Salon Implies Secret Service Men "Who Disputed" Hutchinson's "Steering Wheel" Story Are Liars

[jknowgood]

Until they testify under oath their statements could just as easily be lies. It’s not like you haven‘t been shredding Hutchinson’s character and she at least was under oath.

And if she lied, you gonna call for prosecution?

 

[otto105]

All you sycophants have is your sycophancy.


Hilarious

 

[miketx]

And if she lied, you gonna call for prosecution?

Nope.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

But here's what really happened.

View attachment 664137

Go-go Gadget arms!

 

[skye]

Liars Club.

Losers like these are the ones who lie. These are the real liars.

People should know the truth by now!

 

[miketx]

All you sycophants have is your sycophancy.


Hilarious

Sez the ghoul

 

[Foolardi]

The January 6th Special Witch hunt is mimicking as if a
Grand Jury.Meaning they are preoccupied with acheiving
criminal charges to go to trial.
But Joe Madison has a faster idea'r.The Far Left Democrat
activist said { and meant it } this morning on his Sirius XM
talk radio show ... To Arrest Trump.Make sure that he gets
booked.That way he'd have a difficult time in trying to run in 2024.

 

[White 6]

Hearsay means not a witness to the alleged acts.

The DOJ can't use that "testimony" if by a miracle found a way to prosecute Trump.

How come so many are defending a worthless Hearsay?

In the committee or any committee, is it possible they will hear what somebody swears that they heard, where as in a court of law hears say evidence not allowed to stand. I do not know if this is the case or not, as far as committees looking into whether to refer charges to the Justice department or not, but very well could be, as this is just a congressional inquiry, not a court of law, where the outcome decisions mean jail time, not a referral to Department of Justice for charges. If a referral is made, I doubt here say evidence would be used in the referral. If it is, DOJ would have to investigate to see if they wish to prove it true or false in a court, in front of a jury and a judge that can levy criminal penalty based on outcome.
Personally, I would be very interested to hear the agents testify yea or nay under oath, as what they say in the to newspapers is immaterial as to truth, as they can lie to newspaper reporters all they want.
Another thing I would be interested to see would be a lawsuit filed by the agents, against the young lady if they think it makes them look bad in the public eye, as lawsuits are very popular with Republicans, as we saw in the days after the election, that is until the cases were fast tracked and lawyers declined to argue their assertions, in front of a judge.

 

[iceberg]

You have no idea if it is a fable, nor was that the entirety of her testimony. She was hardly that low level.

They may yet testify if they are willing to under oath.

From the physics of the situation, it's impossible.

 

[dudmuck]

But here's what really happened.

View attachment 664137

 

[Foolardi]

And if she lied, you gonna call for prosecution?

Unless ... 'What Goes around comes around' is only pertinent
from a fortune cookie.

 

[miketx]

Commie liar. Monday this will be gone. What will you spew then?

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Sunsettommy]

In the committee or any committee, is it possible they will hear what somebody swears that they heard, where as in a court of law hears say evidence not allowed to stand. I do not know if this is the case or not, as far as committees looking into whether to refer charges to the Justice department or not, but very well could be, as this is just a congressional inquiry, not a court of law, where the outcome decisions mean jail time, not a referral to Department of Justice for charges. If a referral is made, I doubt here say evidence would be used in the referral. If it is, DOJ would have to investigate to see if they wish to prove it true or false in a court, in front of a jury and a judge that can levy criminal penalty based on outcome.
Personally, I would be very interested to hear the agents testify yea or nay under oath, as what they say in the to newspapers is immaterial as to truth, as they can lie to newspaper reporters all they want.
Another thing I would be interested to see would be a lawsuit filed by the agents, against the young lady if they think it makes them look bad in the public eye, as lawsuits are very popular with Republicans, as we saw in the days after the election, that is until the cases were fast tracked and lawyers declined to argue their assertions, in front of a judge.

But the J6 Committee can't indict or prosecute thus her Hearsay testimony is a waste of time and looks more like it was a deliberate attempt to smear Trump in public without worry about cross questions to challenge a non-witness claims.

They are being grossly unfair over it and in my opinion invalidates the need for the committee to continue if all they have are smears to offer.

 

[miketx]

In the committee or any committee, is it possible they will hear what somebody swears that they heard, where as in a court of law hears say evidence not allowed to stand. I do not know if this is the case or not, as far as committees looking into whether to refer charges to the Justice department or not, but very well could be, as this is just a congressional inquiry, not a court of law, where the outcome decisions mean jail time, not a referral to Department of Justice for charges. If a referral is made, I doubt here say evidence would be used in the referral. If it is, DOJ would have to investigate to see if they wish to prove it true or false in a court, in front of a jury and a judge that can levy criminal penalty based on outcome.
Personally, I would be very interested to hear the agents testify yea or nay under oath, as what they say in the to newspapers is immaterial as to truth, as they can lie to newspaper reporters all they want.
Another thing I would be interested to see would be a lawsuit filed by the agents, against the young lady if they think it makes them look bad in the public eye, as lawsuits are very popular with Republicans, as we saw in the days after the election, that is until the cases were fast tracked and lawyers declined to argue their assertions, in front of a judge.

Demoscum won't allow it.

 

[White 6]

But the J6 Committee can't indict or prosecute thus her Hearsay testimony is a waste of time and looks more like it was a deliberate attempt to smear Trump in public without worry about cross questions to challenge a non-witness claims.

They are being grossly unfair over it and in my opinion invalidates the need for the committee to continue if all they have are smears to offer.

I can see that argument and understand. I also understand it is a hardball game and what happens is people sue when slurred in public. It is a hardball game and I don't like the games people play either, nor am I appreciative of the overly litigious aspect of our society with the host of frivolous suits we see all the time. In this case, Trump will not sue, as he has no intention (if he can avoid it) of having to testify under oath, as he would be his own worst enemy. I can keep an open mind on it, as I seriously doubt there will be assault charges referred based on it and the "he said she said" at this point is her saying under oath, that is what she was told by somebody supposedly there, and somebody else not under oath saying it was not true.

 

[scruffy]

All you sycophants have is your sycophancy.


Hilarious

Hm. Looks to me like we have the entire Democratic party leadership dead to rights on YET ANOTHER blatant lie.

Not to mention abuse of power and violation of Constitutional procedure.

The whole entire world now knows your Democratic leadership are a bunch of Stalinist pigs.

And you're gloating?

Sure you are, cause that's the way leftards roll.

Gloat while you can. You're not going to like the blowback.

 

[White 6]

Demoscum won't allow it.

The Republicans on that committee, do not have a hair on their ass, if they do not make the request. I understand where you guys are pissed. I am not particularly pissed, but I definitely get it, with the reporting in the papers and one being reported on either NBC or MSNBC, not exactly right wing sources.

 

[Coyote]

From the physics of the situation, it's impossible.

If there is no barrier? It is possible, but also not the point. She was saying what she heard and she was very specific both in what she heard and what saw in body language and assumed and clear in differentiating. It’s quite possible Tony exaggerated for effect to make a good story, but that doesn’t mean she lied. That was only of a much larger testimony that paints a disturbing picture and she is compelling, again, she is another former administration official and supporter.

 

[Coyote]

Hearsay is useless as she isn't a witness and now being contradicted by the men who were there in the SUV (the hearsay woman was wrong about the vehicle)

They will NOT be allowed to testify for a reason you can't understand as you are easily fooled.

It ISN’T a court.

You realize all those hearings against were set up the same right?