ADVERTISEMENT

Ketchup on the wall!

Some could say you're a laughing stock for posting this when secret service members are saying they will testify under oath that it wasn't true. She should let them speak the truth and keep her testimony to her actual observations.
There are reports that agents will testify to the contrary. Fox is running with, what’s that word? Hearsay? And it’s clear their push propaganda is working. You are the fourth poster to push as fact that agents will contradict her.
Some would say this was predicted yesterday. That the Trump machine would rise up to discredit Hutchinson. She is a brave woman, facing death threats from the Trump cult. She publicly testified despite the threats. When these agents actually show up and go under oath I’ll give them all the respect and attention they deserve.
 
I repeatedly condemned the events that we've seen play out from video that day. But do you really think an obviously one sided commission with hearsay is a healthy exercise?
Why would a lifelong Republican and trusted staff member of multiple GOP politicians, who had an office in the West Wing between Meadows and Trump not be considered a reliable witness? What is her motive for risking her career and good standing in the GOP ecosystem -- which has given her jobs and paid her well for years -- by lying?
 
Why would a lifelong Republican and trusted staff member of multiple GOP politicians, who had an office in the West Wing between Meadows and Trump not be considered a reliable witness? What is her motive for risking her career and good standing in the GOP ecosystem -- which has given her jobs and paid her well for years -- by lying?
That life long republican has been legal to vote for 7 years fwiw.
 
This wouldn’t be an issue if they didn’t allow hearsay. I’m sure with a little effort they could have asked the people in the car instead of someone playing the telephone game.
I like you, so I’ll be kind and say you must have just pulled a 3rd shift and aren’t thinking clearly. Take a nap and then watch her testimony. Then review the definition of hearsay. Consume media besides Fox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5 and Ree4
It is amazing to me that posters here are still can't grasp the most basic fact that a congressional hearing is NOT a court of law. A hearing is NOT a judicial proceeding. The federal rules of evidence DO NOT apply. Congress, the legislative branch of government, DOES NOT charge or prosecute crimes.

re: heresay evidence.

1. Heresay testimony is generally inadmissable at trial.

2. There are multiple recognized exceptions to the heresay rule. Heresay evidence is admissable at trial if the government shows that the proposed heresay testimony falls within one or more of the multiple exceptions. Heresay evidence is admitted in court every single day in America (because a judge has ruled that the such evidence can come in under one of the many heresay exceptions).

3. Hutchinson's congressional testimony was taken under oath and supposedly given according to her best recollection of the events and conduct she described.

4. If witnesses to the events and conduct described by Hutchinson have evidence which is counter factual to Hutchinson's testimony, they should appear before the committee and testify under oath.
You mean like "go on the record"? Be accountable?
Jeeeeeebus....then they might get in trouble!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
Pretty impressive how far up the GOP career ladder she achieved by her late 20s, huh? Wouldn't that bolster my argument that she had been a dedicated and effective assistant to her bosses?
She worked for Cruz, Scalise and Meadows...and Meadows brought her along when he left the House for the Chief of Staff position...and gave her a promotion, to boot.
 
I would just like to hear someone who is doubting or downplaying her testimony to spell out for me what her possible motive for lying is.
My opinion is she was likely trying to give the best Information she could. I am if the belief that by the time some of the information got to her it was convoluted.
 
Why would a lifelong Republican and trusted staff member of multiple GOP politicians, who had an office in the West Wing between Meadows and Trump not be considered a reliable witness? What is her motive for risking her career and good standing in the GOP ecosystem -- which has given her jobs and paid her well for years -- by lying?
I kept thinking the very same thing as I read through multiple posts about this yesterday. What motivation would she have to walk in there and lie, while she was simultaneously ruining any career opportunity that she might have otherwise had!!??!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC Nole OX
How do you think she climbed the political ladder? Are you hinting you think something besides dedication and hard work got her jobs with Scalise, Cruz, and Meadows?
I think she is probably very talented and hard working. I was being tounge in cheek about the ladder. She was a aide, which is a great spot for a 25 year old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Zierath
I would just like to hear someone who is doubting or downplaying her testimony to spell out for me what her possible motive for lying is.

I am looking forward to someone actually giving a different account of what happened to the committee or on camera rather than say that they will give a statement. Until that happens, stop telling us that she was lying.
 
I kept thinking the very same thing as I read through multiple posts about this yesterday. What motivation would she have to walk in there and lie, while she was simultaneously ruining any career opportunity that she might have otherwise had!!??!!
I don't think she lied. I think she truly was trying to act in a fashion to do what she felt was right. I think she is about to learn a lesson most 20 somethings learn in corporate America. Less is more and only say the shit you KNOW to be true.
 
Moments after the Hutchinson’s testimony, NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander reported “a source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
I don't think she lied. I think she truly was trying to act in a fashion to do what she felt was right. I think she is about to learn a lesson most 20 somethings learn in corporate America. Less is more and only say the shit you KNOW to be true.
That wasn’t directed at you…..

just a general thought I was having .
 
I kept thinking the very same thing as I read through multiple posts about this yesterday. What motivation would she have to walk in there and lie, while she was simultaneously ruining any career opportunity that she might have otherwise had!!??!!
There is none. That is why the naysayers are clinging to semantics like "a Secret Service agent says the president didn't LUNGE at the wheel" ----- as if the fact a minor detail being wrong undoes the MOUNTAIN of reliable eyewitness testimony about him knowing his supporters were armed, wanting to go take out the metal detectors, flinging food against the wall like a shit-throwing orangutan, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5, Ree4 and nu2u
Moments after the Hutchinson’s testimony, NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent Peter Alexander reported “a source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.”
Let them so testify, then. No one is preventing them from doing so. In fact there have been more than one invitation from the Chairman asking folks who gave anything to add, to contact the committee. This committee is not working in secret chambers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 Dunks and torbee
Let them so testify, then. No one is preventing them from doing so. In fact there have been more than one invitation from the Chairman asking folks who gave anything to add, to contact the committee. This committee is not working in secret chambers.
Engel did testify The committee would not let someone testify in public about an incident that was contradicted in earlier testimony.
 
Engel did testify The committee would not let someone testify in public about an incident that was contradicted in earlier testimony.
Didn’t he testify BEFORE Hutchinson testified? Unless the Committee had specific information about the alleged assault, why would they ask about it? Engel can come back and testify to contradict Hutchinson, if he thinks it is necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Didn’t he testify BEFORE Hutchinson testified? Unless the Committee had specific information about the alleged assault, why would they ask about it? Engel can come back and testify to contradict Hutchinson, if he thinks it is necessary.
He could. I am not a lawyer or a committee member, but if I knew a witness was going to tell a story involving former witnesses, I would contact the other witnesses to see if they disputed it before I put it out to a national TV audience.
 
Didn’t he testify BEFORE Hutchinson testified? Unless the Committee had specific information about the alleged assault, why would they ask about it? Engel can come back and testify to contradict Hutchinson, if he thinks it is necessary.
Because immediately contradicting your surprise witness with someone who was actually in the vehicle doesn't give you thr propaganda you are looking for.
 
I am a woman. I've often heard others insinuate that powerful women got to the top through sexual favors. This board loves to point to the VP as an example.
My apologies for forgetting you are a female, again.




I'll stay away from the "heels up harris" talk that I'm sure you are referencing but I will say in a very brief view Ms. Hutchinson seems Wayyyyyyy more put together than VP Harris.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sob5
I am a woman. I've often heard others insinuate that powerful women got to the top through sexual favors. This board loves to point to the VP as an example.
In my experience, powerful women tend to ask for sexual favors. But I am very good looking, may just be my truth.
 
Because immediately contradicting your surprise witness with someone who was actually in the vehicle doesn't give you thr propaganda you are looking for.
They are looking for the truth. You really are one cynical sumbitch whiskey....you oughtta meet my brother...you two would get along famously.
This has not been a witch hunt as your Fuhrer would want you to believe.
Not everything is as biased and crooked as President Trump.
 
ADVERTISEMENT