THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

**chain** · 06.29.22, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ziggysmalls

So question did she hear it from Trump himself?

Being serious because I don't know what to believe. I thought you can't use 2nd or 3rd hand information in a court of law. I mean obviously she could have heard or misheard something. I wasn't there but if you are going to hold a hearing, shouldn't one be using a higher level of proof than I heard somebody say this and that happened? I mean can that hold up in a civil or court case let alone a congressional hearing?

If that's the case many more politicians need to be impeached or prevented from serving iin office

That’s why these proceedings are directed at, primarily, Merrit Garland....To prod him into beginning a criminal investigation. As you said much of the evidence in this political process may or may not be admissible in a criminal indictment....

But once subpoenas, search warrants, etc. begin rolling out of the Justice Dept., and people’s lives and/or livelihoods and freedoms are on the line, more admissible evidence could lead to a world of hurt for the Trump crime family if this people ultimately jump ship.....It’s why many of them asked for pardons and even warned the President of his culpability in the attempt to overthrow the gov’t.....

As far as the main stream media claiming victory, it’s all just click bait and tv ratings...The larger right wing media sphere is spouting the exact opposite for the same reasons....They claim it’s just a witch hunt, fake news,,,blah, blah....

In the end Trump will skate but those who participated with him may take the fall for him....In other words exactly how Trump has always navigated his life long misdeeds...But the entire process may save the republic.

**jimmy812** · 06.29.22, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by fudd

I’d rather watch paint dry on both. Regardless of political affiliation. I used to watch CSPAN to go to sleep. The OJ trial was the most entertaining legal proceeding I’ve ever watched.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed about the OJ trial, though I wasn't able to watch most of the trial.

Last year when I was out with Covid for 2 weeks I was able to watch the Chauvin trial, which held my attention.

**ziggysmalls** · 06.29.22, 11:42 AM

So from what it sounds like this is kind of like Cliniton going on about the meaning of "is" I mean I know its different but its not really black or white. I mean I understand everything heard driectly from Trump should be evidence or at least used. The moment where you allow 2nd hand info though, kind of throws some shade on it. I mean if a trial being presented to jurors played loose with hearsay, would you think its a fair trial? Depsite what evidence is being brought forth that could be true? Does it not taint it?

Seriously I do not give any shits over what happens to Trump. I don't want him to run so I guess I want him staind enough not to run. That said this doesn't seem to be a very fair hearing. Kind of like Russia Russia Russia. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Seems to be a bit political and to me not sure what I can trust as the truth and what is simply political pandering. Doesn't seem that its being done for the interest of the people. More for the party

**jimmy812** · 06.29.22, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by ziggysmalls

So from what it sounds like this is kind of like Cliniton going on about the meaning of "is" I mean I know its different but its not really black or white. I mean I understand everything heard driectly from Trump should be evidence or at least used. The moment where you allow 2nd hand info though, kind of throws some shade on it. I mean if a trial being presented to jurors played loose with hearsay, would you think its a fair trial? Depsite what evidence is being brought forth that could be true? Does it not taint it?

Seriously I do not give any shits over what happens to Trump. I don't want him to run so I guess I want him staind enough not to run. That said this doesn't seem to be a very fair hearing. Kind of like Russia Russia Russia. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Seems to be a bit political and to me not sure what I can trust as the truth and what is simply political pandering. Doesn't seem that its being done for the interest of the people. More for the party

Not sure why you don't think it's a fair hearing, although you admit you haven't paid much attention to it.

Before Hutchinson yesterday, there were several high-ranking, Trump-supporting officials who testified, rather credibly. Shame that DJT and many others won't testify.

But now that Hutchinson provides some 'questionable' testimony (hearsay), the opposition has something to grab on to and go after. They've been rather silent until now. Her testimony yesterday has given the Tuckers of the world some fresh ammo.

**lovemachine97(Version 2)** · 06.29.22, 12:30 PM

Also, this isn't supposed to necessarily be a fair hearing. It isn't a trial. This is more like the grand jury process. You don't get to cross examine witnesses if you're the accused and often times you can't even have legal representation participate in the process. Prosecutors aren't supposed to just limit it to what makes their case look good, but there is no mechanism to enforce that so...they typically don't present anything exculpatory.

So you are certainly hearing the good stuff. At the same time, it would be really stupid of the committee to have her testify about the limo thing if they didn't already have depositions of the others in the car. Because if they now testify that it didn't happen, it doesn't necessarily make her testimony questionable--that doesn't mean she wasn't told that--but it makes the process look bad.

Nancy Pelosi is terrible, but she was not wrong for rejecting Jordan and Banks. All McCarthy had to do, btw, was replace those two with other Republicans and they could be part of the process.

Jordan allegedly was part of the process of planning to steal the election, and it has been testified to that he sought a pardon after January 6th. Banks openly said he was going to sabotage the process. Why would Pelosi agree to those to being on the committee?

But instead of replacing those two with literally any other Republican who A) wasn't allegedly involved and B) would participate, they decided not to participate at all.

Knowing their base wouldn't know that or wouldn't care, they now get to say, "It's a partisan, unfair process!" when they had every opportunity to make it not that way.

**rchop84** · 06.29.22, 12:40 PM

I love that Trump went to his 'I hardly knew her, but everything I heard was that she was a phony, not good at her job' etc, bit

**MD 5150** · 06.29.22, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by rchop84

I love that Trump went to his 'I hardly knew her, but everything I heard was that she was a phony, not good at her job' etc, bit

Well at least he's consistent.

**YankeeRose** · 06.29.22, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by fudd

I’d rather watch paint dry on both. Regardless of political affiliation. I used to watch CSPAN to go to sleep. The OJ trial was the most entertaining legal proceeding I’ve ever watched.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was also hooked on the OJ trial. I have VHS tapes of it that I used to tape LOL!

**lovemachine97(Version 2)** · 06.29.22, 01:03 PM

I thought it was funny Brett Baier pointed out that was going on and he said she was testifying under oath, he’s on the internet.

There are stories now the SS wants to address this story in front of the committee so maybe they didn’t have corroboration already, which would be colossally stupid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ziggysmalls** · 06.29.22, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by jimmy812

Not sure why you don't think it's a fair hearing, although you admit you haven't paid much attention to it.

Before Hutchinson yesterday, there were several high-ranking, Trump-supporting officials who testified, rather credibly. Shame that DJT and many others won't testify.

But now that Hutchinson provides some 'questionable' testimony (hearsay), the opposition has something to grab on to and go after. They've been rather silent until now. Her testimony yesterday has given the Tuckers of the world some fresh ammo.

Well I look at who is running it. I don't see many people who would be considered unbiased. Either its full of Democrats who are not of the moderate wing fo the party and two Republicans who lets face it, have hated Trump from day 1. So it is a politicaly charged committe with likely a very biased opinion to the people involved in January 6th. Its like a jury judging a black man in Alabama in 1920 with it being full of KKK members

Now that doesn't mean they are not doing their job. I just think that bias does infliltrate the presentation and facts. You are really getting one side of the story without much chance of anythign else being presented. Am I wrong ?

In about 2 years you will have a similar hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop being shelved during the election cycle where there will be allegations of Biden being "The Big Guy" getting payments from Ukraine and China. There likely will be hearings on how Big Tech silenced stories during the election cycle and being in bed with the Democrats. There likely will be 10 GOP people on that comitttee maybe Joe Manchin and that's it. I am assuming that there will be doubt from the credability of said committe simply because it wil lbe one sided

Anyway the fact that a testimony was given such prominance and now peopel are refuting it....people who can't testify, well it does seem to be like the glove on OJ. Or Furman saying the N word. Sorry. It doesn't mean January 6th didn't happen but it does give some shade on this hearing. One that is being pushed as The Truth and nothing but the Truth. Carl The Truth Williams its not

**seenbad** · 06.29.22, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ziggysmalls

Well I look at who is running it. I don't see many people who would be considered unbiased. Either its full of Democrats who are not of the moderate wing fo the party and two Republicans who lets face it, have hated Trump from day 1. So it is a politicaly charged committe with likely a very biased opinion to the people involved in January 6th. Its like a jury judging a black man in Alabama in 1920 with it being full of KKK members

Now that doesn't mean they are not doing their job. I just think that bias does infliltrate the presentation and facts. You are really getting one side of the story without much chance of anythign else being presented. Am I wrong ?

In about 2 years you will have a similar hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop being shelved during the election cycle where there will be allegations of Biden being "The Big Guy" getting payments from Ukraine and China. There likely will be hearings on how Big Tech silenced stories during the election cycle and being in bed with the Democrats. There likely will be 10 GOP people on that comitttee maybe Joe Manchin and that's it. I am assuming that there will be doubt from the credability of said committe simply because it wil lbe one sided

Anyway the fact that a testimony was given such prominance and now peopel are refuting it....people who can't testify, well it does seem to be like the glove on OJ. Or Furman saying the N word. Sorry. It doesn't mean January 6th didn't happen but it does give some shade on this hearing. One that is being pushed as The Truth and nothing but the Truth. Carl The Truth Williams its not

Bravo, this is an excellent post.

**jimmy812** · 06.29.22, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by ziggysmalls

Well I look at who is running it. I don't see many people who would be considered unbiased. Either its full of Democrats who are not of the moderate wing fo the party and two Republicans who lets face it, have hated Trump from day 1. So it is a politicaly charged committe with likely a very biased opinion to the people involved in January 6th. Its like a jury judging a black man in Alabama in 1920 with it being full of KKK members

Now that doesn't mean they are not doing their job. I just think that bias does infliltrate the presentation and facts. You are really getting one side of the story without much chance of anythign else being presented. Am I wrong ?

In about 2 years you will have a similar hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop being shelved during the election cycle where there will be allegations of Biden being "The Big Guy" getting payments from Ukraine and China. There likely will be hearings on how Big Tech silenced stories during the election cycle and being in bed with the Democrats. There likely will be 10 GOP people on that comitttee maybe Joe Manchin and that's it. I am assuming that there will be doubt from the credability of said committe simply because it wil lbe one sided

Anyway the fact that a testimony was given such prominance and now peopel are refuting it....people who can't testify, well it does seem to be like the glove on OJ. Or Furman saying the N word. Sorry. It doesn't mean January 6th didn't happen but it does give some shade on this hearing. One that is being pushed as The Truth and nothing but the Truth. Carl The Truth Williams its not

Understood. And no, you're not wrong.

But those 2 Republicans who are involved voted for Trump twice and have stood with him policy-wise. I wouldn't say they hated him from Day 1. Perhaps, and I know it's a stretch, but perhaps they don't look too fondly at attempts to undermine our democracy and Constitution. As do the many high-ranking Trump supporters who actually did testify.

Without this hearing, many people already saw and heard much of the evidence of Trump & Co's attempts to overturn the election.

**lovemachine97(Version 2)** · 06.29.22, 03:14 PM

The testimony about the SUV was given no more or less prominence than any other testimony during the hearing. If anything, the evidence of witness tampering was given prominence. The discussion afterwards elevated the SUV thing.

The Republicans had a chance to be part of the committee. They did what they did so they could accuse this of being partisan. No way in hell Pelosi was taking a guy who is allegedly part of the scheme and allegedly asked for a pardon for it, nor a guy who publicly vowed to obstruct the process. All they had to do was put up 5 normal Republicans. Boehner would’ve done the same in reverse and rightly so.

Who can’t testify? That’s news to me. Anyone who refutes what she heard should be sworn in and refute it under oath, not pass it in to people who then leak it anonymously to reporters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk