The person who made the claim admitted that she got the story second-hand....from someone else who wasn't there either.
Her statement shouldn't even have been admitted as "evidence."
@jj-adamssaid The person who made the claim admitted that she got the story second-hand....from someone else who wasn't there either.
Her statement shouldn't even have been admitted as "evidence."
this is not a serious hearing…dems are putting on a production trying to stay in power, meanwhile the people cant afford groceries or fuel.
@jj-adamssaid The person who made the claim admitted that she got the story second-hand....from someone else who wasn't there either.
Her statement shouldn't even have been admitted as "evidence."
@jj-adamssaid The person who made the claim admitted that she got the story second-hand....from someone else who wasn't there either.
Her statement shouldn't even have been admitted as "evidence."
There is no evidence. That is why I don’t care, why we should not care. These horrible Trump haters are spending SO much money. If there were evidence, the faairey Schiff would have presented it.
We have found someone worse than Sonhouse!!!
@no1maraudersaid There's no hearsay rule in Committee hearings.
there is no make anything up rule either…you lib fools are about at the end of your rope. credibility was lost long ago, even you used to have a half way valid argument. now all you can do is post frivolous quips disparaging polls and links like jimmi
@averagejoe1said Yes, it seems that Marauder thinks that. Holy Smokes. The forum is entertaining, Marauder can be the funnest to watch squirm on occasion.
The libbies here are always claiming that news stories are unreliable if they don't fit their agenda, but they'll accept as fact any silly claim Democrats come up with, no matter how implausible.
A faceless, nameless "source close to the Secret Service" is telling Fox that faceless nameless "agents" are willing to testify. This article contains no quotes, no names, and no details. If they're willing to testify, then why are they speaking off the record anonymously through another anonymous source?
When these agents give sworn testimony, then this is a debate question as to who is committing perjury. Until then, it seems like a stretch.
@wildgrasssaid A faceless, nameless "source close to the Secret Service" is telling Fox that faceless nameless "agents" are willing to testify. This article contains no quotes, no names, and no details. If they're willing to testify, then why are they speaking off the record anonymously through another anonymous source?
When these agents give sworn testimony, then this is a debate question as to who is committing perjury. Until then, it seems like a stretch.
Exactly.
And even Barr, Ivanka and God knows how many first hand witnesses have testified to what was going on. It’s clear cut.
And even Barr, Ivanka and God knows how many first hand witnesses have testified to what was going on. It’s clear cut.
So, Shav, it is clear cut. So at the end of all this, pray tell, what will be the final outcome??????
This should be good. You might want to work your answer up with proof-reading by Sonhouse.
Can't wait!!!
bombshell witness
29 Jun '22 11:08
Back to Top