Bill Barr, Sean Hannity, Mark Meadows? All Liberal hacks? Trumps head election lawyer? The Data analysis for the campaign?
First day of hearings is over.....
- Thread starter PostmodernProphet
- Start date
Bill Barr, Sean Hannity, Mark Meadows? All Liberal hacks? Trumps head election lawyer? The Data analysis for the campaign?
You are in very deep, but I guess it depends on how you define bi-partisan. Generally when a committee is made up of people from two parties, it is called bipartisan.
She wouldn’t seat Jordan, who is a clown, they gave McCarthy other options. Jordan may well be part of the inquiry. Pelosi was right to reject anyone involved in the coup. McCarthy refused to add other members to the roster. Cheney and Kinszinger volunteered because they place country over party.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018...the-jan-6-panel-citing-integrity-of-the-probe
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I thought IT was when Trump was convicted. So if IT finally did happen what’s the point of rehashing old news? A desperate attempt to mitigate what will happen in November?
The committee all political hacks presenting "information" that presents their view of the events without regard to the truth as evinced by the dismissal of folks from the committee who held a different opinion on the events than the ones held by the partisan Speaker of the House.
Pretending that Hannity speaking before the committee was both his choice and covered what he would say was his opinion on the subject is silly.
The committee itself is political theater, you and I both know it. Most of America knows it and IMHO that is likely why it will not work the way the left thinks it will.
Also they used almost exclusively Republicans to present their point that Trump knew or should have known that he had lost.
Trying to remain in office after your term, when you knew or should have known you lost is criminal.
LOL. They "gave" McCarthy "other options" that they would find acceptable. And you pretend that isn't partisan. Seriously. They wanted some folks on there that would help actually find a measure of truth instead of support the line that Pelosi wanted to push, she rejected it. Why play a part in her political theater?
Presenting Hannity's testimony as a trusted advisor to the president.. to prove what the president should have known is valid.
But you left out Bill Barr, and Mark Meadows and Ivanka. Oh, and the top election lawyer assigned to fraud and the data analysis from one of the best in the field.
Still part of the political theater. They presented edited video of folks that were called before the committee and presented it exactly the way they believe would aid their political cause in November. Not one piece of "new information" that they promised us appeared. Not even a little bit of it.
This isn’t on Pelosi, McCarthy had other options, but he refused to seat anyone else, took his ball and went home. It was a stupid decision on his part. It’s not political theater, that’s GOP talking points.
Just because you do not like the messenger does not automatically make the message untrue.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Seems you agree this isn’t going anywhere. Although I don’t find it interesting since it’s just a rehash of what we already knew. At least I did. Maybe the replay helps soothe your angst about Brandon’s poor ratings. And that’s ok.
It is what is done in trials, they don’t show the whole deposition of witnesses. You make it sound like a dishonest practice, when it isn’t.
I guess you did not watch or see what was presented. Just because you do not like the messenger does not make the message flawed.
Its not new information that Ivanka knew they had lost?
Its not new that Trumps own Attorney General told him the fraud was "bull shit"?
Even so, why would it have to be new? Presenting the case to the American people is putting it all together in a clear way. Not hodge podge like it was discovered by the media over the past 18 months.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Can you share that with us?
Of course opening statements mean little. Look up Thomas Binger’s in WI v Rittenhouse where he outright lied.
LOL. If this was the case there would have been no need to reject folks from the committee that held a different view of the events. The truth was not the goal of this committee, this was, is, and has been political theater. You can really tell when they schedule the "last hearing" just before ballots start arriving for the November election.
It is my humble opinion that the vast majority of America will not be swayed by this political theater. Mostly because we have already heard everything they will present during the past 1.5 years.
The reality needs to be on record, its the aftermath so its clear and firm what happened.
The goal of a report from a congressional committee is to show the reality. There is nowhere else to go. Now if Justice decides to do anything with the information, that they clearly already have, that would be a different story. Where would this GO?