Recap of what the media is telling you about the J6 hearings. Aka liars telling you more lies about what liars are saying on capitol hill..

[muppy]

9 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Anyone who says a word against the orange god king must be expelled from the cult.The only thing that matters is to protect and serve Trump. What a cult.

 

Seriously, that young lady had amazing courage to testify today. I hope she is protected.

prefacing by me saying this will be my final word in politico threads never ends well.  Im going to TRY to lurk because the topic of donald is the last person I want in my head space. Alllll of the mental illness and character traits purported to him like narcissistic  and deceitful I think they are true.

 

When he says "he barely knows her" working in proximity of the west wing (which we have all learned is a tight space to begin with) this to me is disingenuous baloney . How could he NOT know her. The least is which she is in intimate first name basis with ALL his people. Gimme a break donald.

 

why do you do that? Dismiss and LIE about such things. I cant trust you at all whatsoever.

 

blech. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, muppy said:

OMG who are you to call her a desperate whatever. You don't know her. She was a respected Republican staffer who worked within steps of the Oval Office. Her being previously loyal to her boss and working within the inner circle of the White House coming forward to give testimony about what she was told. This isn't a court of law. I say lets hear testimony from her peers in that office, the driver, Engel, whoever. Lets have them speak under the possible penalty of perjury like she did.  Bring it on!   Do you think this was easy for her. A calculated move for a book deal. @-@ seriously Im not buying that. 

I think she plays on a different field than the rest of us, Mup, and I have no idea what she gains or loses here.   Perhaps she has legal or financial issues and is being squeezed, or a family member is up for a government contract.  I think the declaration that she’s respected, honorable, truthful or anything else is interesting due to the fact that before yesterday, the vast majority of the American public had no idea who she is.  Next up,of course, is “she seemed credible”, for saying she heard a rumor.   
 

There’s no Easter Bunny here, no benefit of the doubt, no requirement that people view things objectively because the committee or this previously unknown person is pure of heart.  Silliness of content—I heard from a friend who heard from a friend, Trump grabbing the wheel of the presidential Fiat, Trump was completely unconcerned about guns—can be called out as silliness whether she’s under oath or not.  Liz Cheney, btw, is alleging, without evidence as they sometimes say, “witness tampering”. The downside is she’s lying or fails to prove it?  Nothing. 
 

You say “bring it on”,  the fact that  it’s been on since 2015.  Time after time, the one common denominator has been political maneuvering and allegations of everything from urine-play to chicken nuggets thrown at the wall to now, guns at rallies because obviously 100% of the attendees were vetted as 100% supporters of Trump, a guy averaging at one point 6-8 death threats per day.
 

Meanwhile, the rule of law crowd lasted until last week, when suddenly calls for violence, ignoring the rule of and hateful rhetoric rule the day. 
 

I’ll pass. 
 

 

 

 

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 

Gee, what are the odds Herschmann gets called to testify?

[muppy]

18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think she plays on a different field than the rest of us, Mup, and I have no idea what she gains or loses here.   Perhaps she has legal or financial issues and is being squeezed, or a family member is up for a government contract.  I think the declaration that she’s respected, honorable, truthful or anything else is interesting due to the fact that before yesterday, the vast majority of the American public had no idea who she is.  Next up,of course, is “she seemed credible”, for saying she heard a rumor.   
 

There’s no Easter Bunny here, no benefit of the doubt, no requirement that people view things objectively because the committee or this previously unknown person is pure of heart.  Silliness of content—I heard from a friend who heard from a friend, Trump grabbing the wheel of the presidential Fiat, Trump was completely unconcerned about guns—can be called out as silliness whether she’s under oath or not.  Liz Cheney, btw, is alleging, without evidence as they sometimes say, “witness tampering”. The downside is she’s lying or fails to prove it?  Nothing. 
 

You say “bring it on”,  the fact that  it’s been on since 2015.  Time after time, the one common denominator has been political maneuvering and allegations of everything from urine-play to chicken nuggets thrown at the wall to now, guns at rallies because obviously 100% of the attendees were vetted as 100% supporters of Trump, a guy averaging at one point 6-8 death threats per day.
 

Meanwhile, the rule of law crowd lasted until last week, when suddenly calls for violence, ignoring the rule of and hateful rhetoric rule the day. 
 

I’ll pass. 
 

 

 

 

I said respected because she 

 

1. held such a position at such a young age and 2. I found her testimony  credible as far as whats he was told I believe her.

 

Bring on the testimony in THIS case in this forum and lets see who will agree to testify and who won't. I think if Ms hutchinsons cohorts in the oval office don't testify ....Im just being as honest as I can be. .....if this womans claims are not refuted under oath my question is why....why not.....

 

Listen I get your take above I respect it and I respect you leo. I just wish you'd allow someone to assist in choosing a 2bd avatar the L is frankly BORING just sayin'

 

😉

Edited June 29, 2022 by muppy

[Doc]

16 minutes ago, muppy said:

I said respected because she 

 

1. held such a position at such a young age and 2. I found her testimony  credible as far as whats he was told I believe her.

 

Bring on the testimony in THIS case in this forum and lets see who will agree to testify and who won't. I think if Ms hutchinsons cohorts in the oval office don't testify ....Im just being as honest as I can be. .....if this womans claims are not refuted under oath my question is why....why not.....

 

Listen I get your take above I respect it and I respect you leo. I just wish you'd allow someone to assist in choosing a 2bd avatar the L is frankly BORING just sayin'

 

😉

 

They won't allow anyone to testify who will refute her claims.  

[Irv]

11 hours ago, muppy said:

OMG who are you to call her a desperate whatever. You don't know her. She was a respected Republican staffer who worked within steps of the Oval Office. Her being previously loyal to her boss and working within the inner circle of the White House coming forward to give testimony about what she was told. This isn't a court of law. I say lets hear testimony from her peers in that office, the driver, Engel, whoever. Lets have them speak under the possible penalty of perjury like she did.  Bring it on!   Do you think this was easy for her. A calculated move for a book deal. @-@ seriously Im not buying that. 

 

Her entire testimony totally debunked by the Secret Service.  What an opportunistic tramp.   Schumer and Pelosi must have paid the loser (it/her) a lot of money to lie like that.  Can Demented Joke Biden screw-the-pooch any more ?  He/it is only good at taking bribes.  Not bribing people.  Now the airhead will be charged with perjury.  Don't underestimate Joey's ability to ***** things up.  What a mess!

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Irv

[BillsFanNC]

 

[muppy]

11 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

with all due respect. If the people in question are posting on social media Ms Hutchinson was told false info they need Testify. If indeed the folks you claim that were parties to the events she testified to are Not allowed to testify? That is a Huge problem. If they choose Not to is a different issue.

 

In light of these recent events to simply tweet a disclaimer/rebuttal isnt enough. It's just not.

43 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They won't allow anyone to testify who will refute her claims.  

that's not good. I hope you're wrong.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, muppy said:

that's not good. I hope you're wrong.

 

I hope I am as well.  But I won't be.

[BillsFanNC]

11 minutes ago, muppy said:

with all due respect. If the people in question are posting on social media Ms Hutchinson was told false info they need Testify. If indeed the folks you claim that were parties to the events she testified to are Not allowed to testify? That is a Huge problem. If they choose Not to is a different issue.

 

In light of these recent events to simply tweet a disclaimer/rebuttal isnt enough. It's just not.

that's not good. I hope you're wrong.

 

Herschmann already testified and according to ABC News told the committee that he wrote the note.

 

This is the problem with selectively releasing testimony that you want and keeping other testimony under wraps.

 

Nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with fairness and actually getting to the truth.

 

 

At Tuesday's Jan. 6 committee hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note which Hutchinson testified she wrote after Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation.

Sources familiar with the matter said that Herschmann had previously told the committee that he had penned the note.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by DRsGhost

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

So I have slightly different take on all of this, and I know the Trump Haters will of course reject it:

 

Let’s say you are actually still the President, which Trump was at the time, and you are told that the protest rally has gotten (or is getting out of hand). You want to go to the steps of the Capitol to calm the crowd and tell them to go home, but secret service won’t drive you there because they think you’ll be in danger yourself….what do you do?
 

Last point, for those who know ANYTHING about how our government works….you’all are aware that the President’s office is NOT in the Capitol right? So what do any of these freaking out idiots think the President is actually going to do there?  He’s going to run his coup from the building up the street instead of from the one where he actually works, and has an office? 

 

 

 

You're speaking facts, thinking logically, and trying to determine guilt or innocence....

 

 

Unfortunately that's not what this is about and not what the people running it or their low info voters are doing this for.

 

It's sole intent is to damage Trump and Trump voters - they've already determined "guilt."

 

What left wing outlet - NBC CBS ABC The WAPO that told you Democracy dies in darkness 6 years ago - which one has EVER gave you an impression of "maybe none of these charges are true."

 

NONE.  They are all repeating marching orders and telling the narrative.  

 

That's how you know this is all a political sham.  

 

 

 

The country can no longer co exist with these people.  Can't happen.  Trump and their all in no questions asked support of Covid policy pushed them all passed the point of no return.  

 

Imagine that guilt their carrying.  It's leading them to do what they do - just double down and flat out lie.  

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Gee, what are the odds Herschmann gets called to testify?

 

He already did.  But we can't see that transcript.

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

He already did.  But we can't see that transcript.

 

 

Don't fret.

 

"SELECTED" bits of his testimony will be released with their final report.

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Hahaha

 

 

 

Omg lol lol

 

 

 

The fact it could be....haha

[BillsFanNC]

Chances they release transcripts of his entire testimony?

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, muppy said:

I said respected because she 

 

1. held such a position at such a young age and 2. I found her testimony  credible as far as whats he was told I believe her.

 

Bring on the testimony in THIS case in this forum and lets see who will agree to testify and who won't. I think if Ms hutchinsons cohorts in the oval office don't testify ....Im just being as honest as I can be. .....if this womans claims are not refuted under oath my question is why....why not.....

 

Listen I get your take above I respect it and I respect you leo. I just wish you'd allow someone to assist in choosing a 2bd avatar the L is frankly BORING just sayin'

 

😉

And you have every right to respect the hell out of the woman you likely didn’t know existed until yesterday, Mup, it’s just a very tall ask in this setting to expect non-like-minded people to do the same. 
 

On your thoughts with THIS committee and this hearing, again, it’s an unreasonable request.  It’s a political committee, nothing more, nothing less.  The wisest course of action for anyone on the opposite side of a tribunal of this nature is to refuse to cooperate to the extent possible, and to decline to answer questions when it’s not possible.  It doesn’t change if you have nothing to everything to hide. 
 

 

Btw, on the larger issue of “if you have nothing to hide…” I’ve been blessed with some good friends who know and work around law enforcement and litigation.  The general guidance I have been given is this:

 

If you’re approached as witness to an event that did not involve you in any way, shape or form, theres generally no downside in providing a statement. 
 

If you’re on the periphery of anything beyond that, know your rights, exercise them and seek out professional counsel.  Most importantly, avoid the natural tendency to explain everything in great detail. 
 

Truth and justice are sadly quite malleable, Mup, and it’s your best interest to consider the agenda of those asking the question. 
 

I’ll take your advice on the avatar and think about it.  I thought about going buck wild and changing to an S, but I was concerned folks would think I’m getting all fancy and the like. 
 

Remember these words that everyone knows to be true until they’re riled up politically and want to accuse others of being part of a cult  or mongrel zombie horde: 

 

Politics make strange bedfellows. 
 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:

He already did.  But we can't see that transcript.

 

So...perjury?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So...perjury?

That’s the beauty of “I understood someone to say ________”.  
 

We call that a rumor in the real world, and very little good comes from such things unless you’re a Real Housewife of Atlanta. 
 

 

We learn this by age 7 or so, but suspend the rules for political issues.  

[muppy]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s the beauty of “I understood someone to say ________”.  
 

We call that a rumor in the real world, and very little good comes from such things unless you’re a Real Housewife of Atlanta. 
 

 

We learn this by age 7 or so, but suspend the rules for political issues.  

okay now buckle up. I have chosen 3 avatar worthy pics for you 🙂 you likey?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, muppy said:

okay now buckle up. I have chosen 3 avatar worthy pics for you 🙂 you likey?

#1. Tacky and I’m not partial to the confederate colors; 

 

#2. I like that one generally, a lot,  but feel the smell of death all around me as I look at it. 

 

#3.  The hat brim is too big, the fat on that guy hits too close to home, and who the heck wears Man Uggs fishing?  (You hurt me with this one, Muppy).

 

Oh—something I meant to tell you about the power of the internet to bring people together.  The other day you tagged me on the lyrics to Tuesday’s Gone.  I like that song and always did. So, I saw the lyrics, got the tune in my head, grabbed my headphones and listened while I walked the dog.  I was sad af after because, you know, Tuesday’s gone with the wind, but that’s not on you. 🤓