to testify to under oath.  Will the committee call them?

 

 

 

You are correct that, in a judicial proceeding, her testimony about the limo would not be admissible as it is hearsay without an exception. If they wanted that to come in, they would need testimony from someone who was there. The Secret Service has released a statement that they will respond directly to the testimony, so it'll be interesting what they have to say.

 

Her testimony about what Trump said, such as removing the metal detectors, would be admissible in a case against Trump under rule 801(2)(a): Statement by a party opponent.

 

One of the frustrating things for me about the hearings is that what gets picked up and sensationalized in the media isn't always the most important thing. We knew Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and the story about him throwing his food against the wall like a toddler may be funny, but it's hardly dispositive of anything other than his temper.

 

I have not finished watching yesterday's hearing, but so far in these hearings we have had ample evidence of Trump himself committing crimes but instead we are talking about this limo thing. It's a distraction.

[T master]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

He's running a very successful foreign policy. NATO expanding, Trump's friend Putin checked and the democratic nation's of the world working together better. 

 

 

Good job Mr. President! 

 

Yah great job Mr President pissing off our closest allie to the north by stopping the pipe line & them having them eat billions in product costs already built for the pipe line (selling it at scrap prices) then pissing off those countries that wanted the submarines built but couldn't because he screwed the pooch on that one .

 

Oh then don't forget how great a job he did when leaving Afghanistan pulling all military first then leaving all those innocent people there to face the taliban all by them selves oh yah & Putin probably only doing what he is doing because he knows the new POTUS has no balls to retaliate ah great foreign policy there Mr P !

 

If the expanding of NATO is a good thing & we don't have to pay for every body elses NATO bill or defend whoever else then it might be a good thing but i'm thinking we will probably wind up paying more than most others just because the US is such a nice country ...

 

But 1 out of 10 ain't bad !! Keep up the good work Mr Biden  

Edited June 29, 2022 by T master

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Yah great job Mr President pissing off our closest allie to the north by stopping the pipe line & them having them eat billions in product costs already built for the pipe line (selling it at scrap prices) then pissing off those countries that wanted the submarines built but couldn't because he screwed the pooch on that one .

 

Oh then don't forget how great a job he did when leaving Afghanistan pulling all military first then leaving all those innocent people there to face the taliban all by them selves oh yah & Putin probably only doing what he is doing because he knows the new POTUS has no balls to retaliate ah great foreign policy there Mr P !

 

If the expanding of NATO is a good thing & we don't have to pay for every body elses NATO bill or defend whoever else then it might be a good thing but i'm thinking we will probably wind up paying more than most others just because the US is such a nice country ...

 

But 1 out of 10 ain't bad !! Keep up the good work Mr Biden  

 

Because Trump/Repubs want it the other way.

[SoCal Deek]

You people crack me up with your ridiculous rabbit holes. So if I understand it correctly, this young lady testified that the President wanted to steer the car from the back seat? I’m pretty sure that’s not a crime. Note that she didn’t say that the President said anything even remotely close to anything about wanting to overturn the election, destroy ‘democracy’, or organize a coup. This is all such junior high garbage! 

[T master]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Because Trump/Repubs want it the other way.

 

As it should be every other NATO country should pay their own way. Before Trump came in the US was footing a much larger piece of the pie both in money & military every one has always had the US as the sheriff & that's not the way it should be !

 

If it's all for one & one for all then every one should put in equally have it mirror the NFL system in some way and that way they have everything equally split and no 1 country has the biggest burden weather it be militarily or monetarily .