Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

The items on which you've tried to impeach her ARE NOT HEARSAY.

Can you hear me now?

I haven't tried to impeach her testimony.  I have pointed out several times most of the "explosive" items were hearsay or problematic.  When someone testifies the "were told...", that testimony is not admissible in a court of law (but was accepted by the PPC). If I remember correctly, several times during her testimony (as shown in various news outlets) she used phrases like "something like" or "I seem to remember".  Again, not testimony that would be allowed in a court of law, but gleefully accepted by the PPC.

Liberals seem to think everything told to the PPC was 100% factual and supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law.
 

ConsRule » 26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am

I haven't tried to impeach her testimony.  I have pointed out several times most of the "explosive" items were hearsay or problematic.  When someone testifies the "were told...", that testimony is not admissible in a court of law (but was accepted by the PPC). If I remember correctly, several times during her testimony (as shown in various news outlets) she used phrases like "something like" or "I seem to remember".  Again, not testimony that would be allowed in a court of law, but gleefully accepted by the PPC.

Liberals seem to think everything told to the PPC was 100% factual and supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law.
 

Every court of law allows reasonable doubt circumstances to protect the guilty and convict the innocent for not staying in character defined by rule of law.

the irony is hysterical since everyone is wondering why everything humanity does is absolutely corrupted by hope, faith, charity, power, wealth, fame, means, motives, methods to design tomorrow from past practices of denying how evolving only continues here now.

ConsRule » 26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am

I haven't tried to impeach her testimony.  I have pointed out several times most of the "explosive" items were hearsay or problematic.  When someone testifies the "were told...", that testimony is not admissible in a court of law (but was accepted by the PPC). If I remember correctly, several times during her testimony (as shown in various news outlets) she used phrases like "something like" or "I seem to remember".  Again, not testimony that would be allowed in a court of law, but gleefully accepted by the PPC.

Liberals seem to think everything told to the PPC was 100% factual and supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law.

Correct. There is no impeaching hearsay. It impeaches itself.

Just like this picture that Cassidy claims she took with her secret decoder ring.


 
She claims this is Mark Meadows and Tony Bobulinski trading off Russian documents after a Trump rally one night.

And Rico says that it's without a doubt true!

That picture shows nothing.

Even if there were some way to distinguish who is actually in the picture in the first place, I see nothing being "exchanged" and wouldn't know what it was even if I could.

This is the kind of **** these stupid gullible bastards gobble up like pablum.




 

ConsRule » 26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 11:57 am

I haven't tried to impeach her testimony.  I have pointed out several times most of the "explosive" items were hearsay or problematic.  When someone testifies the "were told...", that testimony is not admissible in a court of law (but was accepted by the PPC). If I remember correctly, several times during her testimony (as shown in various news outlets) she used phrases like "something like" or "I seem to remember".  Again, not testimony that would be allowed in a court of law, but gleefully accepted by the PPC.

Liberals seem to think everything told to the PPC was 100% factual and supported by evidence acceptable in a court of law.

**** that vague jive.

I have pointed out several times most of the "explosive" items were hearsay or problematic

Specifically?

If I remember correctly, several times during her testimony

Can you remember the names of any of these "outlets"?

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm

**** that vague jive.

 

I am so saving this quote...

@Huey  
@Vegas  


     

RedheadedStranger » 26 Feb 2024, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:08 pm

Correct. There is no impeaching hearsay. It impeaches itself.

Just like this picture that Cassidy claims she took with her secret decoder ring.


 
She claims this is Mark Meadows and Tony Bobulinski trading off Russian documents after a Trump rally one night.

And Rico says that it's without a doubt true!

That picture shows nothing.

Even if there were some way to distinguish who is actually in the picture in the first place, I see nothing being "exchanged" and wouldn't know what it was even if I could.

This is the kind of **** these stupid gullible bastards gobble up like pablum.

Here's your problem.

She described this scene in considerable detail....and the photograph confirms her detailed description.

She's obviously much smarter than either Bobu or Meadows.
 

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 12:50 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:50 pm

Here's your problem.

She described this scene in considerable detail....and the photograph confirms her detailed description.

She's obviously much smarter than either Bobu or Meadows.

Well, the guy in the chair and the photographer both said this was Cassidy, so it is.


 
See how this works?

 

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 26 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm

I am so saving this quote...

@Huey  
@Vegas  


     

 

Play that funky music, white boy  

RedheadedStranger » 26 Feb 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:52 pm

Well, the guy in the chair and the photographer both said this was Cassidy, so it is.


 
See how this works?

Do they pay you a bonus to be this obtuse?

RedheadedStranger » 26 Feb 2024, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 11:39 am

Why? It will say the same nothing it said yesterday.

It accurately predicted your breakdown.

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:00 pm

Do they pay you a bonus to be this obtuse?

You can't even insult someone without hiding behind a question. 


 

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm

Specifically?

Can you remember the names of any of these "outlets"?

Well...she testified she overheard mention of Oath Keepers and Proud Boy at the WH.  If she just overheard (her word), that means she wasn't in the meeting.  She offered no proof those groups were mentioned.  The PPC (and apparently many liberals) took that as fact...without proof.

She also testified about Trump's "attack" of the Secret Service agent because he was angry they wouldn't take him to the Capitol.  But her testimony was based on what she was told.  When agents were questioned, none knew the reason behind the encounter in the SUV and specific details in their accounts differed. So there was her stating she was told something and nobody actually present provided evidence to support the sketchy details.  None of that would be considered admissible in a court of law since those present were telling different versions of what happened.

As for the names of the outlets.  Take your pick, I saw or heard reports on CNNLOL, MSNBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, the local Fox affiliate (and the local affiliates of the three networks).  I also heard snippets of her testimony on the two local radio stations I frequent, but I don't know who they use as their source.  I think it is Fox and CBS radio, but I'm not sure.

 Acknowledge your questions were answered.

 
 

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm

It accurately predicted your breakdown.

I'm not the one claiming that a grainy picture of two unidentifiable people standing between an SUV in the dark is some kind of smoking gun.

That would be you.

 
 

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:00 pm

Do they pay you a bonus to be this obtuse?

Can you prove that's not Cassidy?

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 26 Feb 2024, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:05 pm

I'm not the one claiming that a grainy picture of two unidentifiable people standing between an SUV in the dark is some kind of smoking gun.

That would be you.

You're too damned stupid to understand what happened.

Again.

R. Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 12:41 pm

**** that vague jive.


Specifically?

Can you remember the names of any of these "outlets"?

You cannot handle specificity of adapting as displaced. ha ha ha ha ha reasonable doubt invented the words true or false to protect reasonable doubt in a court of law giving legal precedence of character counts the advantage in society at large.

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm

You're too damned stupid to understand what happened.

Again.

Of course I understand.

You got duped... again.

 
 

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm

You're too damned stupid to understand what happened.

Again.

If you were forced to answer one question that you had to answer the first time around, mine would be this: 

Why are you predictable? 

Even I am tired of having 100% accuracy on you. 


1. Should I bother, we bother know your reply. Hence, QED. 

Vegas » 26 Feb 2024, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:09 pm

If you were forced to answer one question that you had to answer the first time around, mine would be this: 

Why are you predictable? 

Even I am tired of having 100% accuracy on you. 

1. Should I bother, we bother know your reply. Hence, QED.

Rule, Idiot.

R.Suave » 26 Feb 2024, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2024, 1:11 pm

Rule, Idiot.

Does the rule apply to you?