Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 102,713
- 84,124
- 3,645
Well that's a lie.By a person who admitted she lied under oath?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well that's a lie.By a person who admitted she lied under oath?
It worked every single time before the development of recorded audio.Because that's how cultists think the world works.
Jack Smith: "We have several witnesses corroborating each others' testimony, which is corroborated by evidence."
Cult lawyer: "But do you have auuuuudiooooo?"
Jack Smith: "DANG IT!! Charges dropped!"
They spend way too much time pulling each other's taffy
The corroborating testimony under oath of several people working closely with him is a bit more than that.Weird how the left demands proof and evidence for impeachment of biden yet quickly goes all in on a simple accusation/hearsay against trump.
The corroborating testimony under oath of several people working closely with him is a bit more than that.
And if you say you believe Trump thinks the election was stolen, you're lying.
100% wrong. She also testified to what people said right in front of her. Like trump admitting he lost the election. Dude, you really need to go read up before commenting again on any of this.Her testimony was on second hand accounts of hear say along with hyperbole.
. After the US Supreme Court declined to hear the bizarre lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, full of lies and false claims about the election, Trump pushed Meadows, “Why didn’t we make more calls? We needed to do more. … We can’t let this stand.”
Trump continued, “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out.” Even then, when Meadows assured Trump he would work on it, Hutchinson’s irritation is with Meadows for giving Trump false hope, not with Trump for demanding that his delusions become reality.
Hutchinson’s claim that Trump admitted to Meadows that he lost is the latest in a series of eye-witness accounts of Trump periodically admitting in private to having lost the election. Hutchinson testified to both federal investigators and the Fulton County grand jury, she writes, though she was not referenced in any of the indictments of Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-book-trump-white-house-chaos/index.html
I assume that this could be introduced as evidence. If so, one of the other parties to the reported conversation would need to contradict her, as she is asserting that she was present to hear Trump say it.
Before the howls of SHE LIED! commence, it is worth noting that she was never contradicted by Tony Ornato in sworn testimony before the Jan 6th committee...
Meadows may be done taking bullets for his old boss...
100% wrong. She also testified to what people said right in front of her. Like trump admitting he lost the election. Dude, you really need to go read up before commenting again on any of this.
Trump is a Crybaby LoserThat is silly.
Of course everyone knew that Trump had lost the election.
That was never the point.
But the point was whether or not the reason Trump lost the election was due to voter fraud or not.
It's an interesting question. Trump is responsible for the truth of what is asserted in his court pleadings, and I'm assuming he asserts he truly believed he won, fair and square.
So, Hutchinson's statement that Trump said the opposite should be admissible. But imo (and only imo) to prove he said it ... not whether or not he actually believed it, because she would have no insight into his "state of mind" or what he really believed.
BUT IF he Testifies ..... whoa Nelly. LOL The State can first ask him if he said it, and if he says no .... let the parade of contradicting witnesses begin. OR if he says "yeah, but I was being sarcastic," then the State can bring the parade of witnesses who told him "you lost bigly."
It was a landslideWrong.
It was a close race, and there is no way for anyone to know if there was significant voter fraud or not.
That is because there has never been any sort of real investigation.
Guiliani does not have access to the evidence needed for a full investigation.
For example, the code of the dominion voting machines has to be looked at by an expert.
Those dumping bags of ballots in drop boxes all need to be interviewed, etc.
Trump is a Crybaby Loser
Trump was informed there was no voter fraud found that would affect any of the state elections
He is just too big a baby to admit it out loud
61 fucking court cases. No fraudWrong.
Since there was never an official investigation, no one could possibly know if there was significant voter fraud or not.
I suspect significant voter fraud is unlikely, since one would assume it would have leaked by now.
But significant voter fraud it still possible.
There are so many irregularities.
Like no one should ever allow computers to be used as voting machines.
No one should ever allow unmanned drop boxes.
It was a landslide
Go away Kremlin troll
It was a landslide
backatchaGo away Kremlin troll
61 fucking court cases. No fraud
Too late?That is foolish.
Have you read a single one of those "court cases"?
Not a single one was ruled about whether or not there was fraud, because clearly Guiliani does not have access to the official documents and records that one would need in order to actually do an investigation.
All the court cases ruled it was simply too late.
They were denying that a real investigation be allowed.
There has never yet been a single investigation into possible voter fraud in 2020.
74 electoral vote differenceIt was 44,000 votes in three states.
Narrow Wins In These Key States Powered Biden To The Presidency
Joe Biden topped President Trump by nearly 7 million votes, and 74 votes in the Electoral College, but his victory really was stitched together with narrow margins in key states.www.npr.org
backatcha
LOL This was a landslide.74 electoral vote difference
Landslide