Jan 6 Committee SUBORNED PERJURY.. Stunning Information of Closed-Door Testimony Revealed.

[jc456]

Meadows is an obvious target for the DOJ. It's been shown that he was the facilitator of things done by the Trump campaign. He was for instance into the Raffensberger call. If the DOJ is going after Trump Meadows is an obvious step. I suspect his lawyers know that and as such want the negotiating position that not testifying provides.

By the way, the chairman can't. Noone on the committee can. The DOJ however is a different matter.

So why are you talking about it?

 

[Faun]

So it didn't happen? Good, that's what I and the SS have said. So why do you think they even put the woman on to testify to it?

I didn't say that either. What I did say is I don't know if it happened or not. Neither do you.

 

[forkup]

So why are you talking about it?

Somebody said something I disagreed with. So I told him or her my reasoning. Do I need a better reason?

 

[Faun]

Would anyone expect less of democrats?

Folks need to understand what the democratic party has turned into.....a treasonous, immoral party of death.....under he control of Satanic forces doing their best to destroy America.

That is why everytime I come across on on here....I put them on ignore.

Tell me more...

 

[Rambunctious]

That's OK for me since I never said I believed that story. You, on the other hand, claimed those agents said they would testify her testimony is not true -- but you can't prove it. Makes you a lying sycophant; but then, the forum already knows that.

You have been defending her words all day Biden voter.....

 

[WEATHER53]

I feel the same way about the inconsequential, meaningless attacks on Cassidy's testimony. Who cares if Don lunged at the wheel or didn't? All the important elements of the incident have nothing to do with that detail.

Ok well since you feel that way then stick to the fantasy Bombshell threads and don’t soil this fact thread.

 

[WEATHER53]

There are many more rules of due process that don't apply. I'll give some examples. Due process includes for instance double jeopardy, right? The rule is that someone can't get charged multiple times for the same crime. There were 8 separate investigations into Benghazi.

It is simply unheard of that a juror consults with the accused about trial strategies. Trump got together with Graham during his first impeachment trial to do exactly that. Etc. Etc.

I do not doubt you understand the difference between a trial and what congress does in those instances.

The difference is that although some rules apply. A lot don't, and quite honestly they shouldn't because a trial and congress handle very different questions.

In both cases the party providing the statements must have witnessed the situation and be truthful about it. That’s all that matters. The subtle nuances are , as I said, nitpicking and an attempt to interject the fake into fact. You attempted redefinition of Hearsay is classic example

 

[forkup]

Ok well since you feel that way then stick to the fantasy Bombshell threads and don’t soil this fact thread.

The OP gave a link that said that there was testimony before by the Secret Service that DIDN'T ask about the steering wheel incident, and from it, the OP drew the conclusion the Jan 6th committee lied. You can not do that from the information the OP provided.

That is a fact.

 

[WEATHER53]

NBC is fake news now?

Facts are fake for them. We need to keep this thread fact based like it started and let all these lib loon safe spacers clutter up their multiple Bombshell threads.

 

[WEATHER53]

So it didn't happen? Good, that's what I and the SS have said. So why do you think they even put the woman on to testify to it?

Accusation Page 1 of media and TV and outcome page 33 and the liars and fakers know that. It’s one of the very few pieces of knowledge that they have

 

[Faun]

You have been defending her words all day Biden voter.....

No, I'm pointing out you're lying. Now since you're lying about what's being said about her, it might seem like I'm defending her; but again, I'm merely highlighting your bullshit. And no, I'm not defending her hearsay about being told Trump lunged at a steering wheel. From the onset, my position is it's hearsay and I've yet to hear anything corroborating her claim or refuting it.

 

[forkup]

In both cases the party providing the statements must have witnessed the situation and be truthful about it. That’s all that matters. The subtle nuances are , as I said, nitpicking and an attempt to interject the fake into fact. You attempted redefinition of Hearsay is classic example

No, they don't. In a trial setting the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning the accused is given all possible advantages before he gets convicted. In congress that standard simply isn't applicable. Because it simply tries to ascertain the most likely rendition of facts.

Nitpicking is focusing on a small detail of a testimony that is contested. And trying to use it to invalidate the entire testimony. She said that she heard something from someone else. Wich is indeed hearsay. On the other hand, she did so by citing names. Names who can testify. At the moment they aren't. I think that is telling. Substantial parts of her testimony weren't hearsay at all, and yet all of you seem to insist that Hutchinson isn't reliable while at the same time being against people testifying who can corroborate or dispute.

 

[Rambunctious]

No, I'm pointing out you're lying. Now since you're lying about what's being said about her, it might seem like I'm defending her; but again, I'm merely highlighting your bullshit. And no, I'm not defending her hearsay about being told Trump lunged at a steering wheel. From the onset, my position is it's hearsay and I've yet to hear anything corroborating her claim or refuting it.

LOL fucking liar... lol you should have stayed in bed today....

 

[jc456]

Somebody said something I disagreed with. So I told him or her my reasoning. Do I need a better reason?

There’s no pending indictments coming from congress because?

No, they don't. In a trial setting the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning the accused is given all possible advantages before he gets convicted. In congress that standard simply isn't applicable. Because it simply tries to ascertain the most likely rendition of facts.

Nitpicking is focusing on a small detail of a testimony that is contested. And trying to use it to invalidate the entire testimony. She said that she heard something from someone else. Wich is indeed hearsay. On the other hand, she did so by citing names. Names who can testify. At the moment they aren't. I think that is telling. Substantial parts of her testimony weren't hearsay at all, and yet all of you seem to insist that Hutchinson isn't reliable while at the same time being against people testifying who can corroborate or dispute.

Conviction? In congress? How’s that work?

 

[Faun]

LOL fucking liar... lol you should have stayed in bed today....

LOLOL

With your inability to prove your bullshit claims, you dismissed yourself.

 

[lantern2814]

Sounds like someone triggered another snowflake here.
Do you have a safe space where you can go to regroup?

You’re the ones whining because the truth debunked you again. You’re the triggered ones desperately backing a proven liar. Continue your ignorance of reality.

 

[Rambunctious]

LOLOL

With your inability to prove your bullshit claims, you dismissed yourself.

Only in your pea brain.... hows the recession coming for ya... you know the one you said won't happen.... Buuuuaahahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

While the left continues to spin that hearsay is more valid than direct evidnece, I have another question that begs to be answered and no one has been able to..

Why would a committee member leak these transcripts to a media friendly to democrats? What was the intent of this? Were they looking for holes they could exploit and discredit these Secret Service officers with? What were they going to make up to do this?

I just cannot find a reasonable explanation that would explain this. Everything points to an attempt to discredit the officers.

 

[theHawk]

The story was circulating in the Secret Service ranks for over a year. It happened. Whether you like it or not.
I notice that the Secret Service agents were willing to swear under oath that what Hutchinson testified to was not true....until
Liz Cheney said the committee would welcome testimony under oath (ie called their bluff).

It's gotten noticeably silent. Wonder why?

They already testified under oath.

 

[MagicMike]

Trump White House attorney disputes Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about handwritten note

A former Trump White House lawyer is disputing ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that she penned a handwritten note regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

abcnews.go.com

Here is the only pertinent passage in your link.
Quote:
"In response to Herschmann's claim, a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee said, "The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson's account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building."