you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You seem upset and still to be pointing towards what someone person said in trial. It's okay, you were mislead by a flood of manipulation propaganda meant to confuse the public. This is how they've been subverting democracy for the last 20+ years. Before, they crafted the manipulation with think tanks and test audiences, but since about 25 years ago they've been using an ever improving AI to craft it.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not a trial. But a congressional committee.

Which is not quite a trial, but it CAN issue subpoenas like trials, it CAN hold people in contempt like trials, it CAN perjure people like a trial, and it CAN have the concept of hearsay just like a trial.

Actually it's you who is confused.

I won't pretend it's due to society or AI or propaganda - you're confused because of your status as a genetic retard. That's quite clear from this conversation.

A normal person would have said: "my, that is, SoCo's, understanding of hearsay is XYZ, and you, that is, site_rly_sux have actually engaged in a fallacy ABC and therefore the FBI section leaders were paid to inflate domestic extremism cases"

You weren't able to produce an argument like that, on account of your aforementioned status as a genetic retard. It's NOT society, it's NOT propaganda or AI, it's NOT think-tanks, it's you being a dipshit

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

just more empty arguing toll bait...zzzz