January 6th insurrection thread...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
Yep. If she writes it they'll be quoting lines out her book as if it's the Gospel. The obsession runs deep with these people.
They haven't called out their 6 year insurrection so why would they start now?
sturg33
I
"iT's A fAlSe EqUiViLeNcE!!!"
In a sane world this charade the J6 commission tried to pull yesterday would have ended it. However, it will go on lying, editing video tape, etc. and the seals here will clap.
Thats got to be admissible for the J6 super legit hearings on Democracy!!!
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
They don't need to verify it. It isn't about finding the truth, it's about providing clips for CNN/MSNBC/late night hosts/The View/etc to run non stop, and quotes for big city newspapers to run. Anything refuting those quotes will be ignored or back paged. Show trial.
sturg33
I
Imagine ten years ago 57 calling a Cheney competent
They are not competent. And you are so incredibly stupid to fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
[Tw]1541981971668140035[/tw]
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I agree with this. The biggest problem I have with the recent “developments” is that it really doesn’t matter much. I don’t doubt for even a nanosecond that Trump was content to let the rioters do whatever. I’ve thought that from the beginning, because Trump is a narcissistic asshole. Nothing in this “bombshell” would be even remotely surprising to me, yet I still don’t see the point of rehashing all of this. If Trump, his team or his congressional supporters were materially involved, it’d be almost impossible to prove unless they can prove both that they helped organize the rally AND that the rally was a specific front to get supporters in the Capitol to disrupt the election process. Anything less than that is a waste of time, and that’s the almost certain conclusion. You’re not going to persuade anybody that doesn’t already dislike Trump that you should, and you don’t need to convince people that already disliked him. It’s somehow equally politically driven and politically ineffective in a way I can hardly comprehend.
striker42
Well-known member
Difference is you have multiple agents willing to testify that what Hutchinson claimed she was told (about Trump lunging) never happened. There's also no reason for anyone to have made up that story and told Hutchinson. So if it didn't happen we can safely assume no one told Hutchinson did.
Ultimately it's not word vs word like your example here, there are multiple people willing to testify under oath that Hutchinson's story is incorrect.
There's the added fact that Hutchinson quite possibly has an interest in making her testimony as inflammatory as possible. If she's looking for a book deal, stories like that one would be eye catching to a publisher.
If she was testifying in a court of law and I was the defense, I'd almost want to let her testify and not object based on hearsay knowing I have two credible witnesses to refute her and in doing so destroy her credibility.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It will be interesting to see what the testimony under oath is.
Something to consider:
[tw]1542236709060067329[/tw]