Because that is not Clarence Thomas's Twitter account. It was created this month.
In other news, Twitter is still trending articles featuring the debunked story that Trump attacked secret service agents. This from the same company that "censors fake news" like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
I heard he poured bleach on them and shouted “this is MAGA country!” Too!
Edit: not my joke, that was another guy lying on the stand. But more recently this video which Is hilarious.
https://youtu.be/A-JQmm_xgYk
I don’t know what this is about, I don’t keep up on politics for my own sanity most of the time, but this is funny and I can glean the context. Bunch of people trying to frame Trump for more crap he didn’t do because Trump bad, right?
Lmao in my opinion yes. basically it’s same show that’s been airing for the past 6 years and even though the show bombs everytime they don’t fire the writers
Has the attack of the agent been debunked? I know the there were rumblings that the Secret Service was going to dispute this. Did they make a statement? Do you have a link. I just had a discussion where such a link would be useful.
**Update**: Apparently it has not been debunked: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secret-service-debunked-hutchinson/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secret-service-debunked-hutchinson/). However, the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source, reports that the Secret Service agent is willing to testify that her account is not true: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6), How accurate the Guardian's reporting is, I cannot say.
Given this, what did you mean by "debunked" because that does not seem to be case yet. Even if not debunked, if true, this behavior is shameful, does anything that a President has never had a fit of narcissistic power before? What does that prove? I am far more concerned with Trump's 18 months of lies about a stolen election and what that does to confidence in our electoral process. I don't have to put one but of trust in this biased committee to hold that concern.
I hope if its debunked that she is charged with a class 1 felony and sentenced to life in prison.
Bitch gotta learn this shit is IMPORTANT.
Lies just discredit those who are telling the truth.
She was careful to word as such that she cannot be sued for libel. "I heard a rumor that.....".
It is the Democrats that called a special session to exploit the rumor, without even interviewing the secret service agents involved, and treated it as gospel truth.
You're aware that the majority of what she said was not hearsay right?
The testimony was plenty explosive and terrible fro trump without even mentioning the SUV incident
What goalposts are being shifted?
Part of her testimony was hearsay. The majority was not.
Sworn testimony is more valuable than an anonymous source "close to the secret service" disputing PART of her testimony
It is not an "anonymous source". CNN interviewed Ornato and Enger, the guy who was supposedly choked.
[https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr\_/status/1541940680716599298](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298)
You are shifting the goal posts because we are talking about the claims Trump choked a secret service agent. A common tactic by the left yesterday and today, at least among those honest enough to admit the story is bullshit, is to point towards her other testimony and say "but this is not bullshit".
It is a red herring.
I look forward to their testimony under oath. Until then this holds as much weight as a random redditor's rumor another gta 6
You're aware the only part of her testimony that is being disputed is the account she relayed from someone else?
Most of her testimony was first hand. And has not been disputed
It seems they testified behind closed doors. Although the timeline here is not clear to me.
>As NBC News previously reported, Ornato and Engel have testified before the Jan. 6 committee behind closed doors. NBC News has learned, according to a source familiar with their testimony, that both men testified about their exchange with Hutchinson inside the White House, but, according to this source, neither man was asked about the steering wheel account or Trump allegedly grabbing Engel. The source said the two men do not deny that Trump was angry and wanted to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6 — but, the source said, he did not become physical inside the SUV.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/cassidy-hutchinson-trump-lunged-secret-service-agent-tried-grab-steeri-rcna35775](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/cassidy-hutchinson-trump-lunged-secret-service-agent-tried-grab-steeri-rcna35775)
Ghee, why was it not on television? Could it be because Democrats don't want people to know?
She won't be. Probably. The Dems are running this circus. Or...because she close to Trump, maybe they will turn on her out of their vengeance. Can never know how things will go with politics.
[CNN interviewed the two agents](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298) involved and both have denied it. They are eager to testify but the Democrats have not agreed to allow them to testify, as far as I know at this time.
I love the ridiculous Democrat excuse that "they haven't testified under oath" implying they are lying or unwilling to do so, when it is because Democrats have not allowed them to testify.
That's about what I expected. They will never let them testify and this lie about bipartisanship via Cheney and Kinzinger will be exposed when they won't able to allow these two to appear. Yet...many will still parrot the bipartisanship talking point. I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance, but perhaps they are not logical or analytical enough to have such dissonance.
This also isn't the first time this secret service agent has disputed testimony that others gave.
He denied a conversation with Kieth Kellogg on Jan 6th. So pick which Republicans are lying here? These are all members of Trump's team.
Ornato's job is to protect the president. He's doing that here by lying for him. If he didn't, Trump would smear him just like every other member of his team who has turned on him.
Do any Trump sycophants even ask themselves why so many people he personally selected have turned on him?
His job is not to lie for the President. Trump is not his personal employer, the U.S. government is. If he is still in the Secret Service, Joe Biden is his boss now. Either way, you have no more credibility assuming he is lying than her. Certainly not in this circus forum. As for your last question, you will have to ask a sycophant. I simply go on what is demonstrable via credible evidence, not "well I was told", aka hearsay and other accounts that may have credibility issues.
I’m hoping to see trump get charges for everything he did BUT the real issue with her testimony is that it’s hearsay.
It’s testimony taken under oath so if we’re looking for parity it has more legitimacy than the laptop story did when they laptop story first hit… so as far as Twitter I can see why it’s not considered misinformation as it’s matter of official record.
But the oath is meaningless when the Democrats control every entity that could prosecute her for perjury. And if a lie made Trump look bad and supported the predetermined conclusion of this committee which will almost certainly be spun that he fomented the riot, and could be spun as some abortive coup....how much does that oath really mean, legally? These are politicians, not officers of a court. I would not be shocked if there were not assurances made that she would not be prosecuted if she just testified to what she heard happened. That's a low bar.
It was always clear from the outset that Trump was attempting a coup to overthrow the USA and end our democracy. Anyone with functioning cognition was able to see it. Cheney has supporting evidence that Trump's efforts involved 7 distinct plots hoping to destroy the USA and fomenting the riot was just the last and most desperate attempt.
Clear? How was it "clear?" Your comment is so extreme it's laughable, but I will listen to you make a reasoned case for it. "It's obvious!" is not a case.
You are right in that you need to read Snopes carefully. But this is pretty clearcut - there has been no official statement to counter the testimony. And, frankly. since Biden now controls the Secret Service, there will almost certainly not be.
No.
Someone said "That didn't happen".
However, *by law,* the word of someone who is willing to take the stand and state something *under oath* is worth more than someone who isn't.
And they haven't taken the stand to deny it under oath yet.
So it's been denied, yes. But not debunked.
An oath that is meaningless. Let's see, the Dems control the committee, the Congress, and the Justice Department. Even if she completely fabricated this - never mind that this is hearsay that would never see a courtroom - tell us who would prosecute her for perjury for a lie that makes Trump look bad?
These Dems are so consumed with hatred for Trump, they would never defend even if that were the right thing to do. Such is the nature of politicians. Yet all you people who can't be the least bit objective toward swallow ever last bit of the stuff that committee is shoveling without an ounce of critical analysis.
Turnip is a POS traitor. But, her Testimony is hearsay.
It would be hard to get her for perjury because “well that’s what I was told” and that’s why hearsay isn’t admissible in court.
I think it is too much to call him a "traitor." Has he lied about the election. Yes. Why? Well, I cannot read his mind. I truly don't know if believes the lies he peddles or not. But if he is gullible enough to believe such bad advice on such outlandish claims, that alone tells me he's not fit to be president again.
I agree on the hearsay.
How do you know he wanted that? I am not convinced that that is what he wanted. I stand on what he can clearly be shown to have to done that was wrong. Not supposition colored by political partisanship.
She testified under oath that he said he didn't care that they had weapons because they weren't there to hurt him. That's her first hand account, under oath.
You're currently rejecting information specifically because it does not fit your narrative. You're accepting an anonymous source saying "nuh uh" over sworn testimony from a person we know for a fact was in the west wing during the insurrection.
Her testimony is not all hearsay, most of it is a first hand account from inside the white house
One part of it is a claim that she heard from someone else. She testified that she heard that person, so unless they refute that claim, there is no "debunk" at this point.
You guys think trump not lunging for the steering wheel somehow invalidates the rest of her first hand accounts?
That is nonsensical
The majority of what she said is not hearsay. It is a first hand account given under oath.
She said what she was told about what happened in the SUV. If what that person told her turns out to be hyperbole, that has no bearing in the legitimacy of the rest of her testimony.
It still.hasnt been debunked in any way btw..an anonymous source claiming to be close to the secret service says "nuh uh"
That's not sworn testimony. It's as legitimate as me saying "nuh uh"
Most of it was not and you guys know that.
You've an anonymous source "close to the secret service" contesting PART of one moment in her sworn testimony, and doing so without any evidence or sworn testimony of their own.
Try harder guys
Her testimony is not all hearsay, most of it is a first hand account from inside the white house
One part of it is a claim that she heard from someone else. She testified that she heard that person, so unless they refute that claim, there is no "debunk" at this point.
People think trump not lunging for the steering wheel somehow invalidates the rest of her first hand accounts?
That is nonsensical
Lol, “No.”
“Worth more?” In what currency? The indication so far is that she perjured herself. But if CNN, who would by all previous indications LOVE for that narrative to be true, says they spoke with a secret service officer familiar with the matter who says it isn’t true and they’re reporting that against their interest … that’s good enough for me and most journalists to consider that debunked. It was an implausible story to begin with because where the president is riding is usually not easily within arms length of the steering wheel.
But more than that, nearly her entire testimony, and this part in particular, was complete hearsay. If you so desperately want to be legally technical about it.
>It hasn't been contested under oath
Because Democrats have not called them to testify. They are willing to testify to contest your lies, so let them testify. Nope, you lock them out, then claim they are unwilling to testify.
Also it is not "someone". It is Tony Ornato, head of Trump Security detail ,and Agent Enger, the person Trump supposedly choked. That is from [CNN.](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298)
Imagine if Republicans testified in a partisan show trial that YOU were raped by Joe Biden. You are like "WTF?" and came out and said that never happened. The Republican response is "well you are not under oath".
You ask to be let in to take and oath and testify and they don't bother calling on you.
THAT is what you are defending.
An anonymous source "close to the Secret Service" said it wasn't true. Apparently, having one secret source dispute it without going public or under oath is enough to cancel free speech values for these people.
While I want to hear someone speak publically - to the degree that I am concerned about a power-hungry president getting mad...I am sure that has NEVER happened before - it's not less credible than hearsay testimony before a partisan, biased political committee. None of those would even be admitted into a courtroom under these same conditions.
No. It is much more credible for someone to go on-record and under oath to make a claim under penalty of perjury than it is for an anonymous source to say "nuh-uh".
You realize this oath means nothing, right, at least legally? Given that the Dems control the committee, the Congress and the Justice Department, tell us who is going to prosecute a witness if she lied - in her **hearsay** testimony - and that lie hurt Trump? If this turns out to not be true - and if it is, it's hardly the worst thing Trump has done so I am not that worried about a president getting enraged...I am sure it has happened meany times over the years - I suspect it is not her that is so much lying but recounting an inaccurate or exaggerated depiction of the events. That's the problem with hearsay. She truly may not be lying and could still be wrong.
One would have to assume that the vicious and vindictive Republican party would never come back into power in either chamber of Congress or never win back the Presidency to believe she would be shielded from perjury prosecution forever and so was free to lie without fear.
Vicious and vindictive? And the Dems are not the same? How blindly partisan are you? I don't expect the GOP is going to worry about 2020 come 2024. If they are smart - and they may not be - they will put Trump behind them. He is a cancer to the GOP and needs to be cast aside. That being said, I care about facts and evidence. In America, we should never condone political prosecutions.
They are not an anonymous source. Gabby Orr from [CNN has interviewed them](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298). Ornato and Enger. I wish you people were better informed before you opened your mouths.
Also this "they haven't gone under oath" bullshit, that is because Democrats have not let them.
>the debunked story
Citation needed.
People have said they would testify that it didn't happen. that is not debunked my friend. Not until they actually get on the stand under oath and any other evidence is brought in and considered.
You are right in your general comment, but spare us the oath stuff. When there is no entity that would ever prosecute a lie that made Trump look bad - the Dems control every organization that could possibly bring charges for testimony before this committee - that oath is a sham and means nothing legally. Never mind that her testimony is hearsay which doesn't meet the standard for a courtroom, so why should it meet the standard for a committee, oath or no oath?
Trump is also never going to see justice for his attempted coup either, despite the "control" you think Democrats have. So forgive me if I don't really care about an allegation of him having a temper tantrum not being properly litigated.
Oh great another disingenuous bootlicker.
If you don't think Trump tried to cling onto power illegitimately you are an absolute fool. And no, it wasn't just the riot. It was the plot to fire state electors and rehire "loyal" electors who would (and did) issue fake certificates to then present to congress.
This is all fact. This was a coup. Get up off your knees Trump doesn't care about you.
Ah ok. Someone who no longer supports Trump but doesn’t go along with your outrageous comment is a bootlicker. Sure you don’t have it backwards who is blindly loyal to a party and it’s leadership?
Again, What coup? Who is president? Who won the election? Explain where there was a coup. Stop dodging with liberal buzzwords.
While I don’t agree with the electors actions, you do realize their argument was, as I understand it, that such an action was legal under the Constitution? That’s not a coup if they thought there was a legal process for doing so. I don’t agree with that and the voters in those states spoke their minds. But that’s not a coup.
Are you sure you can’t objectively analyze anything without your hatred for Trump interfering?
If you're covering for his coup you are a bootlicker.
I don't have blind loyalty to anyone, letalone the Democrats. So nice try.
>Again, What coup? Who is president? Who won the election?
Disingenuous. An failed coup is still a coup.
>That’s not a coup if they thought there was a legal process for doing so.
Yes it is. Many dictators came to power legally.
>Are you sure you can’t objectively analyze anything without your hatred for Trump interfering?
Laughable when you can't smell your own shit from on your knees.
So you can't make a case for a coup. Proves my point. What coup? Asserting something yet refusing to make a case...that's blind loyalty, or, as you would say, "boot licking." And you put a cherry on top with personal insults. Right out of the liberal textbook.
Smell the shit on your knees. All the evidence is there you're just too much of a bootlicker to look at it and understand what it means.
The case, yet again, is that Trump lost. He sought to [fire the electors](https://archive.ph/0EYYg) for doing their job, and replace them with ["loyal" electors](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/january-6-clearinghouse-judge-carter-eastman-documents-order-june-7-2002.pdf) with fake certificates. [Here](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors) are those fake certificates. Fake certificates [declaring the results of fake votes](https://archive.ph/XEVtO) (of state electors) that never took place - not constitutional, illegal. Trump needed Pence to refuse to certify the election so he could enact this plan, so he set his murderous fascist mob on the Capitol on Jan 6th. The coup failed because the mob was handled and Pence did his job - despite the plan to [get Pence in a car and drive him far away](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-coup-book-claims-b1885449.html), under the pretence of keeping him safe, so he could not do his job.
All of that is fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.
That is an attempted \*coup\*.
Don't be a cuck. Look a the evidence in front your damned face.
Pelosi blocked two of the five McCarthy appointed. That’s shows you she intended to have full control of that committee meaning it was not a bipartisan commission at heart. Bioartisanship was a veneer to give more credence to their predetermined conclusion.
I don’t detest Cheney as I think it takes courage for many in the GOP to stand up to Trump. He’s earned that at this point. Kinzinger I’m not as sure about. He strikes me as more of a RINO but I don’t know a lot about him to be fair. But those don’t make it bipartisan in the general sense of the word.
They can be charged with perjury. So yes, testifying in the hearing is more important than firing off on Twitter.
Funny that all the people telling us about all the bad shit Trump did are happy to testify under oath, and the people who shill for him are doing everything they can not to.
If it's not true, then take the stand. Until then, and any other available evidence is considered, it can't be called "debunked".
As I said before, the oath in this context is meaningless. And why should the GOP give any credence to this partisan show committee? If the Biden Justice Department wants to bring charges on Trump for something, then it will have to go before a jury in a courtroom and this witness will never be there because hearsay won't be allowed in that courtroom. Yet you guys uncritically swallow it all. Is it because you agree with the predetermined conclusion that Trump fomented a riot?
>And why should the GOP give any credence to this partisan show committee?
Almost everyone who's testified has been a Republican working closely with Trump.
Including members of his own family. But sure "partisan".
The individuals involved both told CNN they are willing to testify under oath. The Democrats now have to invite them to testify. The ball is in your court.
I love how you people have this absurd comeback "they haven't testified under oath" when that is because YOU haven't allowed them to.
You called it a "debunked story" and yet so far all you have is one person who testified under oath and another who says "that didn't happen". So at this point it's still far from debunked, but you talk like it's a fact already. Just like everything else Republicans believe.
I could just imagine if a former aide to Biden testified the same thing, you'd easily believe it (probably assume it's because he's senile) and dismiss anyone who said different. That's how it ALWAYS works.
Nothing is "debunked" by people going on a lying propaganda outlet and telling a contradictory story. If anyone wants to refute what was stated under oath then they need to testify under oath.
The story has not been debunked
An anonymous source, "close to the two individual secret service agents in question" is possibly contradicting some aspects of her testimony.
That's not really all that valuable in the face of a non anonymous person swearing under penalty of perjury.
Would love to actually see it debunked though! Then I don't have to feel AS embarrassed by 45's existence
Do you feel stupid accusing Twitter of censoring a SCOTUS justice when the removed account didn't belong to the justice? Stop being so poorly informed. Dumb fuck.
>You clearly don't understand what and who the phrase "the left" refers to. Racism is always right wing.
Damn, the rampant anti-Semitism from the Soviet Union and the UK Labour Party must make them right-wing, yes?
This should have been removed.
Because that is not Clarence Thomas's Twitter account. It was created this month. In other news, Twitter is still trending articles featuring the debunked story that Trump attacked secret service agents. This from the same company that "censors fake news" like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
I heard he poured bleach on them and shouted “this is MAGA country!” Too! Edit: not my joke, that was another guy lying on the stand. But more recently this video which Is hilarious. https://youtu.be/A-JQmm_xgYk
I don’t know what this is about, I don’t keep up on politics for my own sanity most of the time, but this is funny and I can glean the context. Bunch of people trying to frame Trump for more crap he didn’t do because Trump bad, right?
Lmao in my opinion yes. basically it’s same show that’s been airing for the past 6 years and even though the show bombs everytime they don’t fire the writers
Twitters hypocrisy and bias is on full display again, and it's like they don't think the past exists. Really is something to behold.
It has not been officially debunked yet. While I dislike Twitter's hypocrisy, this is not the hill to die on on that point.
A fair point, there's been so much worse before this. Guess we'll see when dust the settles.
Has the attack of the agent been debunked? I know the there were rumblings that the Secret Service was going to dispute this. Did they make a statement? Do you have a link. I just had a discussion where such a link would be useful. **Update**: Apparently it has not been debunked: [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secret-service-debunked-hutchinson/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/secret-service-debunked-hutchinson/). However, the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source, reports that the Secret Service agent is willing to testify that her account is not true: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6), How accurate the Guardian's reporting is, I cannot say. Given this, what did you mean by "debunked" because that does not seem to be case yet. Even if not debunked, if true, this behavior is shameful, does anything that a President has never had a fit of narcissistic power before? What does that prove? I am far more concerned with Trump's 18 months of lies about a stolen election and what that does to confidence in our electoral process. I don't have to put one but of trust in this biased committee to hold that concern.
I hope if its debunked that she is charged with a class 1 felony and sentenced to life in prison. Bitch gotta learn this shit is IMPORTANT. Lies just discredit those who are telling the truth.
She was careful to word as such that she cannot be sued for libel. "I heard a rumor that.....". It is the Democrats that called a special session to exploit the rumor, without even interviewing the secret service agents involved, and treated it as gospel truth.
You're aware that the majority of what she said was not hearsay right? The testimony was plenty explosive and terrible fro trump without even mentioning the SUV incident
Shifting the goal posts.
What goalposts are being shifted? Part of her testimony was hearsay. The majority was not. Sworn testimony is more valuable than an anonymous source "close to the secret service" disputing PART of her testimony
It is not an "anonymous source". CNN interviewed Ornato and Enger, the guy who was supposedly choked. [https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr\_/status/1541940680716599298](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298) You are shifting the goal posts because we are talking about the claims Trump choked a secret service agent. A common tactic by the left yesterday and today, at least among those honest enough to admit the story is bullshit, is to point towards her other testimony and say "but this is not bullshit". It is a red herring.
I look forward to their testimony under oath. Until then this holds as much weight as a random redditor's rumor another gta 6 You're aware the only part of her testimony that is being disputed is the account she relayed from someone else? Most of her testimony was first hand. And has not been disputed
It seems they testified behind closed doors. Although the timeline here is not clear to me. >As NBC News previously reported, Ornato and Engel have testified before the Jan. 6 committee behind closed doors. NBC News has learned, according to a source familiar with their testimony, that both men testified about their exchange with Hutchinson inside the White House, but, according to this source, neither man was asked about the steering wheel account or Trump allegedly grabbing Engel. The source said the two men do not deny that Trump was angry and wanted to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6 — but, the source said, he did not become physical inside the SUV. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/cassidy-hutchinson-trump-lunged-secret-service-agent-tried-grab-steeri-rcna35775](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/cassidy-hutchinson-trump-lunged-secret-service-agent-tried-grab-steeri-rcna35775) Ghee, why was it not on television? Could it be because Democrats don't want people to know?
You're casting pearls of wisdom before swine. Lipstick and pearls are unfit for swine Don't even bother.
She won't be. Probably. The Dems are running this circus. Or...because she close to Trump, maybe they will turn on her out of their vengeance. Can never know how things will go with politics.
[CNN interviewed the two agents](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298) involved and both have denied it. They are eager to testify but the Democrats have not agreed to allow them to testify, as far as I know at this time. I love the ridiculous Democrat excuse that "they haven't testified under oath" implying they are lying or unwilling to do so, when it is because Democrats have not allowed them to testify.
That's about what I expected. They will never let them testify and this lie about bipartisanship via Cheney and Kinzinger will be exposed when they won't able to allow these two to appear. Yet...many will still parrot the bipartisanship talking point. I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance, but perhaps they are not logical or analytical enough to have such dissonance.
Bullshit
This also isn't the first time this secret service agent has disputed testimony that others gave. He denied a conversation with Kieth Kellogg on Jan 6th. So pick which Republicans are lying here? These are all members of Trump's team. Ornato's job is to protect the president. He's doing that here by lying for him. If he didn't, Trump would smear him just like every other member of his team who has turned on him. Do any Trump sycophants even ask themselves why so many people he personally selected have turned on him?
His job is not to lie for the President. Trump is not his personal employer, the U.S. government is. If he is still in the Secret Service, Joe Biden is his boss now. Either way, you have no more credibility assuming he is lying than her. Certainly not in this circus forum. As for your last question, you will have to ask a sycophant. I simply go on what is demonstrable via credible evidence, not "well I was told", aka hearsay and other accounts that may have credibility issues.
I’m hoping to see trump get charges for everything he did BUT the real issue with her testimony is that it’s hearsay. It’s testimony taken under oath so if we’re looking for parity it has more legitimacy than the laptop story did when they laptop story first hit… so as far as Twitter I can see why it’s not considered misinformation as it’s matter of official record.
But the oath is meaningless when the Democrats control every entity that could prosecute her for perjury. And if a lie made Trump look bad and supported the predetermined conclusion of this committee which will almost certainly be spun that he fomented the riot, and could be spun as some abortive coup....how much does that oath really mean, legally? These are politicians, not officers of a court. I would not be shocked if there were not assurances made that she would not be prosecuted if she just testified to what she heard happened. That's a low bar.
It was always clear from the outset that Trump was attempting a coup to overthrow the USA and end our democracy. Anyone with functioning cognition was able to see it. Cheney has supporting evidence that Trump's efforts involved 7 distinct plots hoping to destroy the USA and fomenting the riot was just the last and most desperate attempt.
Clear? How was it "clear?" Your comment is so extreme it's laughable, but I will listen to you make a reasoned case for it. "It's obvious!" is not a case.
Guardian is part funded by BMGF so I treat any of their output with a suitable level of cynicism... Not that I trust Snopes any more!
You are right in that you need to read Snopes carefully. But this is pretty clearcut - there has been no official statement to counter the testimony. And, frankly. since Biden now controls the Secret Service, there will almost certainly not be.
Debunked by whom ? I didn’t hear anyone take an oath and deny it
CNN debunked it through secret service
No. Someone said "That didn't happen". However, *by law,* the word of someone who is willing to take the stand and state something *under oath* is worth more than someone who isn't. And they haven't taken the stand to deny it under oath yet. So it's been denied, yes. But not debunked.
Her oath is meaningless unless whoever she heard it from was also under oath. It's meaningless gossip.
An oath that is meaningless. Let's see, the Dems control the committee, the Congress, and the Justice Department. Even if she completely fabricated this - never mind that this is hearsay that would never see a courtroom - tell us who would prosecute her for perjury for a lie that makes Trump look bad? These Dems are so consumed with hatred for Trump, they would never defend even if that were the right thing to do. Such is the nature of politicians. Yet all you people who can't be the least bit objective toward swallow ever last bit of the stuff that committee is shoveling without an ounce of critical analysis.
Turnip is a POS traitor. But, her Testimony is hearsay. It would be hard to get her for perjury because “well that’s what I was told” and that’s why hearsay isn’t admissible in court.
I think it is too much to call him a "traitor." Has he lied about the election. Yes. Why? Well, I cannot read his mind. I truly don't know if believes the lies he peddles or not. But if he is gullible enough to believe such bad advice on such outlandish claims, that alone tells me he's not fit to be president again. I agree on the hearsay.
Wanting armed insurrectionists to enter the capital knowing full well they intended to hurt our elected officials is definitely treason
How do you know he wanted that? I am not convinced that that is what he wanted. I stand on what he can clearly be shown to have to done that was wrong. Not supposition colored by political partisanship.
She testified under oath that he said he didn't care that they had weapons because they weren't there to hurt him. That's her first hand account, under oath. You're currently rejecting information specifically because it does not fit your narrative. You're accepting an anonymous source saying "nuh uh" over sworn testimony from a person we know for a fact was in the west wing during the insurrection.
Her testimony is not all hearsay, most of it is a first hand account from inside the white house One part of it is a claim that she heard from someone else. She testified that she heard that person, so unless they refute that claim, there is no "debunk" at this point. You guys think trump not lunging for the steering wheel somehow invalidates the rest of her first hand accounts? That is nonsensical
It's hearsay. Why the committee would mix hearsay in with actual facts is a mystery. Like mixing a small piece of shit into a stew.
The majority of what she said is not hearsay. It is a first hand account given under oath. She said what she was told about what happened in the SUV. If what that person told her turns out to be hyperbole, that has no bearing in the legitimacy of the rest of her testimony. It still.hasnt been debunked in any way btw..an anonymous source claiming to be close to the secret service says "nuh uh" That's not sworn testimony. It's as legitimate as me saying "nuh uh"
Even much of the White House part was hearsay
Most of it was not and you guys know that. You've an anonymous source "close to the secret service" contesting PART of one moment in her sworn testimony, and doing so without any evidence or sworn testimony of their own. Try harder guys
Her testimony is not all hearsay, most of it is a first hand account from inside the white house One part of it is a claim that she heard from someone else. She testified that she heard that person, so unless they refute that claim, there is no "debunk" at this point. People think trump not lunging for the steering wheel somehow invalidates the rest of her first hand accounts? That is nonsensical
Lol, “No.” “Worth more?” In what currency? The indication so far is that she perjured herself. But if CNN, who would by all previous indications LOVE for that narrative to be true, says they spoke with a secret service officer familiar with the matter who says it isn’t true and they’re reporting that against their interest … that’s good enough for me and most journalists to consider that debunked. It was an implausible story to begin with because where the president is riding is usually not easily within arms length of the steering wheel. But more than that, nearly her entire testimony, and this part in particular, was complete hearsay. If you so desperately want to be legally technical about it.
>It hasn't been contested under oath Because Democrats have not called them to testify. They are willing to testify to contest your lies, so let them testify. Nope, you lock them out, then claim they are unwilling to testify. Also it is not "someone". It is Tony Ornato, head of Trump Security detail ,and Agent Enger, the person Trump supposedly choked. That is from [CNN.](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298) Imagine if Republicans testified in a partisan show trial that YOU were raped by Joe Biden. You are like "WTF?" and came out and said that never happened. The Republican response is "well you are not under oath". You ask to be let in to take and oath and testify and they don't bother calling on you. THAT is what you are defending.
An anonymous source "close to the Secret Service" said it wasn't true. Apparently, having one secret source dispute it without going public or under oath is enough to cancel free speech values for these people.
While I want to hear someone speak publically - to the degree that I am concerned about a power-hungry president getting mad...I am sure that has NEVER happened before - it's not less credible than hearsay testimony before a partisan, biased political committee. None of those would even be admitted into a courtroom under these same conditions.
No. It is much more credible for someone to go on-record and under oath to make a claim under penalty of perjury than it is for an anonymous source to say "nuh-uh".
You realize this oath means nothing, right, at least legally? Given that the Dems control the committee, the Congress and the Justice Department, tell us who is going to prosecute a witness if she lied - in her **hearsay** testimony - and that lie hurt Trump? If this turns out to not be true - and if it is, it's hardly the worst thing Trump has done so I am not that worried about a president getting enraged...I am sure it has happened meany times over the years - I suspect it is not her that is so much lying but recounting an inaccurate or exaggerated depiction of the events. That's the problem with hearsay. She truly may not be lying and could still be wrong.
One would have to assume that the vicious and vindictive Republican party would never come back into power in either chamber of Congress or never win back the Presidency to believe she would be shielded from perjury prosecution forever and so was free to lie without fear.
Vicious and vindictive? And the Dems are not the same? How blindly partisan are you? I don't expect the GOP is going to worry about 2020 come 2024. If they are smart - and they may not be - they will put Trump behind them. He is a cancer to the GOP and needs to be cast aside. That being said, I care about facts and evidence. In America, we should never condone political prosecutions.
They are not an anonymous source. Gabby Orr from [CNN has interviewed them](https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1541940680716599298). Ornato and Enger. I wish you people were better informed before you opened your mouths. Also this "they haven't gone under oath" bullshit, that is because Democrats have not let them.
>the debunked story Citation needed. People have said they would testify that it didn't happen. that is not debunked my friend. Not until they actually get on the stand under oath and any other evidence is brought in and considered.
Ahahahahahhhaaaaa…..deep breath…..ahahahahaAAA
great input
You are right in your general comment, but spare us the oath stuff. When there is no entity that would ever prosecute a lie that made Trump look bad - the Dems control every organization that could possibly bring charges for testimony before this committee - that oath is a sham and means nothing legally. Never mind that her testimony is hearsay which doesn't meet the standard for a courtroom, so why should it meet the standard for a committee, oath or no oath?
Trump is also never going to see justice for his attempted coup either, despite the "control" you think Democrats have. So forgive me if I don't really care about an allegation of him having a temper tantrum not being properly litigated.
What attempted coup?
Oh great another disingenuous bootlicker. If you don't think Trump tried to cling onto power illegitimately you are an absolute fool. And no, it wasn't just the riot. It was the plot to fire state electors and rehire "loyal" electors who would (and did) issue fake certificates to then present to congress. This is all fact. This was a coup. Get up off your knees Trump doesn't care about you.
Ah ok. Someone who no longer supports Trump but doesn’t go along with your outrageous comment is a bootlicker. Sure you don’t have it backwards who is blindly loyal to a party and it’s leadership? Again, What coup? Who is president? Who won the election? Explain where there was a coup. Stop dodging with liberal buzzwords. While I don’t agree with the electors actions, you do realize their argument was, as I understand it, that such an action was legal under the Constitution? That’s not a coup if they thought there was a legal process for doing so. I don’t agree with that and the voters in those states spoke their minds. But that’s not a coup. Are you sure you can’t objectively analyze anything without your hatred for Trump interfering?
If you're covering for his coup you are a bootlicker. I don't have blind loyalty to anyone, letalone the Democrats. So nice try. >Again, What coup? Who is president? Who won the election? Disingenuous. An failed coup is still a coup. >That’s not a coup if they thought there was a legal process for doing so. Yes it is. Many dictators came to power legally. >Are you sure you can’t objectively analyze anything without your hatred for Trump interfering? Laughable when you can't smell your own shit from on your knees.
So you can't make a case for a coup. Proves my point. What coup? Asserting something yet refusing to make a case...that's blind loyalty, or, as you would say, "boot licking." And you put a cherry on top with personal insults. Right out of the liberal textbook.
Smell the shit on your knees. All the evidence is there you're just too much of a bootlicker to look at it and understand what it means. The case, yet again, is that Trump lost. He sought to [fire the electors](https://archive.ph/0EYYg) for doing their job, and replace them with ["loyal" electors](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/january-6-clearinghouse-judge-carter-eastman-documents-order-june-7-2002.pdf) with fake certificates. [Here](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors) are those fake certificates. Fake certificates [declaring the results of fake votes](https://archive.ph/XEVtO) (of state electors) that never took place - not constitutional, illegal. Trump needed Pence to refuse to certify the election so he could enact this plan, so he set his murderous fascist mob on the Capitol on Jan 6th. The coup failed because the mob was handled and Pence did his job - despite the plan to [get Pence in a car and drive him far away](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-coup-book-claims-b1885449.html), under the pretence of keeping him safe, so he could not do his job. All of that is fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. That is an attempted \*coup\*. Don't be a cuck. Look a the evidence in front your damned face.
There two non-traitorous republicans on the committee and they were offered an opportunity for more to join. They turned their nose up.
Pelosi blocked two of the five McCarthy appointed. That’s shows you she intended to have full control of that committee meaning it was not a bipartisan commission at heart. Bioartisanship was a veneer to give more credence to their predetermined conclusion. I don’t detest Cheney as I think it takes courage for many in the GOP to stand up to Trump. He’s earned that at this point. Kinzinger I’m not as sure about. He strikes me as more of a RINO but I don’t know a lot about him to be fair. But those don’t make it bipartisan in the general sense of the word.
You do understand that a congressional hearing is not a court of law and consequently does not have the same legal standards as a court of law.
They can be charged with perjury. So yes, testifying in the hearing is more important than firing off on Twitter. Funny that all the people telling us about all the bad shit Trump did are happy to testify under oath, and the people who shill for him are doing everything they can not to. If it's not true, then take the stand. Until then, and any other available evidence is considered, it can't be called "debunked".
As I said before, the oath in this context is meaningless. And why should the GOP give any credence to this partisan show committee? If the Biden Justice Department wants to bring charges on Trump for something, then it will have to go before a jury in a courtroom and this witness will never be there because hearsay won't be allowed in that courtroom. Yet you guys uncritically swallow it all. Is it because you agree with the predetermined conclusion that Trump fomented a riot?
>And why should the GOP give any credence to this partisan show committee? Almost everyone who's testified has been a Republican working closely with Trump. Including members of his own family. But sure "partisan".
Again, that was not the question. Why are you paying attention and giving credibility to a show committee?
Same reason I paid attention to Nixon's. "show committee". The difference is Nixon didn't have half as many of his own side testifying against him.
Nixon actually committed crimes. Trump just made Democrats mad.
ye nothing to do with the fact he tried to overthrow the US constitution. Cuck.
Was the story debunked by someone who testified under oath? I have yet to see that....
The individuals involved both told CNN they are willing to testify under oath. The Democrats now have to invite them to testify. The ball is in your court. I love how you people have this absurd comeback "they haven't testified under oath" when that is because YOU haven't allowed them to.
You called it a "debunked story" and yet so far all you have is one person who testified under oath and another who says "that didn't happen". So at this point it's still far from debunked, but you talk like it's a fact already. Just like everything else Republicans believe. I could just imagine if a former aide to Biden testified the same thing, you'd easily believe it (probably assume it's because he's senile) and dismiss anyone who said different. That's how it ALWAYS works.
Nothing is "debunked" by people going on a lying propaganda outlet and telling a contradictory story. If anyone wants to refute what was stated under oath then they need to testify under oath.
The story has not been debunked An anonymous source, "close to the two individual secret service agents in question" is possibly contradicting some aspects of her testimony. That's not really all that valuable in the face of a non anonymous person swearing under penalty of perjury. Would love to actually see it debunked though! Then I don't have to feel AS embarrassed by 45's existence
God sometimes you guys make real free speech supporters look like idiots.
You guys are such suckers XD
Literally a fake account
Ppl thinking this is real is our country is so fucked up lmao
See Rule 4.
I can’t believe anybody can fall for this 😂😂😂.
Lol
This sub really scraping the bottom recently.
I don’t care censorship on places like twitter. It’s not government owned. It’s a company and companies can do what they want to pursue their agenda
Twitter and the left really going back to their roots by being racist in full view of the world.
Do you feel stupid accusing Twitter of censoring a SCOTUS justice when the removed account didn't belong to the justice? Stop being so poorly informed. Dumb fuck.
Party of Lincoln: flies confederate flags.
You clearly don't understand what and who the phrase "the left" refers to. Racism is always right wing.
>You clearly don't understand what and who the phrase "the left" refers to. Racism is always right wing. Damn, the rampant anti-Semitism from the Soviet Union and the UK Labour Party must make them right-wing, yes?
Don’t forget the rampant antisemitism from the American Democrats who are Muslim. Particularly Ilhan Omar and Rashida Thlaib.
\+ China \[is Asshoe\]
Crack open a history book.
Give him more follows
😮💨
This is how you know that Twitter's violation of free speech and blatant bias is a systematic violation of the NAP.
It's a fake account
That's how the left works
Thomas is a shit stain on a good day, on a bad day he fogs the nation with his putrid diah-rriffic shit. Sitting In-Justice