Concerned American
Diamond Member
HEARSAYShe's repeating what the secret service guys told her.
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.
HEARSAYShe's repeating what the secret service guys told her.
Run along troll. In regards to your previous posts, I considered the source and ignored it.She was murdered because you say so?
Try again, idiot. Like if she stayed home instead of listening to that menace Trump, she'd be alive today.
Yes, surada.She's repeating what the secret service guys told her.
But you just responded to the one you quoted.BRun along troll. In regards to your previous posts, I considered the source and ignored it.
Lol, did I say she was? Read what I said. I acknowledged in several posts that, that part of her testimony was hearsay.Was she in the car? No. She cannot be a direct witness to anything---not that there is a whole lot of relevance to the question at hand anyway.
It's hearsay seymour....the OP on this forum are all about the "choking out" of the SS supervisor. Which he says never happened.
1 - Trump knew his supporters were armed with all kinds of weapons.Sure, it could be true. Anything "could be."
Let's look at her direct testimony, then, since we seem to agree on the uselessness of hearsay.
What were the top three things that she directly witnessed that were incriminating to Trump?
She did not hear that from Trump. She claims to have heard it from someone who heard it from Trump. Or someone who heard it from someone who heard . . . and so on. She is Simone from Ferris Beuller:1 - Trump knew his supporters were armed with all kinds of weapons.
Of course, which is why Trump's DOD offered national guard support. Too bad Nancy Pelosi's lackey refused it.2 - The potential for this to turn out violently was recognized days beforehand.
Sure, but that is not new information. What was this witness for except to provide innuendo?3 - Trump knew and wanted his supporters to go to the Capitol despite knowing all of this.
Yes, you could add that, but that wouldn't "add" to the conversation, because it's just an excuse to endlessly repeat something we already . . . oooooooooh . . .I could add stuff we knew from previous testimony and frankly the public record, that Trump was aware the Capitol was being breached and he didn't try to stop it, in fact, he was berating his vice president on twitter as he was being evacuated.
But those 3 things by themselves are absolutely damning all by themselves.
She did not hear that from Trump. She claims to have heard it from someone who heard it from Trump. Or someone who heard it from someone who heard . . . and so on. She is Simone from Ferris Beuller:
Of course, which is why Trump's DOD offered national guard support. Too bad Nancy Pelosi's lackey refused it.
View attachment 664255
Sure, but that is not new information. What was this witness for except to provide innuendo?
Yes, you could add that, but that wouldn't "add" to the conversation, because it's just an excuse to endlessly repeat something we already . . . oooooooooh . . .
All those things together tell us one thing: Trump wanted his supporters to go to the capitol. But so did FBI informant Ray Epps, and the FBI hates Trump with all their being.
At least Trump told his supporters to be peaceful, and I don't think he meant the new media definition of "mostly peaceful." Ray Epps, of the Trump-hating FBI, told them to enter the Capitol, which is what tipped the Trump supporters off that he was a Fed. I wonder how many other FBI employees were encouraging that?
Unless you have proof that the answer is zero, you should be concerned about how the wool is being pulled over your eyes.
She did hear it from Trump. According to her testominy she HEARD Trump say this.She did not hear that from Trump. She claims to have heard it from someone who heard it from Trump.
The house sergeant at arms does NOT change according to election results, nor is it a political position. So "Lackey" is another one of those bogus terms used. It's interesting that you bring the DOD in. Let's see what they said about bringing in the national guard on Jan 6th.Of course, which is why Trump's DOD offered national guard support. Too bad Nancy Pelosi's lackey refused it.
IT IS NOT INNUENDO IF YOU ARE A DIRECT WITNESS TO CERTAIN EVENTS. Nor does the fact that it was known excuse the fact that Trump told them to go to the capitol anyway.Sure, but that is not new information. What was this witness for except to provide innuendo?
Lol, So you know that Trump was aware that his vice-president was in danger, and instead of trying to calm the situation, he was pouring gasoline on the fire? And since you are already aware all of a sudden it isn't important anymore? Got you. Does that work with everything? Would you for instance agree with. "Everybody kind of knew that R kelly was a child molester, but since you liked his music that little quirk of his personality doesn't really matter."Yes, you could add that, but that wouldn't "add" to the conversation, because it's just an excuse to endlessly repeat something we already . . . oooooooooh . . .
She said she overheard TRUMP saying something to someone else. From Trump's mouth to her ears.Your quote shows she said others were saying Trump said it Not her hearing trump say it.
Thats not what you quoted.She said she overheard TRUMP saying something to someone else. From Trump's mouth to her ears.
She did hear it from Trump. According to her testominy she HEARD Trump say this.
Trump's name is at the top of the organizational charts of all of the people who offered to send help to prevent the Jan 6th riots. Because he is their commander in chief, get it? The ones that he was not in command of, the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol police chief, turned that help down. I guess lefties had gotten so used to ignoring riots, they did not stop to think that this one would finally be the one they objected to.The house sergeant at arms does NOT change according to election results, nor is it a political position. So "Lackey" is another one of those bogus terms used. It's interesting that you bring the DOD in. Let's see what they said about bringing in the national guard on Jan 6th.
The name conspicuously absent from the people involved in the decision to send them in is the then Commander in chief.
What is your evidence that many of Trump's supporters were armed? Is it Hutchinson, again?It is of course also a deflection. The point is if you are made aware that your supporters are armed with knives, pistols, bear spray and guns and you still tell them to go to the Capitol, you are at best reckless, if not outright criminal.
Show me in the transcript where this Hutchinson witness said she heard Trump say anything incriminating. Her hearsay of what Trump said is actually double hearsay.IT IS NOT INNUENDO IF YOU ARE A DIRECT WITNESS TO CERTAIN EVENTS. Nor does the fact that it was known excuse the fact that Trump told them to go to the capitol anyway.
Show me one single post of yours accusing the media, the Democrats, Black Lives Matter, or ANTIFA, of "pouring gasoline on the fire," in 2020.Lol, So you know that Trump was aware that his vice-president was in danger, and instead of trying to calm the situation, he was pouring gasoline on the fire?
Actually, change the word "music" to "politics," and that is by definition every single democrat's feeling about Joe Biden.And since you are already aware all of a sudden it isn't important anymore? Got you. Does that work with everything? Would you for instance agree with. "Everybody kind of knew that R kelly was a child molester, but since you liked his music that little quirk of his personality doesn't really matter."
Words mean things, feelings are more nebulous.Something can be objectively bad, well known, and the knowledge of it, doesn't excuse it or make it better in any way.
What I also find so interesting about people who defend Trump is that they focus on one word spoken in a single sentence during his speech. "peaceful" While at the same time ignoring the entire rest of the speech, the months-long campaign convincing people that Democrats were cheating them out of the presidency, all the other people speaking during the rally, and the fact that once it was clear that his supporters where anything but peaceful he incited them even more instead of stopping them.
What RetiredGySgt said.
Trump's name is at the top of the organizational charts of all of the people who offered to send help to prevent the Jan 6th riots. Because he is their commander in chief, get it? The ones that he was not in command of, the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol police chief, turned that help down. I guess lefties had gotten so used to ignoring riots, they did not stop to think that this one would finally be the one they objected to.
What is your evidence that many of Trump's supporters were armed? Is it Hutchinson, again?
Suppose they were. Trump told them to go "peacefully and patriotically." It is possible to be both while also being armed. In fact, sometimes it is required to be armed in order to say peaceful. Look what the Capitol Police did to unarmed people.
Show me in the transcript where this Hutchinson witness said she heard Trump say anything incriminating. Her hearsay of what Trump said is actually double hearsay.
Show me one single post of yours accusing the media, the Democrats, Black Lives Matter, or ANTIFA, of "pouring gasoline on the fire," in 2020.
Actually, change the word "music" to "politics," and that is by definition every single democrat's feeling about Joe Biden.
Words mean things, feelings are more nebulous.
Then both of you are wrong.What @RetiredGySgt said.
I do get it. And yet there wasn't so much as a phone call from the White House let alone orders to see what was being done about the riot.Trump's name is at the top of the organizational charts of all of the people who offered to send help to prevent the Jan 6th riots. Because he is their commander in chief, get it?
It's Hutchinson, it's this.What is your evidence that many of Trump's supporters were armed? Is it Hutchinson, again?
It is. It is likely though? Both events and assessments beforehand acknowledged that it wasn't and TRUMP STILL SEND THEM THERESuppose they were. Trump told them to go "peacefully and patriotically." It is possible to be both
NO hearsay, as I said from Trump's mouth to her ears see my first clip.Show me in the transcript where this Hutchinson witness said she heard Trump say anything incriminating. Her hearsay of what Trump said is actually double hearsay.
Whataboutism! But just to show you what intellectual honesty looks like I'll give you examples of my position on the BLM protests during the summer in a separate post. (it's an afterthought and the quote function doesn't work in edit.)Show me one single post of yours accusing the media, the Democrats, Black Lives Matter, or ANTIFA, of "pouring gasoline on the fire," in 2020.
Oh, explain that please, and be sure to source it? And again a whataboutism.Actually, change the word "music" to "politics," and that is by definition every single democrat's feeling about Joe Biden.
Words do mean things. That's why you IGNORING ALL WORDS that are incriminatory besides the one that's exculpatory, " peaceful", spoken once, shows you to have zero intellectual honesty. Actions mean more still. And Trump's actions both started, perpetuated, and encouraged the mob to do what I timestamped for you.Words mean things, feelings are more nebulous.
I can give countless examples of protests that actually ended up being a benefit to society. At the same time, I can not condone violence during those protests. In fact, accepting the right to protest and not condoning violence during those protests is a position that most people hold I think.
Like for instance... I don't know... being against racial injustices not meaning you condone looting or violence during protests?