Could there really be a Bombshell, about to Drop, from the Jan. 6 Committee?

Independents will be repulsed by the GOP. Let's hope that they vote.

 

Yes, but many of us are repulsed by both parties

 

Yeah, I get that.

 

If you are going to stick your nose in a conversation please at least know what you are talking about.. you might even try pulling up the link Overitall was talking about ... but of course you fake CNN link did not include.
https://news.yahoo.com/two-former-white-house-aides-100012762.html

That one schill was Olivia Troye fired for "'not being able to "keep up with her day-to-day duties.""
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ired-detailee-olivia-troye-profile-cowardice/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12708102/olivia-troye-white-house-mike-pence-donald-trump/

The other was Alyssa Farah Griffin who was buddies with Cassidy Hutchinson... she quit and is now a regular guest host on The View and a CNN political commentator.
As Trump gets his say 11/15/21
"I watched this clown on television saying exactly what they wanted her to say and I watched the lies," Trump said. "Was she paid by low-ratings CNN? By the way, as soon as the Crime of the Century happened on November 3rd, I knew the Election was Rigged and Stolen, and never changed my view on that one bit. I did not go soft on the 'Real' Big Lie, the Election Scam, and never will."
"[Farah] said I told her I lost the Election—never did," he added. "I virtually never even spoke to Farah (it's like she didn't even exist in the White House). Anybody who ever says that I thought the Election was legit, even for a moment, is wrong."

 

Just curious .... does Cheney hug all the witnesses? They can't put on a good show unless the surprise whistleblower shows up to save the day...

 

"Impartial Truth Seeker" Cheney.

 

She knows Hutchinson is telling the truth. I would imagine that Hutchinson was reluctant to give testimony but changed her mind at the last moment, which is why they suddenly added a surprise hearing. And what Hutchinson did took incredible bravery. I want to hug her too. She is a hero and a patriot in the truest sense. Her life will be very difficult for a long time because of this.

What is laughable are all of the republicans saying they are shocked. LOL! How could anyone be shocked? We all knew that at the core this is classic trump. I have been saying it since the day he got elected. Check my posts. That is why I joined this forum. I never imagined that people I thought of as fellow Americans, would elect an obvious criminal thug like trump. I was horrified because I knew even then that a day like Jan 6th was inevitable.

 

From 2017

Turns out, he had to be removed by force and he was impeached.

 

It was the most empathetic defense of hearsay I've ever seen. In any event, I'll stop calling it hearsay and start calling it gossip. Is there a reason you believe spreading gossip is "brave?" That's also very strange vernacular for what is often associated with negative behavior. I can guess why you're so protective of gossip and those who spread it in this instance, but I'd like to hear your emphatic defense of gossip spreading some more.

 

Now that was just pathetic.

Your well is dry.

You've run out of golf-clap "jokes" and still have 0 idea what hearsay means.

 

I understand 100% what hearsay means. Hearsay is a type of rumor. Are you confused? Seems kind of silly considering how supportive you are of hearsay in the process. While looking up the definition of hearsay you should also spend some time researching the stated goal of the Committee. You'll find their stated goal is to investigate the events and examine "evidence." And here we are ignoring evidence for rumors. Why would they raise their standards when their minions will defend their absurd behavior? I hope you're looking forward to all the upcoming committees holding prime time hearings for rumors when Republicans take control of one chamber of Congress.

 

*LOL*

Uh, no. That's not what hearsay means, my befuddled chum.

"Err, we are gonna get you dems real good!" isn't the foundation of "policy". It's the beginning of the end of our country. January 6th requires hearings. Being upset because your party looks like criminals doesn't require hearings. Please grow up.

 

If this is your, or the "Right's" idea of a scandal, you might as well add the allegation that both women's jackets are made of bamboo fibers, for all the credibility it has, as something over which to be concerned. Both of these are Conservative, Republican women, so there is an understanding of each other's feelings. For both, Trump and his cronies have left them feeling betrayed and, in Hutchinson's case, disillusioned. Speaking publicly, from her inside knowledge, about this disillusioning behavior-- and knowing how this will be received by other Republicans, still in Trump's thrall-- was no doubt, not an easy thing to do, but something she felt was the (true) Right thing. Cheney is merely offering her support, and showing her appreciation for Hutchinson's willingness to step up, and subject herself to the coming scrutiny, from one Conservative woman, to another. For those unfamiliar with this type of display, it is known as showing, "humanity."

 

Here is a thought.... if you don't know the answer... don't post...
Does Cheney hug all the witnesses? They can't put on a good show unless the surprise whistleblower shows up to save the day...

 

The "answer," is that your question is a bogus, red herring. Your inference is supposed to be that their hugging has some significance, as far as the credibility of Hutchinson's testimony, is it not? So my answer explained your mistake, in perceiving any relevance to the hug, which could be interpreted as inappropriate, or suspicious, were it not something that Cheney customarily did, with witnesses. This was a strictly personal gesture, therefore making your question, meaningless.

 

@popscott,

The only thing your ilk knows how to do is make implications and spread hatred. If that photo means "something" what do these mean? Why does dumbass Orange Stain take people hostage during a handshake and pucker his lips? You people would be claiming anybody else doing this is gay.

I know he's probably lonely since lesbian, porn model, vapid b*tch Contract #3 is only there for a check but this is inappropriate. Nobody in a professional relationship should be kissing anybody. Why aren't you clutching your pearls about that? And, any true **patriot** knows he's desecrating our flag with his nasty Orange-ness.

 

My comment had been about the source you'd used, discrediting numerous parts of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony; I had looked at, and posted, their own description of themselves, as beginning with a pool of Right Wing bloggers, who they contend, without explanation, "evolved into a news site." My comment, was that they seemed like mostly just a Right Wing opinion site. That is, while some of the writers might be bright, or knowledgeable about political things, in general, that is not the same as investigative journalism. When, for example, the Washington Post makes some contention about inconsistencies between facts and a person's testimony, it is based on exhaustive research, and either documentation, or numerous, credible inside sources. For an opinion blogger to make the same assertion, implies no such litmus of research and supporting evidence. Hence, one cannot put nearly the trust in their claims, which are put forth without explanation as to their bases. This is what your source had done, regarding elements of Hutchinson's story. IOW, why should I take the word of the PJ Media blogger, over the word of a person I know was working in Mark Meadows' office, and who was speaking under oath?

Your "reply," to my post:
1) Did not defend your source's integrity, as a news gathering organization, or refute my characterization of them as an "opinion site," from their own description of their writing staff, not as reporters (far less, investigative reporters), but as "bloggers."

2) Used false claims, implying that my rational critique of your "news" source, was somehow discredited, by my being enamored of Hutchinson, when nothing of the kind is true. I have seen very little, of her actual testimony, in fact. So your basis for stating that I am "impressed with Cassidy," and that she is my, "obsession," are as poorly-grounded in truth, as I suspect could be anything one might read on PJ Media, your cited news source.

3) Consisted mostly of just another PJ article, which didn't say much of any consequence. Their main faulting of Cassidy, revolved around the story of Trump, in the Presidential SUV, which is a story she openly credited to someone else & which, of itself, was of no importance, beyond adding color, to the narrative. The main point, of the story, was that Trump had really wanted to go to the Capitol, with his supporters, and the Secret Service has officially confirmed that much. The other thing, the writer didn't like, was Cheney's showmanship. A very thin pretense, for rejecting Hutchinson's testimony, out of hand.

 

I'm pretty sure she wouldn't hug any that don't support her agenda.

 

Are you confused by the definition of hearsay or the definition of rumor? It's one or the other and regardless of which one it's quite sad.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hearsay
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rumor

No reason to resort to insults because of a weak vocabulary. Before ranting about your support for rumors and hearsay in Congressional evidentiary hearings you probably should have looked up the definitions if the words of you were going to be so offended by being called out over it.

 

"That did not happen": Secret Service doubling down in dispute over Hutchinson testimony."

So Trump really didn't overpower to Secret Service agents with a timely throat punch and take control of the beast and invade the Capitol?

​

“There are three people in that vehicle: Bobby Engel, President Trump and the limo driver,” all say it didn't happen.

So, the Secret Service didn't illegally arrest Trump, unlawfully detain him and kidnap him? The J6! committee is just lying, again?

​

"the committee has gotten rather quiet about their due diligence on vetting this story before putting it on national television"

I bet they have!