It probably cost him a chance to hook up with Ms. Cassidy.What do you think the burger Ol' DJT threw against the wall cost?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It probably cost him a chance to hook up with Ms. Cassidy.What do you think the burger Ol' DJT threw against the wall cost?
No one will ever convince me Corrupt Filthy Don ISN'T a sick prick and has been one his whole life.I am not sure I believe anything that lady said...
Also, I am not sure I believe anything ANYONE says anymore regardless of topic.
Bro, a mcdouble is like 2.50 these days.No clue, how much is a big mac going for these days? 2.99
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 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.
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 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?
No one will ever convince me Corrupt Filthy Don ISN'T a sick prick and has been one his whole life.
That life long republican has been legal to vote for 7 years fwiw.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 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.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.
Lots of cops think they are lawyers. There is a reason they are not.You should learn about Rules of Evidence, and what actually constitutes "hearsay".
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?That life long republican has been legal to vote for 7 years fwiw.
Something like that.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?
You mean like "go on the record"? Be accountable?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.
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.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?
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.Something like that.
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.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.
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?Something like that.
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!!??!!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 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.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 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 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.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!!??!!
The GOP will be breaking her down from now until the Nov elections.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.
That wasn’t directed at you…..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.
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.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!!??!!
Just my opinion on what could be happening.That wasn’t directed at you…..
just a general thought I was having .
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.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.”
Good, I though you might have been implying something more sexist.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.
Engel did testify The committee would not let someone testify in public about an incident that was contradicted in earlier testimony.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.
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.Engel did testify The committee would not let someone testify in public about an incident that was contradicted in earlier testimony.
Good, I though you might have been implying something more sexist.
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.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.
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.Might want to consider your own projections then.
Totally wood though.
My apologies for forgetting you are a female, again.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.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.
They are looking for the truth. You really are one cynical sumbitch whiskey....you oughtta meet my brother...you two would get along famously.Because immediately contradicting your surprise witness with someone who was actually in the vehicle doesn't give you thr propaganda you are looking for.
Your vast experience as an incel? 😂In my experience, powerful women tend to ask for sexual favors. But I am very good looking, may just be my truth.
This isn’t hearsay. Change the channel.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.
Lol the favorite word of liberal losers who likely have almost no sexual experience outside of committed relationships and pron.Your vast experience as an incel? 😂