Nancy Did It

[j-mac]

Some of it was. Some of it wasn’t.

Some wasn't? Please provide for us what part of her testimony wasn't hearsay....If you can....

 

[Marener]

Some wasn't? Please provide for us what part of her testimony wasn't hearsay....If you can....

She testified to many things she directly witnessed.

Such as when she heard Trump say this:
LIZ CHENEY: And that people — and he — his response was to say they can march to the Capitol from — is it from the ellipse?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Something to the effect of take the effing mags away. They're not here to hurt me. Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rallies are over. They can march from — they can march from the ellipse. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the Capitol.

Tell me why I should take Kash Patel’s claim seriously? It wasn’t under oath. It was hearsay. It directly contradicts testimony under oath and directly contradicts numerous people who aren’t under oath.

And we don’t even know why Kash Patel thinks it was taken directly to Pelosi. Not to mention that Kash Patel already lied in the little interview with Levin claiming that Nancy Pelosi controls the Capitol police.

Furthermore, don’t you find it hypocritical that they are doing exactly why they whine about others doing?

 

[j-mac]

She testified to many things she directly witnessed.

Such as when she heard Trump say this:
LIZ CHENEY: And that people — and he — his response was to say they can march to the Capitol from — is it from the ellipse?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Something to the effect of take the effing mags away. They're not here to hurt me. Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rallies are over. They can march from — they can march from the ellipse. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the Capitol.

Tell me why I should take Kash Patel’s claim seriously? It wasn’t under oath. It was hearsay. It directly contradicts testimony under oath and directly contradicts numerous people who aren’t under oath.

And we don’t even know why Kash Patel thinks it was taken directly to Pelosi. Not to mention that Kash Patel already lied in the little interview with Levin claiming that Nancy Pelosi controls the Capitol police.

Furthermore, don’t you find it hypocritical that they are doing exactly why they whine about others doing?

Why would you not post the entire answer in regards to her answer....Let's look at it, as reported by Yahoo news...

"I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t effing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me, take the effing mags [magnetometers] away, let my people in"...

This is the epitome of Hearsay.....Don't you get that? It would never be allowed in court, and will mean nothing if the lackey Garland tries to indict on something like this....It'll be thrown out...

So, let's look at this for what it is worth...A total show...This isn't designed to lead to any sort of indictment of a former President, it is designed to muddy him up in advance of the '24 election so he doesn't run, because you liberals are scared shitless of him being elected again....You know you put up the worst stooge in the history of Presidents and pulled all the stops not because you believe in Joe, but because you hated Trump....So, keep exposing how triggered you are and the lies that have no merit in reality...

Now, you said that Cassidy testified to something that was not hearsay, I am still waiting for you to post it...And don't lie by omission this time....

 

[BWK]

The interview is posted dummy.

Pelosi is not responsible for securing the Capitol.​

Looking past the motivations of the mob or Mr. Trump, Republicans said it had been up to Ms. Pelosi and her leadership team to protect the Capitol from the attack, particularly given that intelligence gathered in the weeks before it occurred pointed to the potential for violence against Congress.

Republicans are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the Jan. 6 attack. Their claims don’t add up. (Published 2021)

Their claims amounted to an audacious attempt to rewrite the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries.

www.nytimes.com

You know something, you really are an uninformed idiot.

 

[BWK]

Why would you not post the entire answer in regards to her answer....Let's look at it, as reported by Yahoo news...

"I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t effing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me, take the effing mags [magnetometers] away, let my people in"...

This is the epitome of Hearsay.....Don't you get that? It would never be allowed in court, and will mean nothing if the lackey Garland tries to indict on something like this....It'll be thrown out...

So, let's look at this for what it is worth...A total show...This isn't designed to lead to any sort of indictment of a former President, it is designed to muddy him up in advance of the '24 election so he doesn't run, because you liberals are scared shitless of him being elected again....You know you put up the worst stooge in the history of Presidents and pulled all the stops not because you believe in Joe, but because you hated Trump....So, keep exposing how triggered you are and the lies that have no merit in reality...

Now, you said that Cassidy testified to something that was not hearsay, I am still waiting for you to post it...And don't lie by omission this time....

She was under oath fool. Have any of those accused stepped forward to say it is false? NO! Did Cipollone back up what Hutchinson said? Yes! You are beating a dead horse, minus an intelligent informed argument.

 

[Marener]

Why would you not post the entire answer in regards to her answer....Let's look at it, as reported by Yahoo news...

"I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t effing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me, take the effing mags [magnetometers] away, let my people in"...

This is the epitome of Hearsay.....Don't you get that? It would never be allowed in court, and will mean nothing if the lackey Garland tries to indict on something like this....It'll be thrown out...

So, let's look at this for what it is worth...A total show...This isn't designed to lead to any sort of indictment of a former President, it is designed to muddy him up in advance of the '24 election so he doesn't run, because you liberals are scared shitless of him being elected again....You know you put up the worst stooge in the history of Presidents and pulled all the stops not because you believe in Joe, but because you hated Trump....So, keep exposing how triggered you are and the lies that have no merit in reality...

Now, you said that Cassidy testified to something that was not hearsay, I am still waiting for you to post it...And don't lie by omission this time....

LIZ CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.

House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.

While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are complex.

lawandcrime.com

So is hearsay okay with you or not? I can’t tell.

 

[BWK]

Ok, so you're fine with the J6 panel editing clips, and presenting hearsay, and one sided narrative without any challenge....But, when something that counters the narrative you want to be true comes along, all of the sudden your all about the adversarial process...Sure.

How is video and audio testimony edited? More stupid arguments.

 

[j-mac]

She was under oath fool. Have any of those accused stepped forward to say it is false? NO! Did Cipollone back up what Hutchinson said? Yes! You are beating a dead horse, minus an intelligent informed argument.

Poor little leftist believes the J6 show without question...

 

[BWK]

Ok, clearly you are stuck in your bubble….enjoy that.

Bubble? Fact check: Did Pelosi control Capitol police during January 6 attack? :: WRAL.com

 

[BWK]

Poor little leftist believes the J6 show without question...

Fact check: Did Pelosi control Capitol police during January 6 attack? :: WRAL.com You have no intelligent rebuttals. Get the hell out of here. Your lame non-arguments are boring and stupid. Stop wasting everyone's time with your every day idiocy.

 

[BWK]

Pelosi is not responsible for securing the Capitol.​

Looking past the motivations of the mob or Mr. Trump, Republicans said it had been up to Ms. Pelosi and her leadership team to protect the Capitol from the attack, particularly given that intelligence gathered in the weeks before it occurred pointed to the potential for violence against Congress.

Republicans are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the Jan. 6 attack. Their claims don’t add up. (Published 2021)

Their claims amounted to an audacious attempt to rewrite the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries.

www.nytimes.com

You know something, you really are an uninformed idiot.

Laughing is going to do shit for your argument loser. Try again.

 

[BWK]

Poor little leftist believes the J6 show without question...

Get going. Waiting for the linked counter argument that says something. Move loser.

 

[j-mac]

How is video and audio testimony edited? More stupid arguments.

"The January 6 Committee played a deceptively edited video of the Capitol riot on Thursday evening, dubbing audio of former President Donald Trump describing the peaceful part of the rally over footage of violent clashes a mile away.

The video was presented during the committee’s first public hearing as part of a montage that Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said included never-before-seen footage. The audio was from a Fox News interview of Trump on July 11, 2021.

The committee played Trump’s comments — which referred to his peaceful rally, over a mile away — over visuals of clashes between rioters and police. “They were peaceful people. These were great people,” Trump was heard saying. “The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love — the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.”

In the original context, however, it was clear Trump was referring to his rally, not to the riot at the Capitol a mile away."

WATCH: January 6 Committee Plays Deceptively Edited Video of Capitol Riot

The Committee played a deceptively edited video, dubbing audio of Trump describing the peaceful part of the rally over footage of the riot.

www.breitbart.com

BREAKING: J6 Committee Admits It Doctored Text Between Jordan And Meadows

The House Jan. 6 committee admitted on Wednesday that it doctored a text message from Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows, as was first reported by The Federalist.

thefederalist.com

Jan. 6 Committee Caught 'Lying and Altering Evidence'

townhall.com

Now educate yourself moron...

 

[j-mac]

LIZ CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.

House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide's Blockbuster Testimony Was 'Literally All Hearsay Evidence.' The Truth Is More Complicated.

While some of the testimony almost surely would be considered hearsay in a court of law, some of it would not, and the distinctions are complex.

lawandcrime.com

So is hearsay okay with you or not? I can’t tell.

You're all over the place...Still hearsay....When she says, she "knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period." Was she there? would this be allowed in court? No....So, try again.

 

[j-mac]

Bubble? Fact check: Did Pelosi control Capitol police during January 6 attack? :: WRAL.com

Who does the SoA answer to?

 

[Marener]

You're all over the place...Still hearsay....When she says, she "knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period." Was she there? would this be allowed in court? No....So, try again.

Absolutely it would be allowed in court based on the article I provided you.

She’s testifying directly to what she said and felt.

But almost all her other statements would be allowed. For instance, the people she is talking about are unavailable to testimony. Meadows is refusing. Trump certainly would refuse if he were subpoenaed and I would love to see that anyway.

Even the SS agents who were supposedly willing to contradict her have lawyered up and are refusing. Not to mention it turns out they all wiped their phones.

Kash Patel isn’t even saying who talked to Pelosi about national guard. If he would tell us, it might lend a little credibility to his claims, but he hasn’t. Not to mention you’re ignoring that Chief Sund has testified and said nothing about it. Irving has testified and said nothing of it.

You can’t answer any of the questions about this claim to conservative media but you think we should believe it? Why?

 

[j-mac]

Absolutely it would be allowed in court based on the article I provided you.

She’s testifying directly to what she said and felt.

But almost all her other statements would be allowed. For instance, the people she is talking about are unavailable to testimony. Meadows is refusing. Trump certainly would refuse if he were subpoenaed and I would love to see that anyway.

Even the SS agents who were supposedly willing to contradict her have lawyered up and are refusing. Not to mention it turns out they all wiped their phones.

Kash Patel isn’t even saying who talked to Pelosi about national guard. If he would tell us, it might lend a little credibility to his claims, but he hasn’t. Not to mention you’re ignoring that Chief Sund has testified and said nothing about it. Irving has testified and said nothing of it.

You can’t answer any of the questions about this claim to conservative media but you think we should believe it? Why?

The part I highlighted would be instantly objected to as hearsay....A witness can not testify as to what they believe they know....You ought to know this, it's first year law...

 

[Marener]

The part I highlighted would be instantly objected to as hearsay....A witness can not testify as to what they believe they know....You ought to know this, it's first year law...

You highlighted a small portion out of the entire thing. The rest is not hearsay. Swing and a miss.

I gave you an article that explains why most of her statements would be exempt from hearsay rules.

Kash Patel has no reason to be believed. You’re obsessed with Hutchinson because you have no more excuses for him.

 

[j-mac]

You highlighted a small portion out of the entire thing. The rest is not hearsay. Swing and a miss.

I gave you an article that explains why most of her statements would be exempt from hearsay rules.

Kash Patel has no reason to be believed. You’re obsessed with Hutchinson because you have no more excuses for him.

You really don't understand how the process works do you? Go educate yourself...I have things to do....

 

[Marener]

You really don't understand how the process works do you? Go educate yourself...I have things to do....

“The process” is that Kash Patel goes on right wing media and says whatever he wants and every one of you gobbles it up.

Meanwhile they criticize others for doing far more than they.

Kash Patel is crafting a narrative, not truth. You can’t tell the difference because he is saying what you WANT to hear.