Did Cassidy Hutchinson Just Oblige Donald Trump's Testimony?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By a person who admitted she lied under oath?

Well that's a lie.

 

[The5thHorseman]

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

It worked every single time before the development of recorded audio.

No one was ever convicted prior to Bell's wax rolls...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Weird how the left demands proof and evidence for impeachment of biden yet quickly goes all in on a simple accusation/hearsay against trump.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Her testimony was on second hand accounts of hear say along with hyperbole. Sorry but that ain't gonna cut. Need to do better than that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Her testimony was on second hand accounts of hear say along with hyperbole.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

. 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...

That 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.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
The point is not that Trump lost the election, but whether or not the loss was due to voter fraud.

 

[rightwinger]

That 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.

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

 

[Rigby5]

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."

Wrong.
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.

 

[Lesh]

Wrong.
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.

It was a landslide

Go away Kremlin troll

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
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.

 

[Lesh]

Wrong.
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.

61 fucking court cases. No fraud

 

[Rigby5]

It was a landslide

Go away Kremlin troll

That is a lie.

{...

Popular vote	81,283,501[1]	74,223,975[1]
Percentage	51.3%	46.8%

...}

That is a win by only 4.5%.
So if 1 more than 2.25% of the vote switched, then Trump would have won.
So that is NOT at all, in any way, a "landslide".

 

[Rawley]

It was a landslide

It 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

Go away Kremlin troll

backatcha

 

[Rigby5]

61 fucking court cases. No fraud

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.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Too late?

Nonsense stop lying Vlad

 

[Lesh]

It 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

74 electoral vote difference

Landslide

 

[Rawley]

74 electoral vote difference

Landslide

LOL This was a landslide.

2020 was a 44,000 vote difference in three states.

 

[Lesh]

7 million votes and 71 electoral votes

Landslide