you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You linked to the hearsay testimony...

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yes this was in the whistle blower report

Show me what you mean, then.

I believe I have linked and reviewed all such reports, including the original in-person congressional testimony from the mouths of the quoted parties which is quite literally the opposite of hearsay, you moron

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Morons like hearsay over the actual report.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

SoCo you keep saying hearsay, do you actually know what the word means?

It means an "out of court" statement by a party not under oath.

I have linked to the in-committee testimony from the sworn-in parties, their direct testimony.

That is not hearsay. I am struggling to understand what you think is happening here.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is not what hearsay means....omg

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Be careful not to reply with any specifics SoCo, because then everyone would see you're talking out your ass

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Hearsay has very specific meanings in legal proceedings....but even in general terms, it has a specific meaning. This isn't some vague debatable thing you can troll an argument out of to hide that you are wrong about such a basic thing.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Okay SoCo so what is the specific meaning you're using here?

Remember, dipshit, how I already linked the primary source sworn testimony.

Now explain to us how the REAL definition of "hearsay" known to you, shows that I only linked to hearsay.

Explain yourself shitbird

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There is only one meaning of the word. Like I said, there is nothing to troll an argument about.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

SoCo I think you are partially retarded so I will take this very slowly with you.

  1. OP told some lies

  2. I showed they were lies with links including to the primary evidence of sworn testimony, in session, from the named parties

  3. You said that actually I was "attacking hear say" (no, I wasnt, it was the in-session sworn testimony)

  4. You told me that I "linked to the hearsay testimony" (no, I didnt, because a person's words are not "hearsay" when spoken in-person to the committee chair after being sworn in)

  5. You said morons like "hearsay over the actual report" (no, dipshit, I linked to the primary source documents)

  6. You said "omg", hearsay doesn't mean in-court testimony (but never explained what the word means in your retarded telling)

You're a retard. Sorry to have to reveal it to you.

At no point have you taken the requisite six seconds out of your day to explain what you're getting at.

And that's for good reason. You literally don't have a clue. You seem to have the reasoning of a child. I gave you chance after chance to explain what you were getting at, and you shit your pants instead.

Go fuck yourself retard. Stop complaining that I am using words wrong. I didn't, and you did.

Steve Friend did not reveal that FBI leaders are paid to inflate the number of domestic extremism cases. That's a flat out lie which I have debunked. You could have told us why you think it's not a lie, but actually you don't have anything opinions worth sharing about that topic on account of your retardedness.

Prove me wrong dipshit