LOL—where to begin? You watched that video, and that's what you're arguing about? I'm just presenting the evidence, and sworn testimony is evidence from the select committee. If there was sworn testimony to the opposite, I would show that. Trump could have shown up, put his hand on a Bible, and told his side of the whole story, but he didn't. Why?
Well, I, personally, never agreed with some Ds claims about Covid-origins, Hunter’s laptop, Trump-Russia, or Joe’s cognitive decline. But none of these claims are as farcical as
1) Trump won the 2020 election;
2) Trump really even won California;
3) Trump didn’t have relations with Stormy Daniels;
4) Obama was born in Kenya;
5) Trump’s inaugural crowd was larger than Obama’s;
6) Trump won the 2016 popular vote;
7) Windmills cause cancer;
8) Ukraine started the Russian-Ukraine war;
9) Trump passed the largest tax cut in history;
10) Trump passed the Veteran’s Choice Act;
11) China (and other nations) pay American tariffs;
12) Trump won Georgia easily (in 2020)
13) Trump’s father was born in Germany
14) Trump was named “Man of the Year of Michigan”
15) If we stopped testing for Covid, we would have very few cases, if any
Or any of the literally thousands of falsehoods that Trump has spewed over the last 10 years.
Again, evidence is not on your side on any of that, but you be you. I draw your attention to General Mike Flynn answering "5th" to every question and Donald Trump pardoning everyone—that doesn't exonerate any of them, quite the opposite. In civil court, pleading the 5th can be held against you as an admission of guilt, and I aim to ensure it is, unless they want to come in and tell their side, which they seem more than happy to do on Fox. What ought to matter to you is what is actually true and that our system has a way to get to the bottom of things, that oaths and the constitution, and duty, mean something more than an end user license agreement you click a checkbox on. I don't see anything in there that you should disagree with. Because all they'd need to do is refute the facts in court, instead of telling stories on Fox.
There is sworn testimony to the opposite, by numerous people. You either haven’t done your homework, or you’re intentionally misleading people. This testimony was later contradicted by sworn testimony from the Secret Service agent who drove the vehicle, as detailed in a House Republican report released on March 11, 2024. The unnamed driver testified before the January 6 Committee on November 7, 2022, stating, “[President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all.” This testimony was not publicly released by the January 6 Committee but was reviewed by the House Administration Committee’s oversight subcommittee and reported by news outlets including the Washington Post.
Additionally, the House Republican report cited testimony, under oath, from four White House employees, including Tony Ornato, who also contradicted Hutchinson’s account. Ornato, in a transcribed interview on November 29, 2022, denied telling Hutchinson the story about Trump grabbing the steering wheel, stating he first heard the anecdote during Hutchinson’s public testimony
ornado's a liar, and he wasn't sworn in, but I'll remove that particular accusation as a matter of good faith. Mark meadows confirmed (under oath) he saw the ornado say it though. (see the article)
So that’s where we’re at huh? Just repeating the same bullshit lies over and over. Geez. I mean that “committee” was so very honest that they all needed fake pardons.
lol interested to hear THAT theory.. also the theory why all of the people in the video that defaced the Capitol and attacked cops should be "pardoned".
Well, if they would release all the video’s, there maybe an different version of went on there, however, the J6 committee destroyed a ton of docs, which is illegal, and the videos would probably exonerate most if not all of the people that were put in prison.
the ones who were convicted posted a lot of their own video bragging and showing trophies, it was used against them. if their own videos didn’t exonerate them whose version are you waiting for?
What are you expecting to find that isn't privileged and inadmissible anyway? There are always internal documents that are nobody's business - that doesn't make a conspiracy. Nancy Pelosi didn't secretly lead the attack, and her husband isn't having a gay love affair.. It's like what are you holding out hope for that would invalidate .. all of this .. Ruby Bridges was passing a Junior Mint, not a vial of crack.. the election results weren't relayed from an Italian web server, or a secret location in Switzerland .. the insanely unlikely things your counting on, don't exist any more than the jewish space lazers.. while you're holding out for all that, maybe look at the actual video I've posted, I really couldn't have made it more digestable. I don't even NEED the video for my case, trump pardoned people convicted by a grand jury and a jury of seditious conspiracy. They all said that they did it for the president, and the same president pardoned them - that is the entire case I need to make, and it is all documented in court-certified official documents. The video is for YOU, so you can better understand (outside the Fox filter) what happened that day without having to fish through 8 days of testimony. Maybe once we agree on a ground truth, we can all move on with this nonsense. If Adam Schiff turns out to be an Area 51 alien with a human mask, well, I suppose I'll owe you an apology, but it seems like quite a long shot to pin all your hopes on, and it still wouldn't negate any of the facts.. so ... ok
There is so much that doesn’t add up, I tend to follow the money or who benefits. That usually leads you to the truth or near the truth. J6 Committee destroying docs, Adam Schitt withholding information and ALWAYS has an anonymous source, so only HE has the facts. If you cannot believe that these people are evil, and that the Republicans are complicit, there is going to be some back peddling one day
I suggest you watch the video, you can find ALL the original video it is cut from on the January 6 Select Committee’s website as well as the FULL transcripts of all the original interviews. I’d also examine your recollection of how the Trump administration tends to treat whistleblowers, particularly those that were their own former colleagues, they attack the hell out of the messenger, but fail to show up put their hand on a bible and tell us their side of the story. Some of them plead the 5th on camera the whole way through testimony, on such questions as “general flynn do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?”. Yes, a fair amount of the testimony amounts to “hearsay”, because the actual conspirators refused to testify. In a criminal case, that can’t be held against them. But in a civil case, which this is, it CAN, and the judge and the standard is “reasonable belief” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. My case does not ask for punishment, it asks the court for a declaration of disqualification based on fact, law, and reasonable belief, which is all that is required as a remedy from the 14th amendment. Because it’s framers didn’t see serving in office as a right, but a high honor, and those who couldn’t adhere to their oath on the basics or even those who so much as stood against it, could not serve in office. So I guess we’ll see. But case in point of "attack the messenger" read his tweet about bruce springstein, or taylor swift, or like anybody that's said anything he doesn't like - it's gotten beyond absurd, all trump had to do in the select committee was testify, he and his conspirators, instead he attacked them in places where he didn't have to show proof or tell the truth. He's welcome to testify in my case, I'll even depose him live in court if he wants and the jury can make up their minds. Don't you deserve to know both sides of the story given under the same oath?
First, I didn’t say money was involved, I said I follow money or who benefits, who would benefit from the staged “insurrection”? If they could bullshit their way into making this Trumps fault, the simpletons thought they could get him arrested etc… their FBI plants, MAGA dressed Antifa members and Ray Epps etc…this was staged. If there was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any question instead of a bunch of liberals in congress and the media selling theater as facts.
They had her testify on camera AND broadcasted her testimony on national tv knowing that the driver refutes that this event ever happened. Why would they do that if they were just seeking the facts?
it's amazing that this is the only part of that video that sticks in your head, and that you think that saying something on fox carries the same weight as sworn testimony.
The secret service later refuted this allegation. Besides, how does Trump actually physically reach the steering wheel from the back? Absurd.
You know who hasn't refuted it under oath? anybody.
The most astounding thing about this allegation is that anybody would buy it at all, poor deluded souls. Ever try to drive from the back seat?
LOL—where to begin? You watched that video, and that's what you're arguing about? I'm just presenting the evidence, and sworn testimony is evidence from the select committee. If there was sworn testimony to the opposite, I would show that. Trump could have shown up, put his hand on a Bible, and told his side of the whole story, but he didn't. Why?
Makes perfect sense. You believed it when they lied to you about Covid lab, Trump-Russia, Hunter’s laptop, and Joe’s dementia.
Well, I, personally, never agreed with some Ds claims about Covid-origins, Hunter’s laptop, Trump-Russia, or Joe’s cognitive decline. But none of these claims are as farcical as
1) Trump won the 2020 election;
2) Trump really even won California;
3) Trump didn’t have relations with Stormy Daniels;
4) Obama was born in Kenya;
5) Trump’s inaugural crowd was larger than Obama’s;
6) Trump won the 2016 popular vote;
7) Windmills cause cancer;
8) Ukraine started the Russian-Ukraine war;
9) Trump passed the largest tax cut in history;
10) Trump passed the Veteran’s Choice Act;
11) China (and other nations) pay American tariffs;
12) Trump won Georgia easily (in 2020)
13) Trump’s father was born in Germany
14) Trump was named “Man of the Year of Michigan”
15) If we stopped testing for Covid, we would have very few cases, if any
Or any of the literally thousands of falsehoods that Trump has spewed over the last 10 years.
1) no idea, but there was definitely weird stuff going on.
2) who said that? It’ll never happen.
3) of course he did. Hence the NDA that she violated.
4) no idea. Don’t care. Ancient history.
5) see #4 above.
6) no he didn’t. That’s why dems wanted to 86 the electoral college.
7) weird, but don’t care.
8) Russia started it, but they should never have made noises about Ukraine joining NATO. Stupid idea.
9) maybe he did. I’d have to research it.
10) he didn’t do that. As a vet I can vouch for it.
11) we pay the tariffs if we buy their goods. That’s the idea….buy American. BTW, if tariffs are so evil, why do so many nations impose them?
12) see #1 above. That ‘toilet leak’ and suitcase business was really fishy.
13) #4- don’t care.
14) same.
15) the big Covid lie was about the origins. The issue is if we don’t figure out how it started then it could happen again.
Cheers.
Again, evidence is not on your side on any of that, but you be you. I draw your attention to General Mike Flynn answering "5th" to every question and Donald Trump pardoning everyone—that doesn't exonerate any of them, quite the opposite. In civil court, pleading the 5th can be held against you as an admission of guilt, and I aim to ensure it is, unless they want to come in and tell their side, which they seem more than happy to do on Fox. What ought to matter to you is what is actually true and that our system has a way to get to the bottom of things, that oaths and the constitution, and duty, mean something more than an end user license agreement you click a checkbox on. I don't see anything in there that you should disagree with. Because all they'd need to do is refute the facts in court, instead of telling stories on Fox.
Wow. Put down the bong. Get some fresh air. Have a nice day.
There is sworn testimony to the opposite, by numerous people. You either haven’t done your homework, or you’re intentionally misleading people. This testimony was later contradicted by sworn testimony from the Secret Service agent who drove the vehicle, as detailed in a House Republican report released on March 11, 2024. The unnamed driver testified before the January 6 Committee on November 7, 2022, stating, “[President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all.” This testimony was not publicly released by the January 6 Committee but was reviewed by the House Administration Committee’s oversight subcommittee and reported by news outlets including the Washington Post.
Additionally, the House Republican report cited testimony, under oath, from four White House employees, including Tony Ornato, who also contradicted Hutchinson’s account. Ornato, in a transcribed interview on November 29, 2022, denied telling Hutchinson the story about Trump grabbing the steering wheel, stating he first heard the anecdote during Hutchinson’s public testimony
You got a link ? It’s not an essential piece of testimony, but seems to be the only one you folks wanna talk about -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tony-ornato-jan-6-b2113434.html
ornado's a liar, and he wasn't sworn in, but I'll remove that particular accusation as a matter of good faith. Mark meadows confirmed (under oath) he saw the ornado say it though. (see the article)
Well said, he’s an idiot, I blocked him. As perfect as Substack is…, there’s always a time every one fucks up.
What good would that do when they obviously lied under oath and later lamented about how screwed she was.
Her testimony was completed false. We all know this. It has been fact checked
So that’s where we’re at huh? Just repeating the same bullshit lies over and over. Geez. I mean that “committee” was so very honest that they all needed fake pardons.
She should be in prison
lol interested to hear THAT theory.. also the theory why all of the people in the video that defaced the Capitol and attacked cops should be "pardoned".
Well, if they would release all the video’s, there maybe an different version of went on there, however, the J6 committee destroyed a ton of docs, which is illegal, and the videos would probably exonerate most if not all of the people that were put in prison.
the ones who were convicted posted a lot of their own video bragging and showing trophies, it was used against them. if their own videos didn’t exonerate them whose version are you waiting for?
When/if it all comes out we will see. There is a reason why Nana wont let docs and videos out
What are you expecting to find that isn't privileged and inadmissible anyway? There are always internal documents that are nobody's business - that doesn't make a conspiracy. Nancy Pelosi didn't secretly lead the attack, and her husband isn't having a gay love affair.. It's like what are you holding out hope for that would invalidate .. all of this .. Ruby Bridges was passing a Junior Mint, not a vial of crack.. the election results weren't relayed from an Italian web server, or a secret location in Switzerland .. the insanely unlikely things your counting on, don't exist any more than the jewish space lazers.. while you're holding out for all that, maybe look at the actual video I've posted, I really couldn't have made it more digestable. I don't even NEED the video for my case, trump pardoned people convicted by a grand jury and a jury of seditious conspiracy. They all said that they did it for the president, and the same president pardoned them - that is the entire case I need to make, and it is all documented in court-certified official documents. The video is for YOU, so you can better understand (outside the Fox filter) what happened that day without having to fish through 8 days of testimony. Maybe once we agree on a ground truth, we can all move on with this nonsense. If Adam Schiff turns out to be an Area 51 alien with a human mask, well, I suppose I'll owe you an apology, but it seems like quite a long shot to pin all your hopes on, and it still wouldn't negate any of the facts.. so ... ok
There is so much that doesn’t add up, I tend to follow the money or who benefits. That usually leads you to the truth or near the truth. J6 Committee destroying docs, Adam Schitt withholding information and ALWAYS has an anonymous source, so only HE has the facts. If you cannot believe that these people are evil, and that the Republicans are complicit, there is going to be some back peddling one day
I suggest you watch the video, you can find ALL the original video it is cut from on the January 6 Select Committee’s website as well as the FULL transcripts of all the original interviews. I’d also examine your recollection of how the Trump administration tends to treat whistleblowers, particularly those that were their own former colleagues, they attack the hell out of the messenger, but fail to show up put their hand on a bible and tell us their side of the story. Some of them plead the 5th on camera the whole way through testimony, on such questions as “general flynn do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?”. Yes, a fair amount of the testimony amounts to “hearsay”, because the actual conspirators refused to testify. In a criminal case, that can’t be held against them. But in a civil case, which this is, it CAN, and the judge and the standard is “reasonable belief” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. My case does not ask for punishment, it asks the court for a declaration of disqualification based on fact, law, and reasonable belief, which is all that is required as a remedy from the 14th amendment. Because it’s framers didn’t see serving in office as a right, but a high honor, and those who couldn’t adhere to their oath on the basics or even those who so much as stood against it, could not serve in office. So I guess we’ll see. But case in point of "attack the messenger" read his tweet about bruce springstein, or taylor swift, or like anybody that's said anything he doesn't like - it's gotten beyond absurd, all trump had to do in the select committee was testify, he and his conspirators, instead he attacked them in places where he didn't have to show proof or tell the truth. He's welcome to testify in my case, I'll even depose him live in court if he wants and the jury can make up their minds. Don't you deserve to know both sides of the story given under the same oath?
First, I didn’t say money was involved, I said I follow money or who benefits, who would benefit from the staged “insurrection”? If they could bullshit their way into making this Trumps fault, the simpletons thought they could get him arrested etc… their FBI plants, MAGA dressed Antifa members and Ray Epps etc…this was staged. If there was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any question instead of a bunch of liberals in congress and the media selling theater as facts.
‘
tell you what, I'll listen - you wanna explain it to me on a podcast?
it sounds like OJ's "If I did it" book. the if's doing a lot of work
I’m pretty sure her testimony was contradicted by the people that were there.
wasn’t this debunked?
uh - no - what you mean "debunked"?
They had her testify on camera AND broadcasted her testimony on national tv knowing that the driver refutes that this event ever happened. Why would they do that if they were just seeking the facts?
it's amazing that this is the only part of that video that sticks in your head, and that you think that saying something on fox carries the same weight as sworn testimony.