McCarthy directs House to open formal impeachment inquiry into Biden’s involvement in Hunters Deals

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Nothing to see here but hearsay. 

From how many agents involved on the case? 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

42 minutes ago, OverSword said:

From how many agents involved on the case? 

If it’s against Trump? An unpaid intern would be enough. 
Agsinst Biden? the whole damn agency could come out and it’d still be hearsay. 

[F3SS]

5 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If it’s against Trump? An unpaid intern would be enough. 

Remember the lady they brought in for the J6 show that aired for a couple years? The one that described Trump taking over the limo like he was Jason Statham in Crank? 

Of course it was a made up story but she was brought in as somebody who heard it from somebody else. She cried and everything. Really brought the dramatics and was commended for her bravery to be able to memorize a script. Was hugged and praised for it.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

Remember the lady they brought in for the J6 show that aired for a couple years? The one that described Trump taking over the limo like he was Jason Statham in Crank? 

Of course it was a made up story but she was brought in as somebody who heard it from somebody else. She cried and everything. Really brought the dramatics and was commended for her bravery to be able to memorize a script. Was hugged and praised for it.

Ooh, I'm glad you brought this up.  I remember myself and others at the time saying that focusing on something irrelevant like the steering wheel by conservatives and media were a distraction from the important part of her testimony.

Just to see if it worked- Do you remember anything of her testimony other than the steering wheel?

[F3SS]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Ooh, I'm glad you brought this up.  I remember myself and others at the time saying that focusing on something irrelevant like the steering wheel by conservatives and media were a distraction from the important part of her testimony.

Just to see if it worked- Do you remember anything of her testimony other than the steering wheel?

No, why would I? I didn't watch any of that stupid tv show. It was a fantastical story that overshadowed anything else she could say. Plus it was made up and told from a heresy perspective. It was pure theatrics. 

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Ooh, I'm glad you brought this up.  I remember myself and others at the time saying that focusing on something irrelevant like the steering wheel by conservatives and media were a distraction from the important part of her testimony.

Just to see if it worked- Do you remember anything of her testimony other than the steering wheel?

I don't recall any of this.  Can you give a quick summation?

[Doc Socks Junior]

24 minutes ago, F3SS said:

No, why would I? I didn't watch any of that stupid tv show. It was a fantastical story that overshadowed anything else she could say. Plus it was made up and told from a heresy perspective. It was pure theatrics. 

Nothing quite as good as Republicans making the Freudian slip of "heresy". Never gets old.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

No, why would I? I didn't watch any of that stupid tv show. It was a fantastical story that overshadowed anything else she could say. Plus it was made up and told from a heresy perspective. It was pure theatrics. 

Ah, pity.  Her testimony did age well.  She testified about Trump being told that some of the protestors were armed with him being unconcerned because "They weren't there for him" and she testified about discussions with Trump, Guilliani and Trump's advisors concerning the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Fast forward a year and we have the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers having members with 20 years sentences for Sedition.  They were setting up weapon stockpiles around DC and had plans for an armed fast reaction force to intervene to help the protestors seize control of Congress if needed.

 

[F3SS]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Ah, pity.  Her testimony did age well.  She testified about Trump being told that some of the protestors were armed with him being unconcerned because "They weren't there for him" and she testified about discussions with Trump, Guilliani and Trump's advisors concerning the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Fast forward a year and we have the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers having members with 20 years sentences for Sedition.  They were setting up weapon stockpiles around DC and had plans for an armed fast reaction force to intervene to help the protestors seize control of Congress if needed.

 

Awesome, so where's the secret service agent he choked out while commandeering the steering wheel of the limo? Does he exist? Did it happen? Is he too embarrassed to talk about it? Why tell such a tall tale in such a serious moment? Lastly, do you belive that story?

[Doc Socks Junior]

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Just to see if it worked- Do you remember anything of her testimony other than the steering wheel?

Looks like it worked, from the above.

[Gromdor]

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Awesome, so where's the secret service agent he choked out while commandeering the steering wheel of the limo? Does he exist? Did it happen? Is he too embarrassed to talk about it? Why tell such a tall tale in such a serious moment? Lastly, do you belive that story?

There you go being led away by the shiny toy again.  She testified under oath that she witnessed first hand what I posted.  She also testified under oath that she heard a from a secret service agent second hand about what you heard about.  Interestingly enough, you embellished on her testimony to the same degree that she did when she related it.  Does that make you less credible (a liar) because you embellished on something you heard from her?

I mean she is a Republican that Trump hand picked as the "Best and brightest" so maybe we shouldn't take her word for it.....   

[+OverSword]

Must an attempt be made in every thread about a democratic politician to be turned into a trump thread? 

[+and-then]

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Must an attempt be made in every thread about a democratic politician to be turned into a trump thread? 

Pretty sure it's law by now.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Must an attempt be made in every thread about a democratic politician to be turned into a trump thread? 

You posted some trifling hearsay whereas TRUMP COMMITTED TREASONOUS INSURRECTION and if you cannot see how these are different, then you’ve drunk the Trump flavoraid and are a minion of insurrection excusing *checks notes* a racing, homophonic, transphonic misan…. you know … whoever wrote these notes has terrible penmanship….

[Gromdor]

55 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Must an attempt be made in every thread about a democratic politician to be turned into a trump thread? 

I don't think anyone attempts it, it just naturally flows there.  It's like sewage that just flows into the cess pool.

[+OverSword]

23 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I don't think anyone attempts it, it just naturally flows there.  It's like sewage that just flows into the cess pool.

It's usually a false equivalency in order to deflect away from a political bias towards one party 

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's usually a false equivalency in order to deflect away from a political bias towards one party 

I don't think Wearer of Hats was using false equivalency in post #102 that caused this last flow down the ole sewage drain.

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I don't think Wearer of Hats was using false equivalency in post #102 that caused this last flow down the ole sewage drain.

I'll give you this one  

[F3SS]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

There you go being led away by the shiny toy again.  She testified under oath that she witnessed first hand what I posted.  She also testified under oath that she heard a from a secret service agent second hand about what you heard about.  Interestingly enough, you embellished on her testimony to the same degree that she did when she related it.  Does that make you less credible (a liar) because you embellished on something you heard from her?

I mean she is a Republican that Trump hand picked as the "Best and brightest" so maybe we shouldn't take her word for it.....   

She was an aid to the chief of staff. Does the president pick aids? She testified that he told security to stand down concerning some open carrying at the rally, telling his detail that "they're not here to hurt me". Obviously you have that spun as an implication that he was totally on board with them hurting others but that's not what really happened, right? Right.

She relayed a story, supposedly told by the head of secret service about the ss limo drivers account who didn't actually say anything himself during the conversation. Rumor had it that the SS was prepared to testify that never happened. The rumor was probably true or else the J6 committe surely would've had them take the stand. If she's full of it there she's probably full of it elsewhere and so was the committee. Was it even real testimony under oath? I'm not sure it was because the game of telephone isn't admissible in the real world. It's a script. She's a hack known only for her acting debut during a surprise hearing. I'm honestly surprised she doesn't have a job on cable news but she does have a book deal which was probably what she was promised for complying. Maybe she'll call it a "I Heard it Through the Grapevine". 

As for your "more important" info about the proudboys and the oathkeepers, well, what was so groundbreaking about what she said? She heard they had weapons ( and that Trump knew and dismissed it), which was probably known by the time her episode aired. She really had nothing of substance to say at all and your point about conservative media lampooning her brave testimony is moot too. Look it up. Every media source in existence reported the same headline but it was very astute of you to know what the real story was.

[+Paranoid Android]

11 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Ooh, I'm glad you brought this up.  I remember myself and others at the time saying that focusing on something irrelevant like the steering wheel by conservatives and media were a distraction from the important part of her testimony.

Just to see if it worked- Do you remember anything of her testimony other than the steering wheel?

I remember one other detail that wasn't reported by the media at the time - the car was stationary. The media made it look like Trump was a reckless danger to other road users to the point that he would "lunge" - I remember that word being used in basically every article at the time - for a steering wheel. I also recall that most of the negativity was coming from the mainstream left wing media trying to use this as an attack against Trump, not conservatives trying to take away from her testimony - which is hearsay and not permitted in any court proceedings, so what matter is it what testimony she had about what happened in the car that day? 

Was there something specific you were hoping we would remember about the situation? Or am I getting this mixed up with another steering wheel incident? If your argument is that the left wing media focuses on irrelevant details for the purpose of character assassination then I actually agree with you - it was shocking but not surprising to see how the media tried to ignore one key element of the story in order to make it appear as if Trump was a danger to himself and others. But I'm not sure what the conservatives have to do with it, if the left wing media didn't bring it up I doubt the right wing media would have said something about it (or if they did they would have made sure to clarify that the car was completely stationary at the time - or they should, at least, and I see no reason why conservative media would ignore it).  

[F3SS]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I remember one other detail that wasn't reported by the media at the time - the car was stationary

That's even funnier. I just skimmed a bunch of articles and didn't see that. I wasn't even addressing anyone here when I brought up this old story but Gromdor couldn't resist the urge to highlight my ignorance (as a typical republican) of the important things in life. No matter. I don't take half these people seriously. They thrive in hysteria and are led by the media with a carrot on a stick as they ride on their high horse. He didn't even realize this wasn't real testimony, through no fault of his own I'm sure. His media likely never pointed that out. I'm a Trump guy no doubt but the glaring difference between me and so many others here is that I don't hang on his every word while they hang on every word against him.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I remember one other detail that wasn't reported by the media at the time - the car was stationary. The media made it look like Trump was a reckless danger to other road users to the point that he would "lunge" - I remember that word being used in basically every article at the time - for a steering wheel. I also recall that most of the negativity was coming from the mainstream left wing media trying to use this as an attack against Trump, not conservatives trying to take away from her testimony - which is hearsay and not permitted in any court proceedings, so what matter is it what testimony she had about what happened in the car that day? 

Was there something specific you were hoping we would remember about the situation? Or am I getting this mixed up with another steering wheel incident? If your argument is that the left wing media focuses on irrelevant details for the purpose of character assassination then I actually agree with you - it was shocking but not surprising to see how the media tried to ignore one key element of the story in order to make it appear as if Trump was a danger to himself and others. But I'm not sure what the conservatives have to do with it, if the left wing media didn't bring it up I doubt the right wing media would have said something about it (or if they did they would have made sure to clarify that the car was completely stationary at the time - or they should, at least, and I see no reason why conservative media would ignore it).  

Hearsay is allowed in court when it's allowed.  But, in which court was the testimony given?

[+Paranoid Android]

43 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Hearsay is allowed in court when it's allowed. 

Only under specific circumstances. The reason I remember the car was stationary was a discussion with a member on UM who was arguing that the courts might allow an exception to the hearsay rule due to the "excited utterance exception". I think this is abusing the excited utterance exception (and made that argument at the time the discussion was taking place), but it was not until later that I found out the car wasn't even moving, which scuppered the argument altogether!  

 

43 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

But, in which court was the testimony given?

None, as far as I'm aware. At the time the event took place, people were arguing that it was solid evidence to be used in court (see above, re: excited utterances). Today it's just stuck in my head as another example of how the left wing mainstream media tried to paint a negative picture of Trump and how that picture didn't match reality. 

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

It's usually a false equivalency in order to deflect away from a political bias towards one party 

Yes, and while it happens on both sides, the efforts against Trump have been unparalleled in our history.  

[F3SS]

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only under specific circumstances. The reason I remember the car was stationary was a discussion with a member on UM who was arguing that the courts might allow an exception to the hearsay rule due to the "excited utterance exception". I think this is abusing the excited utterance exception (and made that argument at the time the discussion was taking place), but it was not until later that I found out the car wasn't even moving, which scuppered the argument altogether!  

 

None, as far as I'm aware. At the time the event took place, people were arguing that it was solid evidence to be used in court (see above, re: excited utterances). Today it's just stuck in my head as another example of how the left wing mainstream media tried to paint a negative picture of Trump and how that picture didn't match reality. 

I was looking that up after he posted and there's no way excited utterance would apply here. 

Edited September 26 by F3SS