Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, those aren't my assertions.  They are the assertions of the 2 Secret Service Agents that contradicted her lies right after Hutchinson appeared before the committee to tell her version, in which every single answer she gave came with the usual caveat of saying "I heard something to the effect".

And as has been discussed by experienced trial lawyers who commented on her "sworn" testimony, they responded that the "I heard something to the effect of...." line is a well known ploy that experienced lawyers tend to use when they don't want to have to defend and produce evidence to support their bullshit.  

They know that IF they say "I heard something to the effect of...", that makes it far more difficult to pin a person down afterward as to their specific words, and charge them with lying under oath.

Funny how virtually everything that this liar testified to was prefaced with the phrase "something to the effect of".

Now to the neophyte and the moron (that would be you), it wouldn't cross your mind that she's giving testimony NOT to their actual statements but to what she wants the Jan 6th committee to believe.

Here's Megan Kelly an experienced Lawyer explaining to idiots out there like yourself:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYSNb_jayxk

Now that I've addressed your stupidity about Cassidy Hutchinson, let me address another of your assertions.  

You mentioned that there was more than 1 sole person making the claims in the article.  

As for the "sole Person", you don't point to a source for all your claims so I checked through your UNbiased Yahoo article. 

The other Person aside from Hutchinson who is making these claims is Liz Cheney.

Liz Cheney has had a hard on for Trump since he was in office.  She was one who voted to remove Trump from office because she was upset with him since he criticized her father from Day 1 when he started running for President.

And the last "source" you claim is USA Today.  USA Today may have reported on Betsy DeVos's testimony but that tactic is called in Washington "being upset with someone and so I think I'll make charges and cover my ass".

So then let's examine what we've shown here.  

1. You have zero direct testimony from any person on the right that you claim was ready to invoke the 25th amendment.

2. The Non-evidence you've put forth is all hearsay from Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson, who both have a hard on for Trump and want to see him removed.

3. The only other assertion you have is from a USA Today article that claims that DeVos told them what they wrote.  

So I'll just ask.. is there any other hearsay that you want to put forth?   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Where is the sworn testimony of the secret service agents?

They weren't permitted to testify, just as no testimony from anyone else who would offer counter testimony to the Liz Cheney/Democrat Inquisition was permitted.  It was a one sided affair with the specific witnesses chosen by Liz Cheney and the other Democrats.

That is why Jim Jordan was not permitted on committee along with the other Republican Jim Banks that Kevin McCarthy put forward as representatives.  

This is because Pelosi knew that it would be a one sided affair if she appointed ALL of the members, which she did in essence by blocking Banks and Jordan.

Nancy Pelosi did this for one reason, because Jordan and Banks said they would press the issue of what the role of Nancy Pelosi had in the Jan 6th affair by not appointing National Guard and preparing for the incident.  

Pelosi was warned and she ignored the warnings.  The committee is a sham plain and simple.

Everyone understands that when one chooses all the witnesses knowing pretty beforehand what they intend to say and the committee blocks those who have stated they will counter the partisan BS, it is nothing more than a Democrat show trial, similar to those held under Stalin's Soviet rule.

It was nothing more than a Stalin-esque show trial intended to have a certain outcome that was wanted by the committee.

As for your assertion about Hannity's statement, where you say he told Donald Trump that they were planning on invoking the 25th amendment, what exactly does that prove.  

He said that they were planning on attempting to invoke the 25th amendment and that is a fact.  All the Democrats spoke about it forever. 

I didn't see where Hannity told Trump "your own cabinet is going to attempt to remove you using the 25th amendment". 

Can you point to some evidence that he said that Republicans in Trump's cabinet were planning to remove him using that?  

I don't think you can because he didn't.  I saw in your link where Liz Cheney made the claim that Sean Hannity told Donald Trump that they were planning an attempt to remove him from the Presidency using the 25th amendment and impeachment.  

Yeah the Democrats were trying to do that. Everyone knows that.  It has been common knowledge for years.  

So then is there anything else that you can't support with evidence, aside from your false claim that it was actually Republicans rather than Dems who were trying to invoke the 25th amendment? 

If so, bring it on.  


.  

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Yeah, I guess Pennsylvania is right next to New Jersey so close enough, huh?.

Last I saw Hillary wasn't running anywhere so she's irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Yeah, hypocrisy. You criticize John Fetterman, but you let this douchbag of a president slide for four years. The guy couldn't walk down a ramp, he had to hold his glass of water with two hands, and then there are his words. He has the BEST words:

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

The fact we are on a science based web forum doesn't make a difference, either. Why relatively smart people will follow and support these charlatans and failed game show and celebrity TV hosts is beyond my understanding. I guess we should have been saying all along how it was Oprah who discovered, encouraged, and provided their exposure to the stupid population who buys into these snake oil salesmen.  

And the kicker is none of them will probably even look at the link you provided. 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Now that is something important there now isn't it.

Go ahead and explain the correlation and what it means.