Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel

This isn't a trial.

 

She doesn’t qualify. Dirty Donnie only hires illegals that he can screw both figuratively and literally at Mar A Lago.

(oh please oh please, ask for a link )

 

"Secret Service agents willing to testify that Trump didn't lunge at steering wheel"

let's get them under oath then and question them about what things Trump did

 

Trump is free to go under oath and tell his own version of events, he was invited

 

I added it sarcastically

 

Well it makes no sense. Even as sarcasm.

 

Americans never get Brit sarcasm, so don't worry.

 

I know what you were trying to do. So I “get” it.
It just doesn’t make sense.

 

No, you are not making a valid comparison, of utterly specious rumors, to what a person swore to, under oath, giving her source. Clearly, the next step in this case (which would not, as clearly, be applicable to those things, I recognized, from your list of supposed analogs), would be to call Mr. Renata, I believe was his name-- who is not some anonymous person, but someone who does or did hold a government position, through which it can be documented that he was in the vehicle, with President Trump, at the time in question-- and ask him if he did, in fact, tell this story to Ms. Hutchinson. If so, the question becomes had he made up the story, or had he exaggerated, which is something that people are known to do, when they speak privately.

 

Source (obviously)?

 

Nothing of the kind is true. Ms. Hutchinson related all her understandings, in response to questions, based on sources which varied, just as we all have (I presume) things that we believe, which are due to differing bases. She specified, in each case, her basis for her understanding. While having some story related to her by a co-worker, is obviously not, itself, proof-- since even if this part is true, it does not rule out the possibility that the storyteller was exaggerating, or even completely inventing his story-- this in absolutely no way has anything to do with the "credibility," of anything else, to which she testified. Some of her accounts were of conversations she overheard, others were conversations and events, of which she was directly a part. It is a basic skill of evaluating credibility, to understand that each of these situations should be considered differently. But saying that so-and-so told me this, does not detract from the credibility of one's account of something, in which she was directly involved.


So. actually, your statement speaks to the dubious credibility of your arguments, in this thread; either because your "information," comes down to hardly more than whatever you have baselessly assumed, combined with an unwillingness to learn the truth; or because your antagonism, directed at any arguments criticizing Trump, is your chosen position, regardless of the facts, even in instances when you know the criticisms to be true.

In short, this makes you the partisan, you claim not to be.

 

He refused to even send representatives to cross-examine the woman.

 

Yet the cash spigot for the "Durham investigation," of those who had investigated Trump, should, naturally, remain fully flowing(?)

 

By that criterion, what you replied, was also a lie.

 

Your reply is something of a mixed bag. Naturally, one would have thought that investigators would have spoken to the person, to whom this account is credited. I do not know however, if that was attempted, and the gentleman in question (Mr. Renata, IIRC), was merely unwilling to cooperate, as have been many who served under Trump's Administration.

Your depiction of the investigation as an attempt "to bring down the previous prez," is no less biased, than the Committee members' own dubious contentions, that this was not, from the start, intended at all, to focus on Donald Trump's role, in the event. By the same token, it is disingenuous of those who maintain that the U.S. Congress has no place in investigating the causes of an attack, upon the U.S. Congress. This is not, in any official capacity, a trial (as I note that you, appropriately, put that word in quotation marks).

Still, as my original post said, it seems to me that many are blowing this testimony out of proportion (and not just Democrats, apparently). I don't see how the detail as to whether or not Trump had tried to grab the steering wheel, should be so consequential, in the overall scheme of events.

 

Show me where I ever claimed I was not partisan. If you're into politics you are partisan.

It might not speak to her credibility but it certainly does speak to the credibility of what this sham of a committee is admitting as permissible as somehow evidence

 

While I do believe you have claimed as much, in the past-- wasn't that the actual subject, of one of your threads?-- I am not going back to look around for it; what you have said in this thread, will have to do.

Do you not understand that, above, you are associating the word partisan, with the other descriptions you give: hyena hypocrites, on a witch Hunt?

Once again, you appear to connect the idea of one's being partisan, with that of being a hypocrite, of having a stilted, one-sided way of viewing things.

So, when you admit, of yourself, the partisan part, are you also proudly claiming the hypocritical half?

For the record, I agree with you that, as a general rule, the size of one's partisanship, & their hypocrisy, tend to track, in a proportional way.

 

Just watched a recap of the testimony and an analysis.... and lol at anyone who believes this nonsense from the aid who wasnt even present.

 

Why are you asking me you're the one who claimed that I said I'm not partisan.

Nice total reversal though

 

Even Downing Street(the London Government) is more capable than this pathetic excuse of a Congress. Vote with your wallets, and your desire to see real politicians again. Boring as they are, they are vital to winning elections over the Schiff's and the Cheney's of the world who by their very presence enrich themselves at the office at the expense of their constituents.

 

You missed the point, somehow. If you are, then, openly admitting your own partisanship, how can you possibly be slamming the hypocrisy of others who are, likewise, partisan, but on the other side? Are they not only employing the same tactic as you?

But I guess that's why the hypocrisy of condemning them and their politicians as hypocrites, doesn't seem wrong, to you.

Pretty good attempted Jedi mind-trick, on your part, though.

 

You said I claimed I'm not partisan.
I'm sorry your claim has fallen apart on you.
No Jedi mind tricks needed there.

 

True. It is a theatrical presentation.

 

Where hearsay is allowed and they dont bother calling the person who allegedly experienced the transgressions. Finally you arent able to press the "witness" for truthfullness. What a complete farce and only a complete moron would take this seriously

 

It's a hearing. But not to fret, I'm sure the Democrats will only conduct this one hearing and not 4 years worth of them like the Benghazi shams Republicans desperately tried to pin on Hillary. At least she had the spine and intestinal fortitude to speak to Republicans for hours when she was subpoenaed. Trump grew a vagina and chose to hide in his cave.