Cipolonne will testify.

Giving up and resorting to ad hominems is par for the course when you can't defend your stupid position. Let's try again for the fourth time. Let's try to focus on the actual conversation rather than insulting me.

Here is the post we are referring to:


The initial post was that "every eyewitness agrees" that this rumor didn't happen. Your response was that people who weren't there also heard the rumor. We know there was a rumor. The question is whether or not the rumor is true. To know that we have to ask the people who were there and not anonymous people gossiping in the hallway about things they don't have any direct knowledge of. What is your response to every person with direct knowledge of the incident disagreeing with you? It is just that people who don't know what they're talking about heard a rumor that has already been partially dismissed due to incorrectly identifying the vehicle that this allegedly took place in?

 

Here the desperate straw man you failing to flog:
You've assumed Zorro's post is true and sourced. Let me help with the wet strawman reach, Zorro's post is B/S. Try again, use better construct for the desperate strawman grasp.

 

Nonsense even by your usual standards

 

Coming for this "source"^^, it can be easily dismissed.

 

You aren't responding to the allegation. I've asked you for your response and all you've said is that there was a rumor. We know there's a rumor. You're just speaking nonsense. You don't believe the allegation is true? Disprove it. I'm asking you to disprove it which you're running away from repeatedly. In response to "every eyewitness disagrees" you've effectively said "yea, but people who don't have direct knowledge also heard a rumor." How is that relevant? It's not. It makes no sense. It's an extremely stupid response to ignore the crux of the argument whose stupidity has only been surpassed by each follow-up post you've made in this thread.

 

Because the "allegation" is unsubstantiated B/S and you obviously willfully uninformed. Now that's been made clear, if you're going to flog nonsense while claiming a crappy straw man as your shield, sorry, but you're failing again at flailing AGAIN.

 

The "thing" is people do care about the attack on OUR Capitol. IF, tRaitor tRump runs, damn right. Right now "the left" isn't campaigning against any presidential candidate for 2024. The Congressional Select Committee AbsaByGodLutely IS trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th 2021.

 

Lame. Swearing that you heard x but if gossip from y person does not make the gossip no matter how many people say they heard the gossip. The people present day it didn't happen both have said they would testify but for that to happen the committee has to supoena them and that is about as likely to happen as you are to pilot a home built rocket to Mars.

 

Yet, no one has testified UNDER OATH that her testimony was B/S. Point being, they can get sworn in voluntarily by any FBI agent and give it a go, especially the agent who she was told the recount by. Now, try again since she's the only one under oath re the tantrum in the limo.

 

Again they cannot testify under oath if the committee will not call them and the committee isn't about to.

 

Sure they can; they can submit themselves and make a verbal testament at any FBI office to any FBI agent.

 

Here I'll move this where it belongs...

 

The Committee, of course. And they want you to also care. That is why the hearings are being shown on television, right?

 

This is a pretty pathetic response. What a waste of time. Feel free to try again without dodging. What are we on now, five or six attempts?

 

Well, no more crappy straw man grasps to flail against, bummer? Good, now the true partisan motives expose themselves. Disingenuousness is easy to expose and even easier when it rears it's own head.

 

And the committee will bury it so deep it'll never see the light if day.

 

A statement unworthy of merit^.

 

14 dodged and counting

 

We have all been assured that this is all in the service of a legitimate legislative purpose.

 

Yeah. Are you capable of making a point?

 

According to one committee member, Cipollone didn't contradict any previous testimony.

 

Yea... we have, without cross-examination or the usual "burden of proof" from the accuser who is an executive branch low level aide "allegedly" having a conversation with an executive branch Secret Service who "allegedly" told her about an "alledged" incident in an executive branch SUV...while standing in the executive branch WH...
and the legislative branch is doing an executive branch criminal investigation for the executive branch who is watching closely..

Just saying ... I am still skeptical there may be an issue if this was ever to be taken to a real court, which is the executive branch, whether the Trump team will have access to any or ALL the documents, testimonies, depositions in possession of the legislative branch, during discovery..

 

A leak from a committee member about a private meeting telling us what they think he said... Adam Schiff 101

 

Why? They’ve already refused to present testimony under oath that Trump stated they’d need 10,000 national guard to defend the Capitol and that the person in charge should “do whatever he needed to do” in order to defend it.

What makes you think they’d present other exculpatory information on trumps behalf when they refuse to present that?

@Across the pond Just curious… you stated if the J6 committee doesn’t present that Christopher Miller testimony you would agree that they are biased.

Still stand by that comment? Because they aren’t going to present it.

 

And none the previous testimony actually showed anything criminal so...