Have there been other House or Senate hearings in which witnesses were specifically called to testify under oath while telling hearsay and rumors?

[Concerned American]

She's repeating what the secret service guys told her.

HEARSAY

 

[Concerned American]

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.

Run along troll. In regards to your previous posts, I considered the source and ignored it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She's repeating what the secret service guys told her.

Yes, surada.

That's what hearsay is.

 

[Clipper]

Run along troll. In regards to your previous posts, I considered the source and ignored it.

But you just responded to the one you quoted.B

Sooooooo, who's stopping Jordan & company from testifying?

Nothing to say? That's what I thought, coward.

 

[forkup]

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.

Lol, did I say she was? Read what I said. I acknowledged in several posts that, that part of her testimony was hearsay.

At the same time most parts weren't. When she says, Pat Cippolini told me to make sure they don't go the Capitol because " we will be charged with every crime imaginable" she is being a direct witness. When she says that she overheard, Trump saying to someone else to " remove the mags" she is being a direct witness.

Frankly the whole " it's just hearsay" argument works only if you didn't watch the hearing and/or don't understand, or don't want to understand what hearsay is.

 

[Care4all]

the OP on this forum are all about the "choking out" of the SS supervisor. Which he says never happened.

It's hearsay seymour....

"" someone close to the SS guy, claimed the SS guy said the choking And wheel lunging didn't happen.

The Secret Service guy did not tell the reporter that Trump never lurched for the wheel,

An anonymous person close to the SS guy, says the SS guy, is saying it wasn't true.

Hearsay.

No different than her saying the chief of operations guy told her that he heard that Trump lunged for the wheel, but the operations guy wasn't there in person.

Hearsay

 

[forkup]

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?

1 - Trump knew his supporters were armed with all kinds of weapons.

2 - The potential for this to turn out violently was recognized days beforehand.

3 - Trump knew and wanted his supporters to go to the Capitol despite knowing all of this.

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.

 

[Seymour Flops]

1 - Trump knew his supporters were armed with all kinds of weapons.

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:

2 - The potential for this to turn out violently was recognized days beforehand.

Of course, which is why Trump's DOD offered national guard support. Too bad Nancy Pelosi's lackey refused it.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

3 - Trump knew and wanted his supporters to go to the Capitol despite knowing all of this.

Sure, but that is not new information. What was this witness for except to provide innuendo?

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.

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 . . .

But those 3 things by themselves are absolutely damning all by themselves.

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.

 

[forkup]

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

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

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 not hear that from Trump. She claims to have heard it from someone who heard it from Trump.

She did hear it from Trump. According to her testominy she HEARD Trump say this.

Of course, which is why Trump's DOD offered national guard support. Too bad Nancy Pelosi's lackey refused it.

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.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/2002563151/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF

The name conspicuously absent from the people involved in the decision to send them in is the then Commander in chief.

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.

Sure, but that is not new information. What was this witness for except to provide innuendo?

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.

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 . . .

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."

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your quote shows she said others were saying Trump said it Not her hearing trump say it.

 

[forkup]

Your quote shows she said others were saying Trump said it Not her hearing trump say it.

She said she overheard TRUMP saying something to someone else. From Trump's mouth to her ears.

 

[BluesLegend]

Let this be a lesson to the American people if they ever dare again elect a president not approved, purchased and owned by the Washington establishment. THAT'S what's going on here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She said she overheard TRUMP saying something to someone else. From Trump's mouth to her ears.

Thats not what you quoted.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She did hear it from Trump. According to her testominy she HEARD Trump say this.

What RetiredGySgt said.

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.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/2002563151/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF

The name conspicuously absent from the people involved in the decision to send them in is the then Commander in chief.

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.

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.

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.

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 in the transcript where this Hutchinson witness said she heard Trump say anything incriminating. Her hearsay of what Trump said is actually double hearsay.

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?

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.

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."

Actually, change the word "music" to "politics," and that is by definition every single democrat's feeling about Joe Biden.

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.

Words mean things, feelings are more nebulous.

 

[forkup]

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.

What @RetiredGySgt said.

Then both of you are wrong.

49 seconds in. It might behoove you guys to actually see the hearings instead of getting the information of what's being said from your own media bubble. You know since you guys don't like hearsay and all.

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?

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.

What is your evidence that many of Trump's supporters were armed? Is it Hutchinson, again?

It's Hutchinson, it's this.

And its this

13.23 min in
13.30 in
16.50 min in
17.05 min in
18.20 min in
18.52 in
20.18 in The protesters, the same protesters that have already injured police officers are held back by a single police officer while right behind him people are evacuating.
22.25 in as this is all happening Trump tweets to berate Pence.
28.40 you see Babbitt being shot and the reason why. She was the first one in a breach that gave her direct access to lawmakers evacuating.
30 min in
30.34 min in
31.50 in
32.18 min in
33 min in
33.16 min in
33.29 min in
33.40 is especially bad
34.30 shows the second fatality of the day
36.15 they're chanting to hang Mike Pence
At 38 min after everything is done Trump finally asks his supporters to go home.

I've timestamped the entire thing for you. Because I know that you aren't prepared to face exactly what you are defending

Suppose they were. Trump told them to go "peacefully and patriotically." It is possible to be both

It is. It is likely though? Both events and assessments beforehand acknowledged that it wasn't and TRUMP STILL SEND THEM THERE

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.

NO hearsay, as I said from Trump's mouth to her ears see my first clip.

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.

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.)

Actually, change the word "music" to "politics," and that is by definition every single democrat's feeling about Joe Biden.

Oh, explain that please, and be sure to source it? And again a whataboutism.

Appeals to hypocrisy are a logical fallacy, and so are false equivalencies

Words mean things, feelings are more nebulous.

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.

 

[forkup]

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?

You will find me coming out against the violence of the summer in more posts.