Phinneas J. Whoopie Posted June 30, 2022 #451 Share Posted June 30, 2022 10 hours ago, OverSword said: Why have her even speak about second hand accounts? Does anyone have a link to a video of her talking about the limo ride and the throwing of food or the chocking or any of the other stuff she didn't see happen that she testified to? Reminds me of John Kerrys winter soldier testimony before Congress.. Testifying in complete vaguery about alleged pseudo war crimes committed by the unnamed, the faceless, against equally elusive enemies, for inexplicable reasons. This is why hearsay is inadmissable, it holds no one accountable for the claimed offenses... Nor for lying that they happened. Kerry craftily used the word WE about 16 times in one passage describing numerous war crimes. A week later on the Dick Cavett show when confronted by the officer who replaced him what war crimes he actually saw or committed, Kerry said "use of a . 50 cal machine gun" and "participation in a free fire zone" both specifically not war crimes or even activities. His whole appearance was crafted to provide some legitimacy to fabrications. This Cassidy womans role is the same. Where is the person who witnessed all this? I dont know whether to be sad that its come to this, that network news carries such nonsense... Or just completely enraged at Democrats for assuming we are so stupid we would lay down and accept this as legitimate. Or we are just going to cave one day and say I guess youre right Trump really is THE threat to democracy, and its not you and these witch hunts that have all been exposed as your lies. Russia Collusion. Lies. No evidence Trump colluded. First impeachment. Absurd. Nothing wrong with requesting Zelensky look into the obvious problem of the vice president leveraging a billion dollars to drop an investigation into a company who put his son on the payroll to do nothing. Spygate. Trump blasted for conspiracy theory we find was 100% true. Now the laptop that was called russian disinfo contained russian INFO that joe biden personally paid for Hunters russian escorts. We are on january 6th while supreme court justices have their lives threatened, encouraged by democrat lawmakers. We are told Trump allowed gun toting rioters in.. When not one protestor in the capitol building had a gun. Has anyone in the secret service documented the president giving such an order? Could he? Can democrats be more shameless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggs Posted June 30, 2022 #452 Share Posted June 30, 2022 39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said: So basically, we can't know anything. Boiling it down, what it sounds like you're writing here is "well, we can't really trust them, so let's ignore anything they say and cite only those who support my dislike of Donald Trump". How is any discussion going to meaningful under these conditions? So we should generally trust people who give testimony under oath? The text of Peter Alexander's Tweet: 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. You'll perhaps note that it only mentions testifying about what happened in the car, as opposed to testifying about what Hutchinson was told. Which, given that at least part of it was conveyed to Hutchinson using hand gestures, isn't entirely surprising that the two don't line up. 39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said: I've seen more than most, I daresay more than you. And I still haven't seen any examples from you in which "Excited Utterances" were used in context to allow someone to enter a courtroom and say "I saw X do Y". Especially when the people who actually saw X do Y are a much more trustworthy source than a hearsay second or third hand account. Don't particularly believe I need to, after directly linking you to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which A: establishes that such an exception for hearsay exists, and B: lays out the fact that it doesn't matter whether the original claimaint is available to testify at the very beginning of the section. Which I'm pretty sure covers everything I need to evidence, without having to spend my time as an unpaid Google case law monkey. 39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said: And muddied a whole lot more while doing so! All seems pretty clear to me. Your mileage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted June 30, 2022 #453 Share Posted June 30, 2022 13 minutes ago, Tiggs said: So we should generally trust people who give testimony under oath? The text of Peter Alexander's Tweet: 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. You'll perhaps note that it only mentions testifying about what happened in the car, as opposed to testifying about what Hutchinson was told. Which, given that at least part of it was conveyed to Hutchinson using hand gestures, isn't entirely surprising that the two don't line up. Don't particularly believe I need to, after directly linking you to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which A: establishes that such an exception for hearsay exists, and B: lays out the fact that it doesn't matter whether the original claimaint is available to testify at the very beginning of the section. Which I'm pretty sure covers everything I need to evidence, without having to spend my time as an unpaid Google case law monkey. All seems pretty clear to me. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps not. Certainly not all testimony given under oath should be trusted. If not, how much less should a testimony given under oath from a person that wasn’t even there be trusted? Certainly you can understand why that should be considered even less trustworthy? Especially when the people who were there tell a different story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggs Posted June 30, 2022 #454 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Golden Duck said: Given that the response from the agents is more second hand information, I don't know that it implies much at all. What are you inferring? Inferring that they were never asked the question, because the committee wasn't aware of it until recently. Which would line up with Hutchinson ditching her former lawyer, earlier this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggs Posted June 30, 2022 #455 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, preacherman76 said: Perhaps not. Certainly not all testimony given under oath should be trusted. If not, how much less should a testimony given under oath from a person that wasn’t even there be trusted? Certainly you can understand why that should be considered even less trustworthy? Especially when the people who were there tell a different story. If I told you my wife is wearing blue socks, and it turns out they're actually gray — if you say under oath that I told you she was wearing blue socks — are you testifying truthfully under oath? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted June 30, 2022 #456 Share Posted June 30, 2022 My prediction for fun, trump will be at some hearing or whatever and his uncontrollable rage arrogance and stupidy will take over and he will blurt out like jack did in a few good men shooting his own foot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted June 30, 2022 #457 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Tiggs said: If I told you my wife is wearing blue socks, and it turns out they're actually gray — if you say under oath that I told you she was wearing blue socks — are you testifying truthfully under oath? I understand what you are saying. At the same time though you are also saying that maybe your friend told me your wife had red socks, but never actually saw the red socks, and is contradicting your testimony of the gray socks. Neither of you are telling the truth, but there is no way of knowing what color those socks actually were, cause it’s long after the fact. With the information we do have, why believe someone who never saw the socks over someone who did? And even that has to assume you who actually saw the socks, are lying about it. Why assume these guys are lying, and she who saw nothing, is telling the truth? Edited June 30, 2022 by preacherman76 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted June 30, 2022 #458 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Conspiracy to overturn the election is sedition. Sedition is a crime. Does anyone believe that trump didn’t try to overturn the election? case closed. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted June 30, 2022 #459 Share Posted June 30, 2022 I dont know about chocking SS workers but perhaps this type thing was the steering wheel trump grabbed for... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #460 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said: They are within their rights to believe it was a lie. But thats not all of it. They believe the election is a lie and acted to overthrow the results. All on unproven, and vastly contradicted hearsay. Politicians acted and conspired to stop the results. Hundreds of them. Trump, our president. Tried to get multiple people in different parts of government to sidestep the voters and help him keep power. And at it's most base level we had true believers on Jan 6th storm the capital. If someone actually believes their election was a fraud and getting stolen from them than is it that crazy to try and stop the certification vote by storming the place? Their crime are being true believers of the big lie. All it will take is a Republican loss. But my main concern is that if all these people acted in the past than they will act again in the future. The problem never went away. So all of you who show little concern over the big lie but frequently bash the Jan 6th committee. It just seems like your priorities are mixed up. Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phinneas J. Whoopie Posted June 30, 2022 #461 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, lightly said: Conspiracy to overturn the election is sedition. Sedition is a crime. Does anyone believe that trump didn’t try to overturn the election? case closed. Viewed with the perspective the election really was free and fair, perhaps. Only it wasnt, and the evidence has never been disputed.. Laws were passed to try and prevent it from happening again.. https://www.wsj.com/articles/zuckerbucks-shouldnt-pay-for-elections-mark-zuckerberg-center-for-technology-and-civic-life-trump-biden-2020-11640912907 i will keep posting links to what the media wants to keep quiet, democrats can keep pretending theyve never heard about this, and you can keep wasting your time trying to get us to agree that the big lie is on our side and not yours. Public elections should not be financed by billionaires with partisan agenda, who then go on to organize a massive conspiracy to censor anyone sharing evidence calling it misinformation. Feel free to disagree but youll be wrong. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phinneas J. Whoopie Posted June 30, 2022 #462 Share Posted June 30, 2022 52 minutes ago, spartan max2 said: But thats not all of it. They believe the election is a lie and acted to overthrow the results. All on unproven, and vastly contradicted hearsay. Politicians acted and conspired to stop the results. Hundreds of them. Trump, our president. Tried to get multiple people in different parts of government to sidestep the voters and help him keep power. And at it's most base level we had true believers on Jan 6th storm the capital. If someone actually believes their election was a fraud and getting stolen from them than is it that crazy to try and stop the certification vote by storming the place? Their crime are being true believers of the big lie. All it will take is a Republican loss. But my main concern is that if all these people acted in the past than they will act again in the future. The problem never went away. So all of you who show little concern over the big lie but frequently bash the Jan 6th committee. It just seems like your priorities are mixed up. The BIG LIE is that Democrats have ever cared to look at the myriad evidence showing the 2020 election was in fact rigged. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/ In most counties of most states, but particularly in battleground states. I dont expect you to care or agree but just be aware why no Republicans besides never Trumper swamp creatures like Liz Cheney are buying into this incredible partisan **** show Democrats are wasting their time with. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #463 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said: The BIG LIE is that Democrats have ever cared to look at the myriad evidence showing the 2020 election was in fact rigged. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/ In most counties of most states, but particularly in battleground states. I dont expect you to care or agree but just be aware why no Republicans besides never Trumper swamp creatures like Liz Cheney are buying into this incredible partisan **** show Democrats are wasting their time with. Countless conservatives have voiced against the big lie. The justice department. Conservative judges. Election officials and governors in all the contested states. The governor of Georgia for example. We are going to act like he is not a conservative because he said Trump was wrong? Investigations and audits have been conducted under Republican controlled state legislators and still nonething. To believe the big lie and to believe that everyone who disagrees with Trump is not a Republican, is cult like behavior. That's cult like mentality. Its not just democrats. You guys just disown and disawvoe anyone who speaks against Trump as a RINO. Also. Speaking of Liz. Looks at Cheney's record and then try to tell me she's not a conservative. You simply dislike her because she is speaking against Trump. Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 30, 2022 #464 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Tiggs said: If I told you my wife is wearing blue socks, and it turns out they're actually gray — if you say under oath that I told you she was wearing blue socks — are you testifying truthfully under oath? Most certainly that is testifying under oath. Also hearsay. But the only way we're going to know the sox were gray is to call your wife to up to testify, which should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 30, 2022 #465 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, the13bats said: My prediction for fun, trump will be at some hearing or whatever and his uncontrollable rage arrogance and stupidy will take over and he will blurt out like jack did in a few good men shooting his own foot. My prediction is that he sits there with a lawyer whispering in his ear invoking the 5th amendment and also testifying that he doesn't recall as politicians reliably do all the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phinneas J. Whoopie Posted June 30, 2022 #466 Share Posted June 30, 2022 31 minutes ago, spartan max2 said: Countless conservatives have voiced against the big lie. The justice department. Conservative judges. Election officials and governors in all the contested states. The governor of Georgia for example. We are going to act like he is not a conservative because he said Trump was wrong? Investigations and audits have been conducted under Republican controlled state legislators and still nonething. To believe the big lie and to believe that everyone who disagrees with Trump is not a Republican, is cult like behavior. That's cult like mentality. Its not just democrats. You guys just disown and disawvoe anyone who speaks against Trump as a RINO. Also. Speaking of Liz. Looks at Cheney's record and then try to tell me she's not a conservative. You simply dislike her because she is speaking against Trump. Is there a reason why you chose to post about a lot of things besides the evidence I provided? Im not going to further derail rhe discussion but I am no conservative and most of my beliefs are also rejected by Republicans. Anyway youve provided some strange talking points. You do realize that a certain politician like Georgias Governor making a statement, about what he believes about an issue, does not end discussion of it or make evidence disappear? I have no doubt that many elected officials will ignore the Zuckerbucks story. Many of their offices received tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and did not spend the money on covid supplies as they said was intended. Some was spent cultivating Biden votes... How much of the rest went into their pockets? See for yourself: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-tech-and-civic-life/#note-100 Let me know if youd like to discuss whats been reported about how Zuckerbergs $400 million influenced election results. Theres two links on this page, I have more if your search engine is broken and youd like to catch up on that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 30, 2022 #467 Share Posted June 30, 2022 59 minutes ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said: The BIG LIE is that Democrats have ever cared to look at the myriad evidence showing the 2020 election was in fact rigged. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/ In most counties of most states, but particularly in battleground states. I dont expect you to care or agree but just be aware why no Republicans besides never Trumper swamp creatures like Liz Cheney are buying into this incredible partisan **** show Democrats are wasting their time with. Good article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz_Light_Year Posted June 30, 2022 #468 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, spartan max2 said: Also. Speaking of Liz. Looks at Cheney's record and then try to tell me she's not a conservative. She's a Republican because she couldn't possibly get elected in Wyoming as a Democrat. Edited June 30, 2022 by Buzz_Light_Year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #469 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said: See for yourself: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-tech-and-civic-life/#note-100 Let me know if youd like to discuss whats been reported about how Zuckerbergs $400 million influenced election results. Theres two links on this page, I have more if your search engine is broken and youd like to catch up on that. So you expect people to make the conspiracy theorist leap that the election was faked because of this? Quote CTCL then channeled the funds, commonly called “Zuck bucks,” in the form of grants to thousands of county and city elections officials throughout the United States to help them hire more staff, buy mail-in ballot processing machinery, and other measures they deemed necessary to properly handle the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic. [8] [9] Like if Target donates money to my states board of election than that dosen't mean my board of election is creating fake votes. That is a bit of a leap... Like using Idaho as an example: Quote Idaho Benewah County: $5,000 grant and application Bingham County: $23,220 grant Blaine County: $11,724 grant and closeout report Notes use of funds for purchasing “ballot drop boxes” and “non-partisan voter education” Butte County: $5,000 grant Clearwater County: $5,000 grant Closeout report to CTCL regarding purchases of “vote-by-mail/absentee voting equipment or supplies & election administration equipment” Gem County: $8,753.50 grant Lemhi County: Closeout report to CTCL for $5,000 grant Lewis County: Closeout report to CTCL for $5,000 grant Lincoln County: $5,000 grant Minidoka County: Thank you email to CTCL (grant amount unknown) Nez Perce County: $21,829.50 grant and application Owyhee County: $7,785.75 grant Payette County: $12,632 grant and closeout report Washington County: $5,792 grant Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 30, 2022 #470 Share Posted June 30, 2022 7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said: So you expect people to make the conspiracy theorist leap that the election was faked because of this? Like if Target donates money to my states board of election than that dosen't mean my board of election is creating fake votes. That is a bit of a leap... Like using Idaho as an example: At the very least it is strong indication that we need campaign finance reform as a private company should not have too much influence over media people are exposed to such as Facebook and then be able to augment their media messaging with huge amounts of money to influence votes. If a private company can do it then how can we complain about any other entity doing it? They certainly aren't doing this for the benefit of the USA they do it for the benefit of a private company. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #471 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, OverSword said: At the very least it is strong indication that we need campaign finance reform as a private company should not have too much influence over media people are exposed to such as Facebook and then be able to augment their media messaging with huge amounts of money to influence votes. If a private company can do it then how can we complain about any other entity doing it? They certainly aren't doing this for the benefit of the USA they do it for the benefit of a private company. I don't disagree. Though the devil's are in the details of how to do that. The group itself is a nonprofit and not owned by Zuckerberg. They received zuckerbergs (which then gets into the weeds that it wasent a Facebook company donations but him and his wife as individuals) donations which they then donated. Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted June 30, 2022 #472 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, spartan max2 said: I don't disagree. Though the devil's are in the details of how to do that. The group itself is a nonprofit and not owned by Zuckerberg. They received zuckerbergs donations which they then donated. Umm LOL!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #473 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, OverSword said: Umm LOL!! I'm just pointing out how the laws around political donations are difficult to do lol. Set a cap and then I will split my donation amongst a couple nonprofits which will then donate that money into the nonprofit I originally wanted. Like shell companies and all that junk. Or like the classic: we aren't giving her a donation we are just paying her millions to speak at our event Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phinneas J. Whoopie Posted June 30, 2022 #474 Share Posted June 30, 2022 20 minutes ago, spartan max2 said: So you expect people to make the conspiracy theorist leap that the election was faked because of this? Like if Target donates money to my states board of election than that dosen't mean my board of election is creating fake votes. That is a bit of a leap... Like using Idaho as an example: It was much more complex and involved than just "donating money to an election office" https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/ First off Zuckerberg and his group claimed the grants were for PPE for workers for covid. In Georgia less than 2% of its $31 mil was spent on that. The grants came with conditions including small armies of partisan activists staffing offices, polling places, going door to door, even getting access to voter rolls. Given keys to ballot storage and permission to alter ballots, conduct audits. This is a public election, allowing private money and people to run it like this outside of established transparant protocol is insane. Ive heard so often about election officials and local leaders swearing by the security and integrity of this election. Of course they are, just the idea of accepting these grants is a bad look for them, and accounting for the funds was probably pretty loose especially if the results were favorable to Zuckerbergs wishes. Lets say youre a lowly government official and you had $50-250k to use as a slush fund with minimal accounting. Hire friends and family for menial jobs, free meals for the staff, new laptops and cell phones for you and your staff, outside the normal scritiny of taxpayers? Is it any surprise Georgias Governor wants to rubber stamp this election and not have to explain how election officials across his state spent $31 mil while acting as servants of the people administering a free and fair election? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted June 30, 2022 Author #475 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Phinneas J. Whoopie said: It was much more complex and involved than just "donating money to an election office" https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/zuckerbucks-2020-election/ First off Zuckerberg and his group claimed the grants were for PPE for workers for covid. In Georgia less than 2% of its $31 mil was spent on that. The grants came with conditions including small armies of partisan activists staffing offices, polling places, going door to door, even getting access to voter rolls. Given keys to ballot storage and permission to alter ballots, conduct audits. This is a public election, allowing private money and people to run it like this outside of established transparant protocol is insane. Ive heard so often about election officials and local leaders swearing by the security and integrity of this election. Of course they are, just the idea of accepting these grants is a bad look for them, and accounting for the funds was probably pretty loose especially if the results were favorable to Zuckerbergs wishes. Lets say youre a lowly government official and you had $50-250k to use as a slush fund with minimal accounting. Hire friends and family for menial jobs, free meals for the staff, new laptops and cell phones for you and your staff, outside the normal scritiny of taxpayers? Is it any surprise Georgias Governor wants to rubber stamp this election and not have to explain how election officials across his state spent $31 mil while acting as servants of the people administering a free and fair election? I haven't found anything that has said the money was only meant for PPE. It sounds like many counties did not have the money and support needed to deal with the Covid pandemic from the government. So they reached out to get grants and assistance from nonprofit organizations. Looking at another perspective of them talking to some of the county officials. Quote With a tight budget and little help from the federal government, Chester County applied for an election grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a previously small Chicago-based nonprofit that quickly amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to help local election offices — most notably, $350 million from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. "Honestly, I don't know what we would have done without it," Turner said. The coronavirus pandemic — and Congress' neglect — necessitated an unprecedented bailout of election offices with private money funneled through the little-known nonprofit. And the money proved indispensable. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election I do agree that we probably shouldn't use nonprofits groups to help election offices follow up on absentee ballot calls. But like if we aren't funding our election offices enough to do that during a pandemic than like what do you do. But once again, it's a big leap to say votes were faked because of this. This seems similar to registering people to vote. Yes it's a nonpartisan thing but of course parties are only going to work to register people in areas that lean their way. Same with helping counties set up drop boxes and absentee voting. Wanting to help offices do that is nonpartisan. But of course mail in voting leans blue which is probably why zuck wanted to help places get mail in voting set up. Edited June 30, 2022 by spartan max2 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now