Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 9/20/2023 at 9:31 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

Same lady that pulled the hearsay in the hearings?

 

She didn't feel the need to call the cops but will tell it all in a very profitable book.

 

 

I also do not agree with us. I don’t think that these things should be called out whenever it’s convenient.
 

Well, let’s keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is brought out into the open a long time after it actually happens there is feelings of guilt, even of responsibility or loyalty

 

It’s not that she should not be believed, but it should be questioned that it came out right before it was time to write a book and gain profit

On 10/8/2023 at 3:09 PM, BillStime said:

Party of fn pigs 

 

 

It’s not the gym. Jordan is not a absolute ***** pig, but I think it’s best to keep the details of everything on the up and up.
 

I have not heard any information that Jordan was a molester himself, but he definitely was helping a molester by both, not protecting the kids whenever they were telling him of the issues, and then going on further to try to keep them from filing lawsuits against the guy that was actually doing it he went out of his way to not let this come to light 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I also do not agree with us. I don’t think that these things should be called out whenever it’s convenient.
 

Well, let’s keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is brought out into the open a long time after it actually happens there is feelings of guilt, even of responsibility or loyalty

 

It’s not that she should not be believed, but it should be questioned that it came out right before it was time to write a book and gain profit

It’s not the gym. Jordan is not a absolute ***** pig, but I think it’s best to keep the details of everything on the up and up.
 

I have not heard any information that Jordan was a molester himself, but he definitely was helping a molester by both, not protecting the kids whenever they were telling him of the issues, and then going on further to try to keep them from filing lawsuits against the guy that was actually doing it he went out of his way to not let this come to light 

Why hearsay shouldn't be trusted in court as evidence. It's just a story that can't be confirmed or denied. Same with book stories.  

Edited by Tommy Callahan
Posted
3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Why hearsay was never trusted in court as evidence. It's just a story that can't be confirmed or denied. Same with book stories.  

 

Let's see - she was under oath. 

 

Why did team MAGA obstruct and fight subpoenas? They could have set the record straight.

 

They didn't - so, shut the @#$@# up.

 

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Let's see - she was under oath. 

 

Why did team MAGA obstruct and fight subpoenas? They could have set the record straight.

 

They didn't - so, shut the @#$@# up.

 

 

 

Cause it was a story.

 

And why actual courts don't allow hearsay as evidence

 

 

Posted
Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Cause it was a story.

 

And why actual courts don't allow hearsay as evidence

 

 

 

Awe, too damn bad.

 

You gotta love these idiots constantly trying to move the goal posts when they can't defend what happened that day and all of the obstruction that followed.

 

THIS WASN'T A COURT.

 

lol

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Courts do allow hearsay as evidence cant conevict on it it’s supporting evidence

You mean it would support other actual evidence.  Not create a narrative?  Devoid of evidence. 

 

Like her entire story about the him taking the wheel from the back seat of the beast.  Lmao 

 

 

Edited by Tommy Callahan
Posted
25 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

You mean it would support other actual evidence.  Not create a narrative?  Devoid of evidence. 

 

Like her entire story about the him taking the wheel from the back seat of the beast.  Lmao 

 

 

Are you talking about the situation? She described then his secret service wouldn’t take the stand to refute are you talking about that?

Posted
3 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Are you talking about the situation? She described then his secret service wouldn’t take the stand to refute are you talking about that?

The entire discredited story that started with her telling the court what she heard from others. 

 

Just another of the very long line of false narratives that blew up on itself 

Posted
Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

The entire discredited story that started with her telling the court what she heard from others. 

 

Just another of the very long line of false narratives that blew up on itself 

Yes, the Secret Service would not come in to refute the story Underoath

Posted
Just now, John from Riverside said:

Yes, the Secret Service would not come in to refute the story Underoath

Cause it was hearsay.  It didn't exist.  It never happened. 

 

Just more crap to keep the mob raging

Posted
Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Cause it was hearsay.  It didn't exist.  It never happened. 

 

Just more crap to keep the mob raging

The secret service in question said that it didn’t happen they were invited into testify to set the record straight. They never did.
 

I don’t know whether it happened. I just know that she said it and they didn’t refute it. Underoath.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

The secret service in question said that it didn’t happen they were invited into testify to set the record straight. They never did.
 

I don’t know whether it happened. I just know that she said it and they didn’t refute it. Underoath.

Cause it was hearsay. It was a story that didn't happen.

 

But you all bought the book. 

 

 

Edited by Tommy Callahan
Posted
10 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

You mean it would support other actual evidence.  Not create a narrative?  Devoid of evidence. 

 

Like her entire story about the him taking the wheel from the back seat of the beast.  Lmao 

 

 

Eh it's hearsay but there is a way around it, the testimony wouldn't be about what happened but what she heard someone saying happened. Which yes is obviously is hearsay about what happened but witnessing people's reaction to an event is still a legitimate thing, nowhere near as strong as actually witnessing it. What you're also clearly missing is that obviously this is basically worthless on it's own you'd need other evidence for it to be effective, like I don't know his fingerprints on the wheel, not an actual thing, just any kind of bits of evidence that also support it strengthen it and work together. 

 

Obviously all we really have is a hearsay story that's it could be true could not be she testified under oath that she heard it. The secret service who would have actually witnessed it refute the story, and that would strong evidence against it, if they actually testified under oath. Their refusal to do that while she did really makes this a wash to me.

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

So am I still eating pancakes or not?

×
×
  • Create New...