 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
My problem with the Democrat-produced Jan 6th Show is that it is unbalanced and one-sided. A serious inquiry would expose all the evidence and open it to critical scrutiny and cross examination in an adversarial system that is essential to fact finding.
This is not a real hearing. It is an entertainment show that is one-sided, does not release all testimony to the public, and hides the evidence except for the most salacious or damning cherry-picked details guaranteed to titillate and outrage.
Case in point:
Have you heard the one about how President Trump raged on the day of his big speech?
Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson recounted her gripping tale of that day. It all sounds plausible and in-character for El Donaldo. We are led to believe this was "Breaking News!" when actually, this was at least her fifth time testifying before the panel. Yes, she had told them all this already, but the producers wanted her dramatic retelling on prime time.
Did you hear how a raging Trump grabbed the wheel of his vehicle and assaulted a Secret Service Agent?
One problem. We find out Hutchinson did not provide eye-witness testimony. She was recounting what someone told her. That is called hearsay, and the Secret Service is saying the incident in the vehicle never happened.
Democrats could do a real public service and explore the question of which is funnier: An angry President Trump throwing ketchup-laden cheeseburgers at the wall, or an enraged Hellary on her losing election night heaving a sheet cake at the giant flat screen TV.
Democrats are not providing us a serious Watergate or Iran Contra Hearing. This is a National Enquirer style political propaganda mini-series.
See also:
See also:
If only those damned Deep State Secret Service members were as gullible as Trump Loser rally participants. Trump could have been there to catch bullets for Ashli Babbitt.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans have chosen to be beclowned. Beclowned they shall be.
I think you missed the point, but thanks for the foaming rant.
DeleteThe point is what? That clowns are being beclowned on national tee-vee and you're so mad about it that you forgot Trump endorsed the National Enquirer and wanted them to win a Pulitzer Prize.
DeleteKeep polishing that turd. You'll shine it up yet.
"It's a Stalinist Show Trial and we'll purge anyone that participates in it!"
DeleteThis is the political equivalent of midget wrestlers shaking their fist at Andre the Giant. We're here to see the midgets get flung around.
Slow down, scooter. I think the Democrats are doing the Republicans a big favor.
DeleteWhile their talk of crimes and indictments is overblown propaganda, if this exposes to people just how unhinged all this was, it could end up pushing Trump off the stage.
Here in Colorado, the entire slate of Trump/MAGA GOOP primary candidates lost. The GOOPers who won still won't beat the Democrats, but this is a snapshot of where the Repubelicons are.
I understand the whole Netflix series approach in this era of short attention spans, put cherry-picking tasty little tidbits from hours of testimony and not having a cross-examination and adversarial process is transparently biased propaganda. It's a foolish gambit that puts it all their work under a cloud of suspicion, especially in light of the whole confected "Russiagate" BS.
If what they are presenting is solid and true, they should submit it to proper scrutiny, and that would convince even more people.
Nancy Pelosi rejected all the serious investigation Republicans and replaced them Never-Trumper shills. The credibility of the Committee as a serious investigative body left the building LONG ago.
DeleteAnd in Trump's impeachment trials (both of them) most of the Republican Senators pretended like they didn't hear Trump's arms-for-political dirt pitch to Zelenskyy and Trump's incitement to "tourism by Antifa dressed as MAGAbots." Credibility? The Republican Party doesn't even know why the Jewish orbital lasers burned that forest down.
DeleteLots of midgets will be tossed. It will be glorious.
Hey, why should the Defense get attorney representation at a trial? Just ship the accused off to the gulag where he belongs.
DeleteShow me a grand jury hearing anywhere in America where the defense participated. I'll wait.
DeleteThe J6 committee will pass its "true bill" to prosecutors at the Justice Department.
They're not going to charge Trump with throwing food from his high chair.
Just be happy the Democratic Party opposes the death penalty. Maybe someone will ghost write the Gulag Mar-A-Lago for him.
DeleteTrump trying to write his own book from prison will be hard enough without the Sharpie pen on toilet paper hurdle.
DeleteThe Congress is a grand jury? Who knew?
DeleteI thought that they were the Legislature.
DeleteWhat law were they working on? The "No Trump in 2024" one?
DeleteWhy don't they just write it and vote on it? Are they afraid of missing a comma in the text?
DeleteSpare me the "pretend to be stupid" turn,. This is no different than any other select committee Congress has created, usually formed to investigate a matter and propose solutions, and yes, possibly legislation. In this case, how some in the Trump administration violated ethics or outright broke the law to attempt to remain in power. Maybe they'll name the provisions they come up with something awesome like the Ashli Babbitt Died As A Delusional Idiot Act, that will be a companion to securing federal buildings and of course shut down Trump's "coup looking for a legal theory" nonsense. This investigative committee does have the power to refer criminal evidence to prosecutors, as all select committee from the founding of this nation on up to the present always has. Nothing new at all.
DeleteCongress also has the power to create and dissolve courts. So, uh, duh.
Somewhere in Florida, lawyers are tearing their hair out trying to explain to an imbecile that trumped up charges are not a good thing.
DeleteIn this case, how some in the Trump administration violated ethics or outright broke the law to attempt to remain in power.
DeleteDon't they have an Ethics Committee for that? They needed hearings on how to legislatively hamstring a sitting President? Isn't that in the Constitution?
Isn't this merely a show for the masses and an abuse of their duty to their sworn offices so that 'certain' Congressmen can remain in power?
DeleteWhat begins in farce tends to end in tragedy.
DeleteNo, they needed a select committee for investigation, which has included going to court to compel testimony and / or receive subpoenaed records and documents...
Delete...like a Congress that can create and dissolve courts can.
Constitution 101.
Have you tried not being an insurrectionist?
Contempt of Congress is a crime. How is Congress not a court?
DeleteSince it's part of the Legislative Branch and NOT the Judicial?
DeleteAbuse of Office is a Crime. That goes for the President, and that goes for Congress.
What you allow is what will continue.
This is what beamish deems a serious "Grand Jury"...
DeleteThe only court Congress can't dissolve is the Supreme Court. Every other court they would want to dissolve , change jurisdictions of, etc. they could do at any time, with a vote. They can even hold up paychecks for everyone sideways and down from the President.
DeleteWhere do the courts get their powers and jurisdiction?
From the most powerful, most democratic branch of government, of course.
"Congress isn't a court?!"
Please.
Look who regret's fighting the Trump headwinds now... Liz Cheney...
Delete"Trumpy... it's over...OVER I tell you!"
LOL!
Beamish's singular focus on the slobbery ranty gets even better when he starts blathering about a "grand jury." lol
DeleteKeep ridin' that fish bicycle, TC!
Yeah. If Biden called up Putin and offered to kill Finland's admission to NATO in exchange for dirt on Trump (or whoever what's left of the GOP nominates in 2024) or if Biden throws some rally and tells people to march on the Supreme Court and things get all surly and murdery, the Republicans would rightfully seek impeachment, and rightfully be upset that Democrats blocked their impeachment efforts.
DeleteIt's the same thing, you're just allowing your rectal cavities to blindfold you.
Is that an admission as to your position, beamish?
DeleteI'm not the panicking about having nothing to worry about. :)
DeletePssst. It's Trump administration officials that are ratting your boy out. The system isn't rigged. Your boy is just really inept at crime.
DeleteI guess he wasn't there long enough to learn like your neocon House/Senate comrades. Even Lindsey Graham learned the Senate "Foundation" charity game from John "sticky fingers" McCain.
DeleteNow if we just had a legitimate House committee hearing to examine and try the evidence...
DeleteThat's about a tacit admission of Trump's incompetence as a deal-maker as I'll get out of you two. I'll take it, and spare you the told-ya-so. I can't do anything about the dumbfounded looks on your faces.
DeleteTrump knows how Washington works and hires the best people yada yada.
Beamish keeps mistaking his comment box for an MSNBC studio.
DeleteHere's Lynn Cheney and her band after the Jan. 6 Hearings....
Delete...whilst the rest of us remain prisoner's of her corporate gulag.
Delete...at least... that is how I would decontextualize and re-frame it. Detournement forever!
DeleteYes, I'm a big Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" fan. I think I've mastered Rules 5&6, but I am worried about Rule 7...
DeleteRULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
Method.. Madness... go together like a hand in glove.
DeleteKinda like a Newspaper headline writer...
DeletePerhaps I need return to my roots... from the Jowett Introductions to Plato's "Laws"
DeleteThe clumsiness of the style is exhibited in frequent mannerisms and repetitions. The perfection of the Platonic dialogue consists in the accuracy with which the question and answer are fitted into one another, and the regularity with which the steps of the argument succeed one another. This finish of style is no longer discernible in the Laws. There is a want of variety in the answers; nothing can be drawn out of the respondents but 'Yes' or 'No,' 'True,' 'To be sure,' etc.; the insipid forms, 'What do you mean?' 'To what are you referring?' are constantly returning. Again and again the speaker is charged, or charges himself, with obscurity; and he repeats again and again that he will explain his views more clearly. The process of thought which should be latent in the mind of the writer appears on the surface. In several passages the Athenian praises himself in the most unblushing manner, very unlike the irony of the earlier dialogues, as when he declares that'the laws are a divine work given by some inspiration of the Gods,' and that 'youth should commit them to memory instead of the compositions of the poets.' The prosopopoeia which is adopted by Plato in the Protagoras and other dialogues is repeated until we grow weary of it. The legislator is always addressing the speakers or the youth of the state, and the speakers are constantly making addresses to the legislator. A tendency to a paradoxical manner of statement is also observable. 'We must have drinking,' 'we must have a virtuous tyrant'—this is too much for the duller wits of the Lacedaemonian and Cretan, who at first start back in surprise. More than in any other writing of Plato the tone is hortatory; the laws are sermons as well as laws; they are considered to have a religious sanction, and to rest upon a religious sentiment in the mind of the citizens. The words of the Athenian are attributed to the Lacedaemonian and Cretan, who are supposed to have made them their own, after the manner of the earlier dialogues. Resumptions of subjects which have been half disposed of in a previous passage constantly occur: the arrangement has neither the clearness of art nor the freedom of nature. Irrelevant remarks are made here and there, or illustrations used which are not properly fitted in. The dialogue is generally weak and laboured, and is in the later books fairly given up, apparently, because unsuited to the subject of the work. The long speeches or sermons of the Athenian, often extending over several pages, have never the grace and harmony which are exhibited in the earlier dialogues. For Plato is incapable of sustained composition; his genius is dramatic rather than oratorical; he can converse, but he cannot make a speech. Even the Timaeus, which is one of his most finished works, is full of abrupt transitions. There is the same kind of difference between the dialogue and the continuous discourse of Plato as between the narrative and speeches of Thucydides.
Beamish keeps mistaking his comment box for an MSNBC studio.
DeleteMust be all the exasperated screeching trying to shout me down.
"Word!", Sir Croaks A-lot.
DeleteWho's trying to shout you down?
DeleteFollowing your repetitive ad nauseum fleckspittle rants reminds me of when I was a kid and we'd follow the town drunk around. Never knew where he was going or what he was going to do next.
Lets see a show trial by the very same people that made up the Russia bs. Lets ignore actual corruption of Hunter Biden and invent stuff about Trump.
ReplyDeleteDid they forget the pary about Trump leading a Partridge Family sing along with Danny Bonaduce on the lawn after playing bocce blind drunk and in boxer shorts and bunny slippers.
Are they going to get into investigations of Sanders wife educational Enron?
OT Actual Jews had Ben and Jerry snuffed out. They sold the rights to make the product to the Israeli manufacturer. Unilever got tired of the damage two communist freaks did to their company.
Enough financial pros got together and said piss off your job is to sell product
The media were the perfect fools and exposed them for what they are about especially Breit Baier who bought it hook line and sinker. The witness made it clear she had not witnessed It herself. It exposed the circus for what it is. Liz's hug with the witness at the conclusion of her testimony put the icing on the cake. I would say a home run for our side.
ReplyDeleteNo newscaster didn't believe it. Even I did as I sat and watched and cringed. YES!! Liz hugged her! What an amazing, transparent thing....imagine the whisper "I think they all believed you!! Check's in the mail!" :-)
DeleteImagine if Hutchinson had testified at Trump's 2nd impeachment that he physically attacked his own security detail because they wouldn't let him go trash Nancy Pelosi's office. Oh, wait, she was silenced by executive privilege then lol.
Delete@Bunkerville and Z You both speak my sentiments. When my husband and I saw this dog and pony show we knew she was paid and that kiss she gave yes, the pay check is in the mail. I think Liz Cheney is a modern day 'Judas!'
DeleteTC: Wrong. and Fail. Executive privilege does not prevent a willing witness from testifying.
DeletePerhaps. But given the bunker mentality of, well, any and every Presidency that finds itself under investigation (or, like the Trump administration, one that hands out plausible reasons to investigate it like candy...), there was likely a reason Ms. Hutchinson didn't come forward with her story and observations until the J6 Committee formed a year ago.
DeleteWhich means the J6 Committee has been sitting on tales of a berserk Trump attacking his security detail, trying to carjack his own Presidential limo, and throwing a tantrum with his food about not being allowed to go trash Congressional offices and poop in the Rotunda for close to a year. Remarkable restraint on their part not to have leaked that way before now. I wouldn't count on a full contradiction from the Secret Service portraying Trump as rational during those moments. There had already been pipebombs found and people with guns arrested by the time the Trump supporters attacked the Capitol at Trump's urging. The Secret Service already had plenty of reasons to try to keep Trump safe (along with it being their job) before he (allegedly) went apeshit trying to join the riot himself.
The "allegation" that Trump was as batshit delusional or more off camera as he was on camera isn't much of a stretch. Without the believable allegation of this, there's still more concrete, non-hearsay evidence against Trump with more potential consequences than his "alleged" assaulting federal law enforcement officers and trying to steal a government vehicle.
We're back to an imbecile confounding his lawyers with the idea that trumped up charges are the good ones because they have his name on them.
Trump's an angry vulgarian. Dems really had to dig hard for that one!
DeleteIf this were a SNL sketch, back when SNL was funny and relevant, it ends with a senile Pelosi wandering the Capitol grounds in slippers and a bathrobe looking for her false teeth, while El Donaldo hurls sloppy cheese burgers at the wall singing...
ReplyDelete"Memory
All alone in the moonlight
I can smile at the old days
I was beautiful then!"
The Jan 6 Committee is merely opposition poisoning antics for the real show beginning on Jan 1, 2023... Michelle Obama for President! She'll get you your abortion rights back!
ReplyDelete"As an organizer, I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system." - Saul Alinsky
Delete"First rule of change is controversy. You can't get away from it for the simple reason all issues are controversial. Change means movement, and movement means friction, and friction means heat, and heat means controversy." - Saul Alinsky
"Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict." - Saul Alinsky
"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future." - Saul Alinsky
"The first step in community organization is community disorganization." - Saul Alinsky
"The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community." - Saul Alinsky
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama
Michelle Obama does sit on top of the Intersectional privilege hierarchy.
DeleteThe tire tracks of the bus are already starting to show on Joe's back.
Delete...as Democrat's previous messaging about Joe representing Barrack Obama's 3rd term get memory-holed.
Delete...and who do you suppose Michelle Obama's stalking horse is? Yep, you guessed it. The double twist with a back-flip.
DeleteHow do you spell, "L-E-G-A-C-Y" when you're the worst President in history?
DeleteEdith Wilson could spell. Trump I'm not so sure about.
DeleteYou are way too Bai Lan, beamish.
Delete"Let it rot" indeed. When you run full steam off the edge of a cliff, no amount of fading noise and desperate flailing from you about gravity being a Democrat conspiracy will diminish the sudden stop and splatter on the rocks below. You looked stupid rushing the cliff's edge. The end result is just a confirmation.
DeleteA voice from above calls down, "Told ya so."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHow's your 401k doin', beamish?
DeleteThersites,
DeleteThe Jan 6 Committee is merely opposition poisoning antics for the real show beginning on Jan 1, 2023... Michelle Obama for President!
Noooooo! God help us!
FJ,
DeleteSince Biden took office, my IRA has taken one helluva beating! Just when I'm retiring. Grrrrrr!
Off on a bit of a tangent, but back in the 70s, the watergate trial was so effective that it forced Nixon's resignation. Do you think in modern times a trial prosecuted in that serious manner would have the same effect? The GOP of the 70s was open enough to evidence and argument to turn against their guy in the whitehouse, I just don't see the present day republicans ever doing that.
ReplyDeleteIt's a terrific loss. There's no oversight whatsoever, except for the opportunity to elect whomever the opposition select as their candidate instead once every four years. Perhaps no political system can be expected to work in the absence of honour.
my comments seem to be showing up anonymous now for some reason. Jez.
DeleteHmm I seem to have repaired the problem merely by noticing it. Schroedinger's fix.
DeleteMine are still showing up as Anonymous rather than Jayhawk. I noticed it, jez, but nothing changed.
DeleteJez,
DeleteThe stakes are too high now. Way too much power and money involved to bother with anything like principles or looking out for the good of the country. That applies to all parties.
@jayhawk, have you tried locking a cat in a box?
Delete@SF, if that's true, maybe Theater is the best strategy the Dems can realistically pursue? Once we accept that it's politically impossible to convict Trump, surely the next best thing for the country would be to force the GOP to reject him, finally? They can't do that except by capturing the electorate's attention, hence the theatre?
And for all that we might prefer the more serious style of the 1970s, a large component of that prosecution's success was theatrical: it was a ratings blockbuster!
It is possible to prosecute Trump. First, they need a case.
DeleteBlockbuster???
DeleteFrom Axios, not exactly part of the Rightwing Conspiracy
Voters paying less attention to daytime Jan. 6 hearings, poll finds
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/22/jan-6-primetime-hearing-poll-voters
I mean, the Nixon trial was a blockbuster.
DeleteSF,
DeleteThe stakes are too high now. Way too much power and money involved to bother with anything like principles or looking out for the good of the country. That applies to all parties.
TRUTH!
Well, gee whiz, Democrat haters upset for not having any say in an investigation they didn’t want and didn’t want to participate in.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, would it make a difference. This is the same but different version of a Hallmark holiday movie we’ve seen for 5 years. Did it make a difference when Republican senators told us in advance they’d acquit Trump regardless of “mountains of evidence” over Ukraine? Did that mountain of evidence sway the Democrat haters at home glued to the Tucker channel? Did it make a difference when Trump told his thugs to “stand by”? Did it make a difference that Trump groomed his cultist for 4 years by telling them in advance that if he didn’t win, that in itself meant that Dems rigged it?
What real difference does it make if this was a balanced or impartial investigation? What difference would it make if every single accusation from Hutchinson and the rest are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt with an open admission from Trump?
Democrat and liberal haters live in a world of alternate facts where they can cry “fake news” and “witch hunt” which somehow justified what they want to be true. It’s kinda like that Rogers and Hammerstein movie when Julie Andrews sings: “in my own little corner in my own little chair I can be what ever I want to be”.
Try caring about things like intellectual honesty and due process for their own sake: they're good for you.
DeleteYes getting kicked off the Committee was evidence of not wanting to participate, and not evidence of the Committee bias. And subsequently refusing to appoint replacements is evidence of a refusal to participate, and not an indictment of the Committee's bias. Then appointing select sy,m[pathetic Republicans wasn't evidence of the Committee's bias, it was out of a respect for "fairness". 3x and you're OUT, Ronnie.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWe ALL see the Committee's true colours...
DeleteGlad you brought up impeachment. Hmmm... Wasn't that impeachment supposed to examine Trump's role in Jan 6th?
DeleteThis is a bald-faced political stunt, Democrats have the power, so it's well within their rights to do what the hell ever they want to do.
Had they chosen to do it right, it would have vested the committee with much more credibility. I do give them props for doing the Republicans a great service.
Initially Dems did choose to do it right and Rs were game. A bipartisan committee similar to the 9/11 attacks commission was the goal with 10 members- Dems getting a commission chair, Rs getting a vice-chair, and each picking 4 members.
DeleteBut Trump suddenly didn't like it and Rs folded faster than Kevin McCarthy get to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump's ass and beg for forgiveness.
Nancy Pelosi didn't simply reject 2 of the 5 Republican nominees out of hand? Who knew?
Deletebtw - what happened to the other 3 "acceptable" members.
Calling Dr. Davis (Ill.), Dr. Armstrong (N.D.) and Dr. Nehls (Texas). Report to the Committee for credibility duty, STAT!
Both Jordan and Banks have said in recent days that they were hoping to use their positions on the select committee to investigate what Pelosi knew about the security threat ahead of the violence.
DeleteNancy Pelosi, "Oh my G_d... they want a REAL investigation!" Offf with their heads!
After 6 months, if you’re still hung up on why insurrection enablers such as Jim Banks and Gym Jordon were rejected, I’m sure there is nothing I could tell you. The goal was to get to the bottom of what happened, not to impede it.
DeleteAnd I’m sure there’s nothing I could tell you or SF to convince that it’s anything less than “a bald face political stunt”. Be that as it may, it doesn’t exonerate Trump or his accomplices from the multiple bombshells it has produced.
Right now, you guys seem to be stuck in “he didn’t do it/fake news” chapter which will end with something like “attacking the Capitol to stay in power really isn’t all that bad”.
The movie never changes.
‘’ Glad you brought up impeachment. Hmmm... Wasn't that impeachment supposed to examine Trump's role in Jan 6th?’’
DeleteYou suggesting the Senate acquittal was consistent with the examination of Trump’s role?
Breaking 240 years of House precedent for eliminating 2 members on a Committee? Wow! Must have been a REAL important investigation. Heck the Supreme's only nixed 50 years of stare decisis with Roe... and your side almost lost their heads.
DeleteFour word's sum up Pelosi's committee. "Abuse of Congressional Office".
DeleteTime call in enforcers for the Hatch Act! Of, wait, that would require DoJ to live up to it's name, and not its' ever diminishing reputation. My bad.
DeleteDems held two impeachments. After screaming about Russia collusion and Mueller for years, they didn't use the Mueller report to convict Trump. Why?
DeleteThe second impeachment was over Trump's Jan 6th role. What happened there? Answer: It was a show trial.
Bombshells? Can you list them?
Perhaps you didn’t understand the question. Are you suggesting the Senate impeachment acquittal was consistent with the examination of Trump’s role on Jan 6?
DeleteWhile we’re at it and since this is your favorite go to, did Mueller exonerate Trump?
Those bombshells you seem to be ignorant of have blasted headlines worldwide outside of the rabbit hole.
You mean your rabbit warren? LOL!
DeleteDoes your sibyl dance while she prophesizes, or do it naked? Is that why your priests interpret her yammerings so much better than ours? Just wondrin'.
DeleteRonald, your little jiggery pokery dance, while amusing, evades the issue.
DeleteThe burden is on you and Democrats to explain why Democrats did not use the Mueller report in their first impeachment.
It is also up to you to explain why Democrats did not do a full investigation for the second impeachment trial.
Dims have been screaming about Donald Trump for 6 years now. It's time for them to s*** or get off the pot. Got something? Give it to the AG and let the department of justice start a prosecution.
DeletePersonally, I think that US taxpayers should back-charge the DNC for that wasted $37m... it was ALL HILLARY.
DeleteThe only thing we have definitive proof of is that Trump had enough Republican Senators (openly mocking their paths to impartiality as impeachment jurors) in both impeachments to skate. Not even once did anyone in Trump's defense try to ridiculously argue that what Trump did were not impeachable offenses, but rather that they had the votes to let him off the hook so it didn't matter.
DeleteNot exactly the Republican Party's finest moments in the history of statesmanship and dignity. "He may be a scumbag, but he's our scumbag" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their moral and ethical standing.
Mueller nailed who he could nail (a sitting President can't be prosecuted), and we have self-confessed Russian FSB intelligence asset Michael Flynn (accepting pardons = admission of guilt) and others convicted to believe Mueller when he said his report does not exonerate Trump. It's not like FBI directors and attorneys general had job security under Trump if it looked like they might inconvenience Trump's Russian handlers.
We should be thankful the Federalist Society tricked Trump into nominating their list of judges and justices by putting said list in counterfeited love letters from Kim Jung-Un.
Okay Silver, you don’t want to answer simple questions of Trump’s innocence or guilt. So be it.
DeleteAre suggesting that after 43 republican senators refused to convict Trump of involvement of 1/6, Democrats should have just dropped it or called it a closed case? Nothing more to look at?
Is that too much of a jiggly pokery dance?
“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.
DeleteThe people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.
President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.”
——Mitch McConnell after voting to acquit Donald Trump
The lie is obviously in the name... MoveOn.org
DeleteRJW doesn't trust his own AG to do his job.
DeleteThere must be something in Democrat DNA that hates a SCotUS nominee... or former nominee.
DeleteTrump bears some moral responsibility for stirring up the Jan 6th rabble. I've said that already.
DeleteLegal? I don't know. We haven't had a legal trial of the facts at hand. Dems had their chance with the second impeachment, but they blew it
Did Mueller exonerate Trump? Which baseball team will win the super bowl?
DeleteMueller delivered a report to congress. They did not use it for any kind of action against President Trump. And, as far as we know, the Biden Democrat DOJ has not found any legal use for the document either. That tells me all I need to know.
Dems didn’t blow the 2nd impeachment any more than they did the 1st. It was a stacked jury in both cases. Even the jurors admitted it.
DeleteAnd that is a fact.
lol! Their case against Trump was for political malpractice. And after 8 years of Obama's, it was a milquetoast crime and argument indeed... one that we're still paying for in billions to Ukraine and an increasingly warming war against Russia so that some Cold War neocon generals can FINALLY tame the Bear!
DeleteThe anti-war Left sold their souls to the US IC for surplus salaries and the right to make future corporations go from woke to broke.
DeleteOh, but the case was settled "politically" along "political" lines. Didn't you learn a f'ing thing from the Clinton impeachment? Invent political crimes and you will be GUARANTEED a political result. That's what makes the Jan 6 Show Trial just so much a rubbing of salt into political wounds. It's POLITICAL. There's NO underlying crime, but the practice of politics as USUAL.
Delete...the only element that isn't farsical is the Left's PARANOIA projected onto Republicans for "crimes" they'd commit (and continue to commit in cities across the nation) in a SECOND when left to their own devices.... only the Republicans KNOW is politics and so don't charge them. It's time to show some caritas but your over-reach can only accept one outcome. Complete defeat and humiliation. And that you will receive in the 2022 midterms, and then again in 2024.
DeleteAnd waan know the worst part? Your Jan 6 Committee has UTTERLY FAILED to address the issues that resulted in the events of January 6 and pin it on the ambitions of a single man, and not the MISTAKES made and concerns of the voters with Mail-In Voting.
Delete...and voting fraud (casting and counting ballots) in general.
Delete:P
DeleteMeanwhile, just outside the Committee Hearing Room, Committee Members discuss strategy for going forward...
DeleteTens of millions of US voters have no confidence in their elections. Convicting Trump of "political crimes", who raised awareness of the underlying problem, will do NOTHING to change that. The voters don't trust the system and need reassurances that responsible officials are looking into (NOT DELIBERATELY IGNORING) it. By doing so, the politicians make themselves look more and more guilty of being in on the "rigged system" DAILY.
DeleteEspecially since it won't even address the issue but to repeat the UniParty talking point, "most secure election EVER" w/o offering a speck of concern over issues surrounding irregularities raised, let alone evidence to refute it. The AZ Audit, conducted as transparently and openly as possible, did much to categorize the issues. Their report, pooh-poohed as "irrelevant".
DeleteIf government was ever failing us, this is the best example of how.
The "experts" in government participating in the "university discourse" feel no need to listen to the "Hysterics discourse" of the hundreds of millions of voters that they represent and who are in the "theory of democracy" their Masters ( and represent the Masters Discourse). As for the "Analysts Discourse"... how DARE the analysts of the "Analyst Discourse" cast aspersions upon their education, years of training through experience, and social positions? The chutzpah!
DeleteCuz the next January 6th insurrection won't be staffed with LARPers and Cosplayers.
DeleteRonald,
DeleteYour weak excuse is for losers. If you have a case, you present it. If it is compelling and fact-based, people will be outraged if the person gets off.
The Democrat Party Jan 6th mini-series will also tank based on the latest "testimony."
It's what they get for not having an adversarial examination of evidence presented, no challenging of anything friendly to the prosecution, and allowing in hearsay and third-hand grapevine retellings.
You can pound sand and pretend your alternative facts have legs but like Mitch admits, Republicans knew your Mango god was guilty as sin but wasn’t going to do a damn thing about it, just as they did over the Ukraine and obstruction charges.
DeleteSeveral even admitted in advance they’d acquit regardless of any circumstances or any evidence.
And here you and FJ are, defending your party’s crimes while blaming Democrats. The liberal hating Trump cultist movie never changes.
How many of the 74 million Trump voting "hysterics" have you managed to convince so far that 2020 was the "most secure election ever"? How's the "hearings" working out? Think you're convincing anyone that wasn't already drinking the Kool-Aid? Or haven't you "heard" anything at your "hearings"?
DeleteCan't speak for the Trump voters nor am I concerned of convincing them of anything.
DeleteI'd say the hearings are working out better for me than they are you but once again, your take of that opinion is at the dead bottom of my concerns.
I'm simply saying that the republican senate had no regards to facts in either impeachments nor did they of any evidence presented. And to be generous, nor do they in anything testimony or arguments brought up by the 1/6 committee. Nor do or would admitted trump supporters such as your self.
You live in your own little corner in your own little chair, being who ever you want to be. I have no aspirations or expectations of you changing seats.
Yes, there's nothing like calling something a "Hearing" so you can lecture nervous voters with a good "Talking to" to inspire their confidence in the competence of their elected officials. In the name of 74 million Trump hysterics, allow me to be the first to inform you that your party is Fired... notice will be officially given on the first Tuesday in November. :)
Deleteps - And starting a war with Russia is not going to save Democrats in 2022, 2024, or any other election year. :)
DeleteYou'll need to fight that war with your Sacred Band, because our kids will in Canada and Mexico sitting it out. Better tell CDC to stock up on their MPXV vaccines now.
DeleteBoth impeachments lacked legally-tight damning evidence. Go big or go home.
DeleteTrump's "crime" was getting elected and threatening the international investment arbitrage being run by the State Department out of the Kiev embassy.
Delete"Both impeachments lacked legally-tight damning evidence."
DeleteThat's utter bullshit SF and surely you know it.
I could give you some wiggle room on the 1/6 because it was such a rushed ordeal but the 2 articles of the 1st impeachment were cut and dry. His very own defense team conceded the evidence was overwhelming but not to worry, they had the republican verdict in advance..
What was most obvious was the obstruction of Congress charge. The entire world saw in real time his stonewalling of the House’s impeachment inquiry, his refusal to hand over documents to congressional investigators and his orders to top advisers and government officials to defy subpoenas and refuse to testify. He didn't even try to hide it. And yes, that is a crime.
This was actually a larger scale of obstruction charges against Nixon who resigned before the House voted on it.
Look my glazed over indoctrinated friend, I get it that we don't agree politically but you're just making stupid shit up to defend "your team".
And you completely ignore the FACT that republican senators openly admitted out loud, on camera, that there was no way they'd convict Trump of anything. Ever. Regardless of legally tight damning evidence. And they held true to there word.
Two co-equal branches, Ronald.
DeleteBoth articles were BS, especially given what we know now about what a Democrat-DC Establishment cesspit of Interational corruption Ukraine was. We deposed a Ukrainian president under Obama, "The Big Guy's" son was lapping up thousands a month for a job he as completely unqualified for, Russia took Crimea...
Trump's "crime" was not couching normal US political behavior in the traditional employment of buffers and cutouts.
We have a new argument started in today's blog post.
DeleteThe lies keep rolling in and the left are eating them up. Good! They will have indigestion in November.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
DeleteThey will have indigestion in November.
I hope so!
This about sums it all up...
ReplyDeleteEven better!
Delete^^Should have been sf's graphic for this post^^
DeleteEven Colbert agree's as to the Committee Hearing's "nature".
DeleteGood news people, SCotUS just put its' 1st stake into the heart of the Deep State regulatory vampyre.
ReplyDeleteThank you, President Trump!
DeleteNow I know what "winning" feels like. :)
DeleteThe gift that literally keeps on giving.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete:(
DeleteFJ,
DeleteGood news people, SCotUS just put its' 1st stake into the heart of the Deep State regulatory vampyre.
I agree that it should be a stake. But what about the lower courts and local districts? I can't imagine that Fairfax County and Montgomery will back off from the enrivonmentalism agendas.
You're right, AoW. There is nothing to curb State bureaucracies but State Constitutions.
DeleteI hope for more rulings like this. Congress needs to say what they mean. The gargantuan fat truth being ignored in all of this is, if congress would pass clear laws (like say an abortion law, or an Obamacare law that didn't have a tax that wasn't a tax in it) the Supreme Court would not have to "make law."
Delete"That is called hearsay, and the Secret Service is saying the incident in the vehicle never happened. "
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous source says the secret service is saying that, so that's hearsay too?
Interesting thing to keep an eye on is what is and just as importantly isn't included in their repudiation, when they're ready to make it on the record
The fatal flaw is the Democrat Jan 6 panel allowing hearsay into sworn testimony. It's garbage, which is why it is almost always inadmissible in a court of law. Doubly stupid given there is no adversarial challenges or cross-examination.
DeleteIt's very not fair on the young lady who testified if the Dems can't corroborate her claims.
Delete@Silver... no adversarial challenges or cross examination?
DeleteSpeaker Pelosi accepted three of the five proposed GOP members put forward by Minority Leader McCarthy. She only rejected Banks and Jordan, who we now know asked for pardons for their actions related to Jan 6 and were seen then as potential witnesses.
However there are two other members of the GOP on the committee and I seem to remember a certain judge was recently confirmed with one Democrat voting yes and the GOP trumpeted that as bi-partisan.
Let's also remember that the House, with 35 GOP members voting yes, approved an independent, bi-partisan commission modeled on the 9/11 commission, to investigate the events of January 6. That vote was 252-175.
The GOP however blocked it in the Senate, refusing to even let it come up for a vote.
All of this brings up 2 questions.
1. Why would the GOP vote no?
2. If the other party refuses to participate, should you just go home and not investigate?
It would be an interesting bet. Will the Secret Service officially report that Trump had a brief and rare moment of never before seen lucidity, or will they confirm other people's observations?
ReplyDeleteI'll take batshit crazy for $50, Alex.
Cuz the next January 6th insurrection won't be staffed with LARPers and Cosplayers.
ReplyDeleteWear clean underwear on your heads and outside your pants, please. We wouldn't want any innocent people shot.
Most Progressive Communist Democrats are going crazy after the Supreme Court ruled that the Supreme Court did not have the right to impose their standards on the rest of the Nation. However, that’s EXACTLY what they are supposed to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd when a U.S. Senator such as Chuck Schumer, decides to openly THREATEN TWO Supreme Court Justice’s on the steps of the Court, and then threatening two sitting Justices by name. This is not just speaking his mind! This is a clear VIOLATION OF THE LAW as he attempted to interfere with an ongoing judicial process and intimidate Justices Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.Asd he said
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
We know that the average Progressive Communist Democrats in the streets who are running around Protesting, and ranting like wild, crazy Hyenas, Bur to see and hear a U.S. Senator THREATENING TWO Supreme Court Justice’s, is good reason for Arresting the Idiot.
Agree or disagree-- this reflects the views of millions: Here’s What The Jan. 6 Show Trials Are Really After: The committee wants those who stood by Donald Trump to face shame, disbarment, personal and professional harm, and potentially prison by Margot Cleveland, The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. Worth reading, IMO.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Team Kraken lawyers should be disbarred, but I agree with her larger point. Progressives and totalitarian establishmentarians are not satisfied until they have gulaged all the dissidents.
DeleteSF,
DeleteThey want any dissidents to sit down, shut up, and submit.