(08-11-2022 10:11 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 09:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What, with ignorance? Of course it's not verifiable unless there was a recording or the people who told her this come forward and admit it.

However, this was not a trial...it's not really hearsay in that regard...and it was more than appropriate testimony for the hearing. Not to mention there were lots of information going around that did verify that there was indeed an incident in the SUV where trump wanted to go to the Capitol...as well as plenty of other reporting and trumps own words saying he wanted to go to the Capitol. But most importantly, this was one rather meaningless part of her testimony that has ZERO bearing on the events of J6.

So yeah...no bubble...no bursting...but hey, you do you.

So the J6 Committee uses the rules of a trial - perjury, testimony, expert/star witness, etc. But when it's convenient you say it's a "hearing." You can't have you cake and eat it too. Her testimony was mostly hearsay and had no impact on the facts that were known prior to her testimony. No "smoking gun."

Why can't you just admit the obvious? The committee is not impartial. They made their minds up about it before it was formed. The two "R's" also have a bias against Trump for other reasons so it's not really bipartisan.

Without real GOP representation and the ability to cross examine witnesses...of course it was a biased sham investigation.