Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am

MAGAts, who dutifully averted their eyes from the Jan 6th Hearings, will confidently assert that one of the witnesses - whose testimony MAGAts refuse to watch - has been contradicted under oath and therefore "impeached".

To "prove" this, the will refer to a snippet from a Press Release of the House's Revisionist Version of Events (a THIRD derivative of The Record), as follows:

During the Select Committee’s sensationalized prime-time hearings, Hutchinson was their surprise, "star witness". Hutchinson testified under oath that she heard that Trump had lunged at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV and engaged in a physical altercation with his lead Secret Service agent after being told they were not going to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 
Our Subcommittee's "Initial Findings Report" released in March shows that other White House employees did not corroborate Hutchinson’s dramatic account, and instead directly refuted it. The Select Committee was in possession of these accounts but chose to hide them, and instead promoted Hutchinson’s scandalous narrative.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts ... -unethical

Note the COMPLETE absence of particulars.

Because ****, like @ROG62  , take what is fed to them by their **** sources as gospel.

But given the actual facts of the matter, how does the subcommittee get there?

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/d/9/ ... report.pdf

Watch how stupid people manipulate Scrapie ravaged sheep...

 
 

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am

MAGAts, who dutifully averted their eyes from the Jan 6th Hearings, will confidently assert that one of the witnesses - whose testimony MAGAts refuse to watch - has been contradicted under oath and therefore "impeached".

To "prove" this, the will refer to a snippet from a Press Release of the House's Revisionist Version of Events (a THIRD derivative of The Record), as follows:

During the Select Committee’s sensationalized prime-time hearings, Hutchinson was their surprise, "star witness". Hutchinson testified under oath that she heard that Trump had lunged at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV and engaged in a physical altercation with his lead Secret Service agent after being told they were not going to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 
Our Subcommittee's "Initial Findings Report" released in March shows that other White House employees did not corroborate Hutchinson’s dramatic account, and instead directly refuted it. The Select Committee was in possession of these accounts but chose to hide them, and instead promoted Hutchinson’s scandalous narrative.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts ... -unethical

Note the COMPLETE absence of particulars.

Because ****, like @ROG62  , take what is fed to them by their **** sources as gospel.

But given the actual facts of the matter, how does the subcommittee get there?

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/d/9/ ... report.pdf

Watch how stupid people manipulate Scrapie ravaged sheep...

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Huey » 06 Jan 2026, 9:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 9:21 am

Yawn...another callout thread using PG.  How manly.....not.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

ROG62 » 06 Jan 2026, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 10:08 am

are you inferring brown's a **** ******?




 

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 9:20 am

MAGAts, who dutifully averted their eyes from the Jan 6th Hearings, will confidently assert that one of the witnesses - whose testimony MAGAts refuse to watch - has been contradicted under oath and therefore "impeached".

To "prove" this, the will refer to a snippet from a Press Release of the House's Revisionist Version of Events (a THIRD derivative of The Record), as follows:

During the Select Committee’s sensationalized prime-time hearings, Hutchinson was their surprise, "star witness". Hutchinson testified under oath that she heard that Trump had lunged at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV and engaged in a physical altercation with his lead Secret Service agent after being told they were not going to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 
Our Subcommittee's "Initial Findings Report" released in March shows that other White House employees did not corroborate Hutchinson’s dramatic account, and instead directly refuted it. The Select Committee was in possession of these accounts but chose to hide them, and instead promoted Hutchinson’s scandalous narrative.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts ... -unethical

Note the COMPLETE absence of particulars.

Because ****, like @ROG62  , take what is fed to them by their **** sources as gospel.

But given the actual facts of the matter, how does the subcommittee get there?

https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/d/9/ ... report.pdf

Watch how stupid people manipulate Scrapie ravaged sheep...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm

MAGAts?

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm

MAGAts?

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm

MAGAts?

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm

MAGAts?

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 12:06 pm

MAGAts?

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 24 Jan 2026, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2026, 8:20 pm

If you dared to read it...

But you don't...

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Huey » 25 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

You tel us.  Not doing your work for you.  Or, are you going to answer questions on a one for one basis?  If not, STFU Spoiledvegetable.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Blackvegetable » 25 Jan 2026, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:23 am

Huey » 25 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

You tel us.  Not doing your work for you.  Or, are you going to answer questions on a one for one basis?  If not, STFU Spoiledvegetable.

In this very thread.

From the House report.

are you going to answer questions on a one for one basis?  

you are owed nothing for stipulating to objective fact.


Od.

 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

What statement is that?

Don't be vague.

Huey » 25 Jan 2026, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:30 am

I am sorry, BitchV, 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jan 2026, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:39 am

Huey » 25 Jan 2026, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:30 am

I am sorry, BitchV, 

Little Melty,

If we are going to debate "hearsay", we need to agree to what Cassidy actually said.

I did all the work on this thread, using the text of the House report.

You can read it. I'm not going to go over it again.

 

Blackvegetable » 25 Jan 2026, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:31 am

Huey » 25 Jan 2026, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2026, 9:28 am

Ok, I guess my work is done here, BitchVegetable.

You've run from more of your words, and decline to take a stand.....on a matter we've repeatedly covered.

Because you are an imbecile