Joke 6 Committee "Hearing"

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A. He was impeached. Not that they tried. He was impeached.

B. You don't need a crime to impeach

C. The committee is providing their finding to DoJ and DoJ will determine if a crime has been committed.

Stop parroting Trumptard conspiracy talking points that are wrong.

Ok hall monitor, I'm sorry for misusing the term impeach. Yes he was impeached, in an effort to remove him from office, which failed. As if you didn't know that's exactly what I meant.

Also lol "findings", yes their findings which consist in part of some woman just blatantly lying about something that never happened, according to the very people she claimed it happened to. The integrity of our sacred democracy is very important, dontcha know, and these dems are standing up for all that is true and good!!

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok hall monitor, I'm sorry for misusing the term impeach. Yes he was impeached, in an effort to remove him from office, which failed. As if you didn't know that's exactly what I meant.

Also lol "findings", yes their findings which consist in part of some woman just blatantly lying about something that never happened, according to the very people she claimed it happened to. The integrity of our sacred democracy is very important, dontcha know, and these dems are standing up for all that is true and good!!

See now you're showing how you're not educated on these issues as well as the legal intricacies around them. I assume you're referring to the statement about Trump trying to grab a steering wheel. She never "claimed that happened"; she was asked a question and said "person A told me X happened".

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok hall monitor, I'm sorry for misusing the term impeach. Yes he was impeached, in an effort to remove him from office, which failed. As if you didn't know that's exactly what I meant.

Also lol "findings", yes their findings which consist in part of some woman just blatantly lying about something that never happened, according to the very people she claimed it happened to. The integrity of our sacred democracy is very important, dontcha know, and these dems are standing up for all that is true and good!!

You guys wouldn't even admit that he lost the election as an incumbent (no small feat itself), but it's ridiculous to assume that any hearing no matter how thorough would ever get through to the biggest paste eating Trumptards like yourself.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You gave a number of ways in which statements might be allowed as an exception. You pontificated how maybe somehow possibly the statement might be accepted.

I asked you to pick a number from the list given in the law. You didn't.

Not panicking. Largely unconcerned with this nothing-burger. If they indict the Mayor of Portland who allowed for an actual insurrection, I would take them seriously.

We have limited resources in this short life. I can't be bothered by boys crying wolf and liars. If a group of people constantly lie for personal political gain while simultaneously promoting ideas and policies that are destructive... yes, I won't be spending time listening to them or taking them seriously.

Oh, and if anyone committed an actual crime, D or R, hang 'em high.

The ways I explained to get it in were literally on the list you copied and pasted from the rules of evidence you idiot lmao

[Castle2.0]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The ways I explained to get it in were literally on the list you copied and pasted from the rules of evidence you idiot lmao

Sorry pal, I hope you're not a lawyer. Not very persuasive.

"Bill told me Bob did this."

Effectively what she said. It matches none of the reasons you gave. Exclusions are quite specific and limited. Online degree?

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry pal, I hope you're not a lawyer. Not very persuasive.

"Bill told me Bob did this."

Effectively what she said. It matches none of the reasons you gave. Exclusions are quite specific and limited. Online degree?

Hearsay is perfectly admissible in an argument among the vulgate.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry pal, I hope you're not a lawyer. Not very persuasive.

"Bill told me Bob did this."

Effectively what she said. It matches none of the reasons you gave. Exclusions are quite specific and limited. Online degree?

As I said, just because you’re not able to understand my explanation because you have no idea about anything doesn’t make my explanation wrong lmao

[Jibartik]

this thing was designed to do 1 thing, make people fight each other.

the goverment is trying to turn this place into the thunderdome so they can ratchet up their power, consolidate their wealth.

[Jibartik]

After all the "hearsay you're honor" I heard during the amber heard trial, there is no way anything at these jan 6th trials would be admissable in court, not a chance.

"He reached over from the back seat like an action movie, and grabbed the wheel and tried to drive the beast right up the stairs himself!"

[Horza]

I'm genuinely surprised you Trumptards still haven't realized committee hearings aren't court cases. Too much paste?