Tags
Hearsay is, “1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor 2. Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.“
The Jan 6 congressional hearings on the protest irk me six ways past Sunday for a variety of reasons, but I’m just going to address one. It’s all hearsay. Watching our leaders lead us so poorly, worse yet, watching them legitimize or validate “hearsay” is like just pouring fuel on the fires of ignorance. It’s just an abomination.
We already have a huge problem with hearsay in this country, meaning every lunkhead on the intertoobz now thinks he is in possession of the “facts” and submitting “evidence.” This is why we can’t even talk to one another. This is why we can’t discuss important issues. This is why there is so much division and hatred and a powerful allergy to engaging in any critical thinking skills.
I am not in favor of the “reality based community” and being in “possession of the facts” in part because I’ve watched that play out on the internet and the science based community for so long, that I’ve now concluded it’s mostly a bunch of bunk. Total hogwash.
A good 95% of those who think they are “forming a rational opinion based exclusively on the facts,” are actually just repeating hearsay and being ruled by emotion and tribal loyalties. Or ruled by tribal resistance.
Not everyone is as pedantic as I am, but in truth none of us can really testify that the Earth is round without basing that on complete hearsay. You heard it from someone else and you formed an opinion. It’s not “bad” to form an opinion or to have a belief system, but it is “bad” to not have the intellectual humility needed to recognize that you are simply repeating what someone else has told you and you have now made an emotional investment in that version of reality.
That is true of 90% of the things we think we know. “Don’t believe everything you think.” A good chunk of what you think isn’t even your own!
It is okay to share opinions, to form conclusions, to hold tight to a set of assumptions, and even to be emotionally invested in them. The thing to keep in mind is that hearsay is, “inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.“
We then often proceed to whack one another over the head with what is really just inadmissible as evidence. So not facts, not evidence, not truth, not the “very definition of reality,” but simply emotionalized opinion at best, and gossip at worst.
We really need to learn to listen to what others have to say, for the sole purpose of understanding them. They may well be full of bunk, but the reason why we communicate is to understand another perspective, not to establish our personal dominion over reality and hoist our flag on the “truth.” To do so is to imply that you believe truth and to be so weak, so malleable, so unfixed, that it it is easily threatened by the opinions of others.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Your wonderful post here has reminded me of this bit from CS Lewis, “Surprised by Joy,” in the chapter “The Great Knock.”
I apologize for the lengthy quote, but it is so apropos of your point here that I can’t resist. I believe this episode with his teacher is what made CS Lewis the genius he turned out to be.
I began to ‘make conversation’ in the deplorable manner
which I had acquired at those evening parties and indeed
found increasingly necessary to use with my father. I said
I was surprised at the ‘scenery’ of Surrey; it was: much
‘wilder’ than I had expected.
‘Stop!’ shouted Kirk with a suddenness that made me
jump. ‘What do you mean by wildness and what grounds
had you for not expecting it?’
I replied I don’t know what, still ‘making conversation’.
As answer after answer was torn to shreds it at last dawned
upon me that he really wanted to know. He was not
making conversation, not joking, not snubbing me; he
wanted to know. I was stung into attempting a real
answer. A few passes sufficed to show that I had no clear
and distinct idea corresponding to the word ‘wildness’,
and that, in so far as I had any idea at all, ‘wildness’ was
a singularly inept word. ‘Do you not see, then,’ concluded.
the the Great Knock, ‘that your remark was meaningless?’
I prepared to sulk a little, assuming that the subject would
now be dropped. Never was I more mistaken in my life.
Having analysed my terms, Kirk was proceeding to deal
with my proposition as a whole. On what had I based
(but he pronounced it baized) my expectations about the
Flora and Geology of Surrey? Was it maps, or photo-
graphs, or books? I could produce none. It had, heaven
help me, never occurred to me that -what I called my
thoughts needed to be `baized’ on anything.
Kirk once more drew a conclusion — without the slightest sign of
emotion, but equally without the slightest concession to
what I thought good manners: ‘Do you not see, then, that
you had no right to have any opinion whatever on the
subject?’
LikeLiked by 4 people
That is awesome! What a wonderful quote. CS Lewis just captures the notion perfectly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
” They may well be full of bunk, but the reason why we communicate is to understand another perspective, not to establish our personal dominion over reality and hoist our flag on the “truth.” Unfortunately this is not true for most politicians! They ‘communicate’ to establish their personal power and wealth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point about the politicians! We are not politicians, but now days we often act as if we are and we sometimes treat one another as if our job was to knock them out of the election. It’s one thing to expose criminality, corruption, and blow the whistle on high offices, but the rest of us don’t need to be “exposed,” we need grace, fellowship, and a bit of acceptance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This happens better when people live life together, in person , but not so good in virtual reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hearsay! The bane of all (most) media today eh? Reminds me.
The Lord was speaking of the ‘corn of wheat,’ and we see there was ‘a voice from heaven…………..’ but some swear they heard thunder……….others heard ‘an angel,’ both were sure………. but both were wrong. No doubt the hearsay took off and had wings. Bad information. Wrong assumptions. Probably passed off over time as a ‘story.’ ‘My father’s father was there, his father was there, ‘they heard thunder.’ Uh, nnno. That’s hearsay.
It neither thundered, nor was it an angel who spoke in return. It was God the Father who said, ‘I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ Yeah, I can see how people could confuse thunder with a voice, even meaning well.
Give them credit, they heard ‘something.’ But strangely enough, we major in hearsay too because we are lazy investigators in getting to, and knowing the root. TRUTH is never hearsay, has no competitors, and does not care if we believe it or not.
The Lord pointed this out perfectly when standing tall before Pilate when asked ‘are you King of the Jews?’ What follows is timeless. ‘Sayest thou thus of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me……………….? Back to thunder……..Hearsay.
In other words, How did YOU arrive at asking this question? Let’s get real. Let’s get personal. Again, even the apostles dealt with hearsay, ‘some say you are Jeremiah, other John……………’ Ha, once more. “Who do YOU say that I am………….’
So scripture is always relevant, on time, and meets and exceeds our needs to know. Wrap this with media. They are sure. Mostly surely wrong. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great point, Colorstorm. Sometimes we hear things differently and sometimes our perceptions color our observations. I remember once my hubby barely whispered something to the kids and they all started complaining about how dad was yelling at them. He certainly could yell, but this was not that, so it just made me laugh.
I also like in the Bible how God says, “Who told you you were naked?” He knows right away these are not His words, not His kid’s words, they got this information from someone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, couple your idea of hearsay with some
points re. ‘science,’ and yikes, you would swear there would be agreement everywhere, everytime.
I read the other day that ‘science’ now alleges the earth’s ‘spin’ slowed/gained .ooo45 sec. or some fanciful notion, but they at least admitted their ‘theory’ gave them the idea. Yeah, these ‘arbiters of truth’ sit around tables and dictate what is true. So made me laugh.
What’s settled yesterday is tomorrow’s lie. Dam hearsay….. lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Recently I tried to talk to someone who assured me I was an idiot because “this is 5th grade science.” It was indeed, some 47 years ago, “science,” and it was also tailored for children’s understanding. It’s not that I am an idiot so much as that your own understanding comes from a children’s text book written more than half a century ago, and seen through a child’s eyes. There have since been some updates. Also, 9th grade “science” is still waiting for you to discover it!
And sheesh, way back in the day we were also spraying kids down with DDT thinking it would kill polio and selling people Radium bug spray that actually glowed in the dark. Oops.
I never said any of those things, but I was sure thinking them. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some ‘updates.’ Too funny.
Love me that dogmatic science that will change in a week. On top of that YOU are the fool who questions/ challenges the science guys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Truth is what every man sees lurking at the bottom of his own soul, like the oyster shell housewives put in the kitchen kettle to collect the lime from the water. By and by each man’s iridescent oyster shell of Truth becomes coated with the lime of prejudice and hearsay.”
Christopher Morley
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, good one! I actually remember the oyster shell in the tea kettles. I haven’t heard of that one in years. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bringing it back to ourselves, and perhaps a bit “dangerously” I might add, how much do we as Christians believe by “hearsay” alone? Is hearsay always a bad source for Truth? Honest questions for the room. – Barabbas
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a really good question! One thing we do in faith is testify. We tell our testimonies. That is based on our personal experiences and what we have witnessed. It really is, “admissible as evidence.” You are speaking for yourself in the first person. You are giving an account.
Somebody smart once said “if you can be talked into faith, you can be talked out of it.” We all need to experience God on a personal level of some sort and not just intellectually or based on someone else’s faith.
Hearsay is not always a “bad” source at all! A good chunk of our lives are lived on hearsay. I don’t have to fall off a cliff to know the landing is not going to be good. I just take other people’s word for it. True too of the good stuff, if a bunch of wise people are telling you this works, might be worth taking their word for it and giving it a try.
LikeLike
“I’ve watched that play out on the internet and the science based community for so long, that I’ve now concluded it’s mostly a bunch of bunk. Total hogwash.”
Hearsay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! No, not hearsay on account of the fact that I have seen it with my own eyes and am I willing to be cross examined. That means I am testifying to the fact that I’ve personally witnessed a bunch of hogwash and bunk going down. There are links and documents that support what I am saying, too.
LikeLike
Hmmm… doesn’t the J.6th Committee say that as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. It’s all hearsay. Almost none of it would be allowed in a real court of law. Also, there is no cross examination allowed. “Evidence” that cannot be verified by cross examination is inadmissible.
LikeLike
1. Sworn testimony can be considered evidence. Especially corroborative sworn testimony. Hearsay is hearsay until corroborative testimony may add credence and credibility… especially as to intent.
2. Witness testimony provided thus far has been entirely from the proverbial “inner circle” (Trump Republicans) that were loyal enough to have stayed with him up until the end (or near end)… in the end preferring to testify.
3. Rebuttal witness testimony could have easily been provided along the way from current witnesses. Those called to testify who have had strong objections to the Jan. 6 Committee and testimony offered thus far have refused subpoenas to testify… claiming all kinds of legal roadblocks to do so. If they have something to offer to rebut then why not say it?
4. The Committee is NOT a court of law, but does recommend to the DOJ as evidence may dictate. In the end it’s still up to the DOJ to indict. If the DOJ does indict anyone, the accused do get their day in court.
5. There’s been something like 884 indictments for the Jan. 6th event… many being accused of insurrection related charges.
I am not saying a damn thing here that’s news to anyone. Yet, the Right still brings up lame deflective issues about Pelosi turning down Trump National Guard help (turns out Trump never called them anyway.. in spite of the fact that Pelosi is not in charge of Capitol security), Hunter Biden (for gun charges and tax issues?), BLM riots.
Ah well.. it’s all hearsay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug, you cannot “testify” to what someone else told you happened. Also, it is not considered “evidence” when there is no cross examination allowed. Also, you have a right to face your accusers. What is happening is a travesty of justice, a mockery of our legal system, and worse than the behavior one would find in a banana republic. This is not fact finding at all, it is pure propaganda and show boating.
LikeLike
What are you not understanding that a Congressional committee is not a court of law? (More to the point, did you not read my reply above for comprehension?) Like the impeachment process, anything done by Congress is political in nature. You’re miffed simply because the Committee is getting the media coverage and affecting public opinion. Again.. who is even offering to testify any sort of rebuttal?
LikeLike
I’ve written an entire post explaining exactly what hearsay is and why I am miffed. I’ve also replied to your comments several times to elaborate more. One does “offer to testify a rebuttal,” one cross examines a witness who has already spoken. If you cannot question the witnesses, there is no cross examination happening. If there is no cross examination allowed, then they are not witnesses, not testifying, and this is not evidence. You yourself have just stated this is not a court of law! Therefore, this is not testimony and not evidence. So it is all hearsay and completely inadmissible as evidence.
Public opinion is ALREADY affected by this rubbish. I stated that the internet is already plumb full of lunkheads who don’t know the difference between evidence and hearsay. We need to learn the difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will agree.. the internet is full of lunkheads. 🙂
LikeLike
Funny asymmetry regarding “hearsay.” In this video of a law professor explaining why you should never ever ever EVER talk to the police, he says what we all know from TV, anything we say can and sure as heck will be used against us, the opposite is not true: Nothing we say can possibly be allowed to help us because it will be considered hearsay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, nothing you don’t say can certainly not be used against you… but it might affect public opinion against you in that your silence can be a perception of guilt.
LikeLike
Ha! No Doug. You are completely missing the point of those videos, which are quite true even in their humor. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Anything you say that might help to establish your innocence will also not be used in your favor, because once you’ve said it, it just becomes hearsay. So always button your lip around cops and exercise your rights, especially your right to an attorney who will tell you the same darn thing.
LikeLike
In my next life I am coming back as a bi-sexual, and a lawyer. I will have a guaranteed income, and anyone I want from either side of the fence. Enjoy all worlds.
LikeLike
“So always button your lip around cops and exercise your rights, especially your right to an attorney who will tell you the same darn thing. ”
Half the job of defense counsel is convincing the client to STFU. Maybe 90%.
LikeLike
“Well, nothing you don’t say can certainly not be used against you… but it might affect public opinion against you in that your silence can be a perception of guilt.”
Sure, saying nothing at all will not stop idle speculation, but the professor’s point was that saying something gives your enemies more to work with than giving them nothing does.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Doug/
If in fact Mr. Biden received more votes via computer manipulation and a whole host of questionable tallies, then perhaps the small rage at the Capitol were voices who have had it with scam govts.
Per today, and Biden’s miserable record, is it conceivable that he realistically received more votes? Seems the evidence to suggest otherwise is scrapped.
But I do like -22’s responses to you. The lop sided ‘testimonies’ with no one to cross- is telling.
LikeLike
“The lop sided ‘testimonies’ with no one to cross- is telling.”
And.. what is it telling you?
LikeLike
Put Trey Gowdy in that room. That will tell you.
LikeLike
You could put Perry Mason in that room and it wouldn’t change a thing.
LikeLike
Clever.
So pertinent information would be irrelevant? Ok.
LikeLike
If Trey had information regarding Jan. 6 then he should submit it to the Committee. I’m not seeing that he was even there at the time… nor am I aware that he was in the White House with Trump’s inner circle, so does that mean that anything he would have to say would be his hearsay?
LikeLike
Now you are getting to the heart of the matter.
But I have no idea what he knows- just a reference to someone relevant who has a spine.
LikeLike
Ahh.. ok. Well… having a spine, courage, a moral conviction for truth, does seem rare in D.C… and in politics in general. I agree there. As that fellow once said, democracy can be messy at times.
LikeLike
A commission is not a court of law, so no cross-examination. You do know that, don’t you? If criminal charges are brought, then we enter the court system. This is an exercise in finding the “truth.”
That being said, McCarthy was offered the opportunity to have equal number of people on the commission.
He said No.
But there are still Republicans there.
LikeLike
Hehehe.. I like this fellow. 🙂
LikeLike
One good thing about growing up in the home I did I learned that my mother would believe anyone over me, as would my sister, brother, and stepdad I wasn’t a child prone to lying either. My mom was like “Well why would they lie?” well why wouldn’t they lie? So this created in me a person that believes virtually no one. Hearsay was always in my life someone telling my mom they heard I did this, that, or the other.
As for the medical field I don’t trust them any further than I could throw the lot of them. I was told for years take the flu shot and you won’t get the flu. The second time I had pneumonia and sepsis in 2015 was because of the flu. I had gotten the flu shot three weeks prior which was long enough to be effective. The doctor said “Oh you must have gotten a strain the shot didn’t cover.” I haven’t taken one since and I haven’t gotten the flu since. Then my former pain doctor wanted to do a radio frequency ablation which is burning nerves to reduce or eliminate pain for a period of time. So he burnt the wrong nerve causing severe pain in my scalp which still hurts 3 years later when I brush my hair and I still had the pain in my neck I started with.
I am at a point in my life if someone says to me I heard I stop them and tell them I don’t want to hear it. I have had so much hearsay and rumors spread about me in my life I have no room in my life to listen to it being done to others. If I don’t hear it from the horses mouth I don’t want to hear it at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You make a really good point. I wouldn’t wish that kind of emotional abuse on anyone, but it does open your eyes as to the nature of hearsay, and God gives you some real pearls, some beauty for all those ashes.
I once tried to tell some people their car was on fire and they were like, “no it’s not, you’re such a liar.” I was so used to not being believed, I just said, “okay,” and walked away. So it just burned up. I was about 7 at the time.
To this day my mother will believe anyone and everyone before she will believe me. I finally had to get rid of my landline because she would answer the phone and just give the nice, sweet phone scammers, whatever information she possibly could, because I am completely wrong about their motivations and intentions. At least she is elderly and her behavior is more comical today, rather than painful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are right about that IB God sure does give us pearls for our pain and open our eyes to the nature of hearsay. I feel the beauty that came out of it for me was being able to read people not perfectly, but well enough I can usually avoid most of that mess now.
I can totally relate and to giggle a little at your response of “okay” because that is how I would have responded too. People always think kids are liars and I never understood that when kids can often be painfully honest. I wonder if they believed the next kid that came along, but probably not. If they had known where you lived they probably would have accused you of setting it on fire.
My mom passed away when I was 25 years old, but had she lived until now she would have been like that too. When I was growing up I collected stray animals she collected stray people and let me tell you the animals were by far more trustworthy than any of the people she brought home and allowed to stay in our house without paying a dime then would steal from her and she never learned. They were always men which put her two teenage daughters in danger, but she never seemed to notice that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arrrgg, our mothers sound very similar! Mine was so self consumed about her own alleged virtue, she was simply unable to consider the safety and well being of her own children. So we kids became the bad guys who were allegedly greedy, selfish, judgmental, and just didn’t appreciate how good she was. Many times we kids went without food because she had given all our money away to “help someone out,” which usually meant to help them buy drugs. And yes, absolutely everybody she befriended was not safe to have around children.
I can sometimes joke today with my own kids about it, if your grandma thinks someone is really awesome, you need to dump them, change your phone number, and move. Don’t even question it, just trust me on this. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, yes they do sound very similar my mom’s drug of choice was alcohol and we were one welfare so when my mom picked up her monthly allotment my sister would make her hand over the cash for bills and the food stamps which was a whole $80 my sister bought our food and paid the bills my mom took whatever was left over and spent it getting drunk and buying drinks for her “friends” while we spent days and nights alone when she had money and under her wrath when she didn’t. I was tasked with doing all of the housework when I turned 11 years old. Our mom treated us like yours treated you and we ran out of food all the time because she was also feeding two or three other adults she had drug home.
Since my mom died when my kids were literally toddlers I held off on telling them about their grandmother except basic things, but I have started telling them now that I am older. They are shocked of course, but I want them to understand the truth of my past and why I am the person I am because my quirks didn’t come from out of thin air.
Yes, if my mom thought someone was awesome you needed to do the same cause the kind of people she brought home were scary.
The sad thing is my sister though the drugs she takes are legal her doctor has tried to get her to cut back and she throws a fit which tells me she is addicted though she denies it of course. She has neurostimulator that actually kills the majority of her pain. I stopped taking opioids more than three years ago and it was not a picnic, but I have never had an addictive personality and I knew when it was time to stop that mess thanks to God.My sister I am afraid fell into that and all I can do is pray for her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re really turning into a culture where Consensus defines Reality. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, and Right and Wrong are whatever the Official Narrative says they are. Of course, this puts enormous power into the hands of Interests who control what the ‘narrative’ is. Like Huxley predicted too, the same interests promote narcotics and mindless distractions as a ‘safety valve’ to keep the population loving their servitude. And like Orwell predicted, there’s also a jackbooted Security State ready to pounce on anybody who doesn’t take the Narrative as truth. Heck, we could even include Bradbury’s ‘Fahrenheit 451’ in the mix, with the cultural destruction of moments and cancel culture of our literature. It’s like the Elites read all of those dystopian novels, analyzed them, and picked features they liked from all of them.
LikeLike
Exactly what I’ve been thinking–glad you wrote it because you did a much better job than I could have!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who would you like to appear before the commission?
LikeLike
If we’re going to pretend this is an investigation or some kind of fact finding, then we need to be able to cross examine those who have already given statements. It’s not that they necessarily need more people to present their opinions, it’s that there is no defense, no way to cross examine anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not what I asked, Inanity.
You’re whining about hearsay (although most are actually first-hand witnesses, like Pat Cipollone), so I assume you have a list of people who you really, really, really WANT to front up and explain themselves…
Right?
How about Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, Christopher Liddell, Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, Kash Patel, Stephen Bannon, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Roger Stone, Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks, Kimberly Guilfoyle, or how about Donald J. Trump himself?
Strange… all these people (and more) have been asked to appear but REFUSED to volunteer themselves and/or the “first-hand” information they have.
Odd, huh?
I’m sure they’ll all appear. After all, the innocent don’t run and hide like frightened mice, right? They turn up and they answer questions… Like Clinton did for eleven straight hours.
And now we know hundreds (if not thousands) of text and emails from the 5th, the 6th, and the 7th of Jan were deleted not only by the Secret Service (all the agents being on Trump’s personal detail), but also from the devices and computers of Trump officials inserted in the DHS and the Pentagon in the final months of his admin.
How strange. Thousands of text messages and emails… erased.
What do you think it is they don’t want you to see?
Anyway, do please answer the question: As you’re whining about (apparent) hearsay), then who would you like to see appear before the commission to straighten things out?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Zande, are you one of those Demonic Rats who pretends not to know what a woman is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m Australian.
If you also think there’s nothing but “hearsay” going on, who would you like to see appear before the commission to set things straight?
Anyone in particular? Mark Meadows or Jeff Clark, perhaps?
LikeLike
“I’m Australian.”
At least you’re not Canadian, eh?
Have you learned how to speak Chinese yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the greater question is have the Quebecians forced the Canadian Asians to learn French yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You didn’t answer the question.
If you also think there’s nothing but “hearsay” going on, who would you like to see appear before the commission to set things straight?
Anyone in particular? Mark Meadows or Jeff Clark, perhaps?
LikeLike
I would like to see James Comey and Andrew McCabe and Christopher Wray and Hillary Clinton appear to testify to a Congressional committee. I would ask them what they know about James Forrestal, Vince Foster, Seth Rich, Mark Middleton, Admiral Boorda, Ron Brown, Andrew Breitbart, and a whole bunch of other dead people that I bet they know a lot about. I bet they know a lot about President Kennedy as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You still haven’t answered the question…
LikeLike
I did answer your stupid question, doofus. I want important things investigated, I’m not interested in political theater. Of course, you kangaroo boffers down there in Oz wouldn’t understand that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you didn’t answer the question put to you.
Have a nice day. You’re making the US look really great.
LikeLike
Oh I dunno.. sounds like he has a better understanding than many Americans do.
LikeLike
hi john, trust u are well. But ‘Commission.’ Ha! Reminds me. Off topic, but not really.
WE read: ‘Cyril Wecht continues to challenge Warren Commission in …https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com › cyril-wecht-c…
Jan 3, 2022 — In his quest to refute the Warren Commission’s findings, Wecht has been called a conspiracy theorist and regarded as a rejecter of government ..’..
Noted Democrat, and illustrious forensic pathologist who has no equal, and coroner most of his life- truly a famed man in the best sense of the word, has tripled down and still challenges the fraudulent ‘findings’ re. the JFK assass. in the ‘commission.’ But note jz, he has been called a ‘conspiracist.’ THAT is comical. Listen to ANY of his lectures on the subject, and if you are honest, will walk away that the plot has yet to be uncovered, which btw began immediately when the person selected to do the autopsy NEVER, NO NAE NEVER. performed an autopsy involving a bullet. Wecht shreds the findings as incoherent, damaging, wrong, which leads to further wrong conclusions, and likens the stupid lab work to sending for a plumber when you need a new spark plug in your car. The man is brilliant.
So commission? Eh, tons of baggage and agendas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi CS
Who would you like to see appear to give their testimony as to what happened? Meadows or Clark, perhaps?
LikeLike
Seems we are asking the wrong questions. IF, like Dr. Wecht proves, evidence was hidden, tampered with, hidden, and the EVIDENCE here was illegitimate, why are people surprised when Joe american rises up in protest against govt abuse?
And WHY was an American woman who was unarmed, shot and killed who posed no threat? Yep, wrong questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And WHY was an American woman who was unarmed, shot and killed who posed no threat? Yep, wrong questions.”
1. We are damned lucky the entire affair didn’t turn into a bloodbath given every one of those Capitol officers would have been justified in trying to save their own lives in shooting the people around them. I shudder to think the outcome had the mob been primarily black.
2. Posed no threat? Depends how one interprets that. That last door where she broke the glass was very likely an established defensive perimeter.. given there were guns reported being in the mob… not to mention the screams for Pelosi and Pence’s heads. She broke the glass to attempt entry and got killed.
3. She is not a victim here given she placed herself in this jeopardy and does bear a moral responsibility… as well as violating the law in destruction of property during an attempt to disrupt a government process.
Now.. you can question some sort of the usual “cover up” conspiracy because the officer who killed her was exonerated, all you want given the Right doesn’t believe in any governmental institutions these days. That incident alone does not define the entire event.
LikeLike
Think of a ‘mob’ doug at a concert where thousands of people put others at risk simply by being there. There was no ‘intentional’ act by the woman here. You can’t assume she was killed because she was going to ‘kill’ someone. That is sloppy police work, but more.
Back up. Why was security detail refused ahead of this??? What kind of Keystone cops were working?
But your ‘govt process’ assumes no corruption by they who count votes…………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, golly. The Great Divide.
LikeLike
I believe the entire proceeding is fraudulent and therefore no one should agree to appear. If one cannot cross examine “witnesses,” than anything people might say is simply hearsay.
We’ve made a similar mistake in the past with McCarthyism, the red scare, and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Congress illegally went hunting commies, primarily those from the left side of the aisle. That’s why we try to uphold the nature and intent of the law, the structure of the system, so corruption and injustice does not swing around and target us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inanity, you’re not dumb.
A commission is not a court of law. McCarthy was given the opportunity to have EQUAL number of his people on the committee. He refused… so your claim of fraud is nonsense, and you know it.
But, here you are whining about “hearsay” and yet you don’t seem to know who you’d like to testify.
It’s actually a very easy question to answer if you really were presenting a valid argument. Meadows, Clark, and Eastman, for starters, right? What about Donald J. Trump himself? I mean, if they were denied the chance to present their stories then you’d really have something.
But you’re not making a valid argument, are you.
You’re just making noise… and you know you are.
LikeLike
I would like no one to “testify,” since one can only “testify” in a legal proceeding that allows for cross examination.
You yourself have said “a commission is not a court of law.” Therefore what is going on has absolutely nothing to do with presenting “evidence” or “testifying.”
LikeLike
You don’t seem to understand what “evidence” is.
Stop making stupid noise, Inanity. It’s pathetic. You’re much smarter than this.
LikeLike
I clearly do understand what evidence is. There are numerous Supreme Court rulings that agree and affirm exactly what I am saying.
LikeLike
Do you think Jeff Clark or Mark Meadows could provide the United States evidence for the happenings on and around January 6th?
LikeLike
A congressional committee that is not a legal proceeding (by your own admission) and does not allow for cross examination, cannot receive or present “evidence.”
LikeLike
And there it is.
You’re not interested in evidence. You don’t want the ‘people-who-know-everything’ to speak under oath in front of the people the United States. You’re utterly terrified of what someone like Jeff Clark would say… under oath.
Just be honest for once in your life: You want a cover-up. Say it. Own it. Be truthful. Say you’re happy thousands of critical emails and texts were illegally erased from devices to cover-up and hide the (thankfully incompetent and half-cocked) coup attempt. Say the WH deleting all call and visitor logs from the 6th is awesome.
LikeLike
You should not get yourself so worked up, John. It’s not good for your blood pressure. Go get some sunshine, walk the dogs. Our slow march towards fascism will still be here when you come back. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, and Inanity, as you seem to lack even the basics of knowledge concerning the power of your Congress and its investigative powers: Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court:
LikeLike
Brilliant as always!
LikeLike