Joke 6 Committee "Hearing"

[cd288]

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

DOJ won't do crap. A real criminal case where hearsay isn't permitted?

Nah, we just wanted to make it look as bad as possible for Trump without having a real case, real judge, real lawyers, and due process.

But I know "walls closing in" right? ha

Explained to you already how the vast majority of statements made aren't hearsay, but ignore it all you want (or you're just unable to understand it, which a lot of people aren't - not the simplest rule of evidence by a long shot).


One of the best recent pieces of evidence btw:

"In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word 'fake' to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome," The Times reported. "And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny."


"In a call on Dec. 27, 2020, witnesses have said, Trump told acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen that he wanted his Justice Department to say there was significant election fraud, and said he was poised to oust Rosen and replace him with Clark, who was willing to make that assertion.

Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.” Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”"

[Castle2.0]

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

Explained to you already how the vast majority of statements made aren't hearsay, but ignore it all you want (or you're just unable to understand it, which a lot of people aren't - not the simplest rule of evidence by a long shot).


One of the best recent pieces of evidence btw:

"In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word 'fake' to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome," The Times reported. "And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny."


"In a call on Dec. 27, 2020, witnesses have said, Trump told acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen that he wanted his Justice Department to say there was significant election fraud, and said he was poised to oust Rosen and replace him with Clark, who was willing to make that assertion.

Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.” Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”"

No, you threw up a bunch of possible ways hearsay in general can be admitted. I sent you a link to the actual law and asked you to pick a bullet point from the list of exceptions that does apply to the specific instance we were discussing. Cricket chirping ensued.

DOJ won't do crap. There will be no criminal charges. All theatre, per usual.

[cd288]

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

No, you threw up a bunch of possible ways hearsay in general can be admitted. I sent you a link to the actual law and asked you to pick a bullet point from the list of exceptions that does apply to the specific instance we were discussing. Cricket chirping ensued.

DOJ won't do crap. There will be no criminal charges. All theatre, per usual.

Again, the whole list I wrote literally address multiple exceptions or exemptions from the list you posted and how they could be used to allow the testimony. What you're saying is literally false lmao

[Jibartik]

It's all political theater.

If we were to actually hold our leaders accountable, we'd have to put them ALL in jail.

And that goes for most CEO's too.

Too many people in leadership positions think that would cause more suffering than just ignoring it.

[Jibartik]

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

Explained to you already how the vast majority of statements made aren't hearsay, but ignore it all you want (or you're just unable to understand it, which a lot of people aren't - not the simplest rule of evidence by a long shot).


One of the best recent pieces of evidence btw:

"In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word 'fake' to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome," The Times reported. "And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny."


"In a call on Dec. 27, 2020, witnesses have said, Trump told acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen that he wanted his Justice Department to say there was significant election fraud, and said he was poised to oust Rosen and replace him with Clark, who was willing to make that assertion.

Rosen told Trump that the Justice Department could not “flip a switch and change the election,” according to notes of the conversation cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t expect you to do that,” Trump responded, according to the notes. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

The president urged Rosen to “just have a press conference.” Rosen refused. “We don’t see that,” he told Trump. “We’re not going to have a press conference.”"

And then the system worked.

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

If Biden tried to create fake electors and tried to incite violence to prevent certification of a lawful election I'd say he needs to be held criminally accountable. I'm not really a Biden supporter...I don't think he's doing a very good job by any means. I voted for him because Trump had become a raging dumpster fire lol

But you see, I dont think thats what happened and you get mad when I dont agree with you.

So mad that we cant do anything but fight over it.

Why do I have to care that you care about trump when you openly say you dont care about the criminal activity that I think is much worse for the country?

You got rid of trump, now you want to double get rid of him, instead of dealing with the guy you voted for you say you dont even support and dont think hes doing a very good job by any means.

YOU got us here, so now FIX IT! Dont just ignore solving the problems you thought trump was doing so poorly you voted for the other guy (that you didnt even support!)

[cd288]

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

And then the system worked.



But you see, I dont think thats what happened and you get mad when I dont agree with you.

So mad that we cant do anything but fight over it.

Why do I have to care that you care about trump when you openly say you dont care about the criminal activity that I think is much worse for the country?

You got rid of trump, now you want to double get rid of him, instead of dealing with the guy you voted for you say you dont even support and dont think hes doing a very good job by any means.

YOU got us here, so now FIX IT! Dont just ignore solving the problems you thought trump was doing so poorly you voted for the other guy (that you didnt even support!)

I'm not mad you don't agree with me. You have members of the team literally making statements in emails that they are going to put forth "fake electors". There's nothing to disagree about there lol...it's plain English.

And yeah if the Republicans can put forward a good candidate I would gladly vote for them over Biden in 2024 (i.e. "fixing" it)

[Jibartik]

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

I'm not mad you don't agree with me. You have members of the team literally making statements in emails that they are going to put forth "fake electors". There's nothing to disagree about there lol...it's plain English.

And yeah if the Republicans can put forward a good candidate I would gladly vote for them over Biden in 2024 (i.e. "fixing" it)

It sounds like I dont want a candidate that will make you happy anywhere near the whitehouse, it seems, so I guess continue with your theater.

Between what the rich made $$$ during trump vs biden, I'd take trump 10x times.

All I've seen biden do is bail out the banks, and make the 1% 8 TRILLION dollars richer during his admin.

[cd288]

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

It sounds like I dont want a candidate that will make you happy anywhere near the whitehouse, it seems, so I guess continue with your theater.

Between what the rich made $$$ during trump vs biden, I'd take trump 10x times.

All I've seen biden do is bail out the banks, and make the 1% 8 TRILLION dollars richer during his admin.

The most important thing to me is having a candidate who is going to respect our system and democratic process and accept election results. If you agree with that as an important factor, then sounds like we are in agreement.

If you think Trump is a good option, then we are not because he refused to accept a legitimate election and tried to illegally stop it from being effective.

[Elizondo]

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

The most important thing to me is having a candidate who is going to respect our system and democratic process and accept election results. If you agree with that as an important factor, then sounds like we are in agreement.

If you think Trump is a good option, then we are not because he refused to accept a legitimate election and tried to illegally stop it from being effective.

[Jibartik]

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

The most important thing to me is having a candidate who is going to respect our system and democratic process and accept election results. If you agree with that as an important factor, then sounds like we are in agreement.

If you think Trump is a good option, then we are not because he refused to accept a legitimate election and tried to illegally stop it from being effective.

You voted for Biden before trump did that, and you say that's the reason you voted for Biden?

While Biden was president, cooperate profits have broken records, while we had record inflation.

Sure a lot of that has to do with both sides, but you cant say that these huge records, the previous bail out to banks, and the failing economy is just a nothing burger. Especially when they run campaigns where they say they are trying to stop the cooperate lobbying and control of politics.

Some of us think that all this money and power going to the banks, is complete disrespect for the democratic process and election results.

Say what you will about republicans, but they run their campaign on what they do while they are in the whtie house. They want to lower taxes, hate social laws and want to have strong LEO but that's all bad for the country, unless a democrat does it. Makes no sense to me.

I was smart enough to know not all muslims are terrorists, and im smart enough to know not all humans cause climate change.

Im sick of being lumped in with the kardashians and the corperations and the banks that are the cause of it, who the democrats just hand money to!