Select Page

Final meeting of January 6th Committee is virtually irrelevant

Final meeting of January 6th Committee is virtually irrelevant

The headline may lead readers to believe that this commentary is going to be a defense of President Trump.  Not at all. 

Rather it is to explain why the work of the Select Committee is largely irrelevant to the course of any legal cases against the former President – and why there is a long road ahead before there is any resolution.

The first thing to understand is that while the Committee members refer to “charges” against Trump, he has not been charged with anything … nothing.  Under our system of justice, a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court-of-law.  Of course, we know that bit of legal folklore is utter nonsense – and especially in this case.  Half the nation has presumed Trump guilty of a broad range of crimes and misdeeds – including one’s upon which he has since been vindicated.  And there can be no doubt that the members of the Committee have determined that Trump is guilty.  They say so in absolute terms.

Virtually every authority on the cable news networks – on both sides – concede that the work of the Select Committee is purely political.   That is a fact.  Congress has no law enforcement powers.  The Committee can gather testimony and documents and offer an opinion based on what it sees.  And the Committee was composed completely of members who were committed to taking down Trump. That automatically makes their findings suspect.  It will take a court-of-law to determine whether Trump has committed crimes, or not.  And that is a far different matter.

It is a little like you see your neighbor beating his wife, and you call the police based on what you saw.  You cannot arrest or indict the guy.  You just pass along your information to the proper law enforcement authorities – and they take over.  That is all the Committee did.

Since the Select Committee served more as a prosecutorial vehicle – more than an investigative or hearings format – you can expect the conclusions to be very one-sided.  That works if you want to press a political case in the court-of-public-opinion.  But courts-of-law have different rules and much higher standards.

Select Committee versus the Department of Justice

While the Committee certainly served a narrow political purpose – as it was established to do – it produced no unique benefit in the pursuit of Trump legally – or to any public interest.  Virtually all the so-called “evidence” against Trump is circumstantial and founded in interpretation and opinion.

The much-hyped final meeting of the Committee was remarkable in what it did NOT do.  In addition to NOT indicting Trump – because it cannot — it brought forth no new information.  Most of the video clips and the accusations by Committee members have been seen and heard hundreds – maybe thousands — of times over the course of the past 18 months.

The accusations against Trump were no surprise.  It was the original goal of the Committee – and confirmation of their specific findings and probable course of action have been leaked for weeks.

I have called the work of the Committee largely irrelevant because every accusation they have made against Trump is currently being investigated by the Department of Justice and the recently appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith.  The DOJ investigation is the ONLY one that counts.  The Committee has only made criminal referrals to the DOJ.

There is no assurance that the DOJ will act on the referrals.  They often do not.  You will recall that the Committee referred four individuals to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena.  The DOJ acted on two of them – Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro — and put the other two in the office shredder – including former White House Chief-of- Staff Mark Meadows.

The most serious crime the Committee alleges against Trump is insurrection.  If convicted, it would preclude Trump from holding public office in America in the future.  But it is the most likely to be the one that the DOJ rejects – if any.  It is very difficult to get a conviction for insurrection – and a thousand times more challenging if it involves a former or future President.

Much of the information gathered by the Committee is either useless in terms of any court cases – or is already in the sights of the Special Prosecutor.  For Example, the testimony the Committee and the press touts as the most impressive and informative is that of Cassidy Hutchinson.   However, virtually everything she said is inadmissible hearsay in a court-of-law.

While there may be some prosecutorial “wheat” in the piles of paper generated by the Committee, there is mostly “chaff” in terms of legal prosecution.  The “wheat” has already been publicized by the Committee.  The DOJ knows most of what the Committee has produced and is pursuing testimony and evidence on its own.  Will there be a useful snippet here or there for the DOJ?  Sure, but not much that they cannot find on their own.

And finally, the DOJ has to deal with defense arguments and witnesses – and exculpatory evidence that the Committee ignored.

If you think my opinion of Pelosi’s Select Committee is biased, consider the opinion of the left-wing panelists on CNN and MSNBC – especially those former federal prosecutors.  Chuck Rosenberg – former U.S. Attorney for Eastern Maryland – praised the good work of the Committee, but called it “symbolic” and even “meaningless” in terms of the requirements for the DOJ to make formal charges.

He noted that of thousands of hours of recorded testimony, the Committee only made 20 hours public – a very strategically selected 20 hours, I might add.  He noted the absence of defense arguments, cross examination and rules- of-evidence that would apply in a real court.  He said the DOJ “does not need the Committee’s recommendations.”

Former FBI official Andrew McCabe – a staunch anti-Trumper — provided the same cautions when evaluating the work of the Committee compared to the need to indict and convict.  That latter is a much steeper Hill.


Then there is the issue of timing.  Some folks may think that with the issuance of the Committee Report, the legal bloodhounds will be at Trump’s door very soon.  Not so.  The Special Counsel has just begun his work.  These things take months and even years to mature to the point of an indictment – and there is no guarantee that there will be one.  Once the Special Counsel has completed his work, the decision to indict or not indict is up to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

If there is an indictment, delays, jury selection and the trial could add several more months to the calendar.  That means that the question of Trump’s innocence or guilt might not be determined until after the 2024 Presidential Election.    If convicted on an insurrection charge, Trump COULD already be in the Oval Office for a second term (but I doubt it).

Role of Special Counsel

It is also important to understand the role of the Special Counsel.  Once he is finished with his investigations, he may recommend charges against Trump and others.  But even as Special Counsel, he is still working for Garland.  The guy still reports to the Attorney General – as did Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  Smith is not an Independent Counsel – as was the case in the Clinton investigations.


In terms of the pursuit of Trump in conjunction with the events leading up to and including January 6, 2021, the Select Committee was a political side show.  Some argue that the Committee Report will put pressure on the DOJ.  Personally, I doubt it.  The folks at the DOJ do not respond to being pushed.  In fact, trying to influence a prosecution can be a crime in some cases – unless you are a member of Congress and above many laws that cover we mere citizens.  

Garland not only has to look at the evidence, but he must also determine if it is sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of 12 jurors.  It will take a lot more than what the Committee is offering to reach that threshold.  Finding a person guilty in the court-of-public-opinion is a no brainer.  It does not depend on real evidence, but just a good narrative and a compliant new media to carry it.

I am afraid that the long and expensive work of Speaker Pelosi’s Select Committee is — as they say – “a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing” – unless you count the political public relations value for the Democrats.

Whatever you may think of the work of the Committee – or the guilt or innocence of Trump – get comfortable.  It will be a long time before anything substantive or definitive occurs – and then it will be the work of the Justice Department, not some kangaroo congressional committee, that eventually brings the Trump issues to closure.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Rat Wrangler

    Mr. Trump should demand access to the thousands of hours of testimony, have lawyers specialized in civil suits go over the records in detail, and then sue everyone who made false and damaging statements against him. If a lot of elected Democrats or Republicans being sued lose the court cases, it could radically change how the American citizens vote in future elections. Most people in America already know that politicians are not known for being open and honest, so the lawsuits would simply bring that truth into the open.

    • frank stetson

      That’s fair.

      And those dozen or so high profile Republicans who skipped the Congressional subpoenas should be compelled by Congress to testify or 1) be asked to leave Congress or 2) have Democrats skip every subpoena for the next two years. Fair is fair and not being compelled for one should apply to all.

      Hopefully DOJ will subpoena every one of them soon.

      Feel free to look for civil suits, you have braggadocio on your side, and they have sworn-under-oath testimony on theirs. Should be easy.

      • Tom

        I think you are correct Frank, that everyone who skipped out on subpoenas should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law so that we common ordinary Americans can see that no one is above the law and that the full force of the law is applied equally to all. That is fair! I do not agree with the tit-for-tat that Dems should now be able to skip out of subpoenas for two years. Prosecute all of the skipping bastards and hooligans!

        • frank stetson

          That would be the better way. Start with Trump, he skipped.

          McCarthy skipped.
          Jordan skipped
          Biggs skipped
          Perry skipped

          And sure, they could be charged with contempt, and should be, but Congress could take action too. Unless Congressional subpoenas have no teeth.

          • Tom

            I agree Frank! I also think there were Dems that got a free pass due to the Select Committee’s exclusive focus on the GOP endeavors that day. I think it would be a great example of inclusion if Pelosi, Mayor of Washington DC, Schumer, and others within the Dem party should be given subpoenas as well. Lets join together to find out what they did or did not do that day as well. And lets get some of those subpoenas to the FBI !!! This was much bigger than the GOP and a few Proud Boys playing soldier.

          • frank stetson

            My party has no say in that after January for at least two years :>)

            But I say call them all, even if stupid. I like a good show :>)

      • pcwalt

        The committee, having only members appointed by Pelosi, and none appointed by Republican leadership, was not constituted by the House rules in effect. Therefore being a “committee” which failed to follow House rules for formation of a committee, it did not have proper authority to enforce what it might have if it had been properly constituted. They had no more genuine, legal authority to enforce subpoenas than did the Republican committee.

        • frank stetson

          pcwalt, Is that true? Because it was following House Rules.

          You do know that it was McCarthy that opted out of providing suitable choices to the committee, and Pelosi exercised her rights, by House rules, in chucking some of the assholes he did put up. But even the Republican leadership, and Don himself, that said — ooops, Kevin make a boo boo by ducking the committee.

          Reap what you sow.

          What Republican committee? What are you talking about? Steve Bannon found guilty and going to jail for Contempt of Congress re: subpoena.

          Are you sure you got this one right PCWALT

        • larry Horist

          pcwalt … Actually, Pelosi has the constitutional power to appoint ALL members of committees. But it has been a longstanding and unbroken tradition (as far as I could find) for the two major parties to pick their representatives. Certainly, Pelosi can be accused of violating an important tradition … being unfair … and abusing her power, but it was her power to abuse. She abused her power when she refused two of McCarthy’s appointments and when she made her own Republican appointments — two shills. I think it was a monumental blunder for McCarthy not to have filled the GOP side even after she so crassly blocked the two members. I think both her two overly politicized impeachments and her crafting of the Jan 6 Committee has a corrupting influence on the workings of Congress for future years. When you lower standards, you get lower outcomes.

          • Tom

            I agree Larry, I think it was a monumental blunder for McCarthy not to have filled the GOP side! And too your point, in previous posts you mentioned the absence of hard questions never asked that were counter the direction of the Select Committee questioning. I think if McCarthy had staffed the committee with suitable GOP congress persons, the Select Committee might have gotten to some of the questions and dialogue you called for in earlier posts. As an Independent I would have appreciated such a dialogue. To me, there has always been an undercurrent of activities that did not come out in the hearings such as FBI involvement, collusion, and enabling of radical groups, pipe bombs found but discussion has been hushed, DC Mayor refusing National Guard troops, not preparing the capital grounds and their police properly, etc. All of these activities and decisions enabled and may have actually tacitly promoted Jan 6th to spin out of control and should have been part of a fair and balanced fact finding mission.

            While I still maintain that the Select Committee did do some good work and reveal more information than I knew before, I remain cautious because I feel a strong sense that what I learned is one direction or one sided and that there is a complete other side that was successfully hidden due to the composition of the Select Committee and their respective lines of questioning – and I do place this blame on McCarthy.

            I think there are moderate and conservative Democrats, Republicans, and Independents that wanted to hear the full story and know all of the facts. This did not happen. Sad.

          • frank stetson

            You want to hear all sides?

            Freaking Trump was too much of a pussy to even testify.

            Captain Bonespurs defers again!!!

          • larry Horist

            Tom … I agree that the Committee has brought up some critical information, but I still believe the result has been more chaff than wheat. Most of what they brought up was previously reported information — and nothing that the DOJ is likely to miss on their own. Hearing only one side is never fully informative — especially when the one side has a mission. I am sure we have heard one-side explanations for a divorce only to see things differently when we hear the other side. I think it is safe to say that some of the information provided by the Committee will not hold up well when it is being challenged. A guy named Chuck Rosenberg did a great explaining of my opinion — better than me. And he is a anti-Trump-er. A future commentary focuses on him.

          • Frank stetson

            Those harping on the one sidedness of this should note

            There are rarely two sides to the truth.

            Much of this truth was videoed.

            There were two valid Republicans asking questions

            The story was told by Republicans, the Democrats just asked the questions

            Many Trumplicants took the fifth sheilding their admitted guilt, about the topic of those questions.

            Many Trumplicants could face the committee, one at least will go to jail

            Trump could not tell his story, under oath, he demurred.

            Yes, Rosenberg and others talked about evidence that couldn’t stand up in court. They also said there were indictable crimes.

            DOJ will indict a number of people; at least for obstruction of an official proceeding by their reaching out to over 209 election officials to overturn the vote

            Do the Hawley!

  2. Grace Bruno

    So glad you started your article off with that first sentence. God Forbid if we thought that you liked President Trump. FIrst president that really busted his tail for the citizens of America and it helped that the man is a workaholic. We’ve had so many deadbeats in the whitehouse and I never remember one of them treated like this man. Too bad people are so worried about what others think rather than standing up for their own principles. I know i”m expecting too much from what is left of this country.

    • larry Horist

      Tom … One really needs to delve into the subpoena issue historically … and as they are treated. I was subpoenaed in an auto accident case as a witness. The judge expressed surprise that I showed up. He said “most do not.” Subpoenas have never been the absolute that folks seem to think. They are routinely ignored without consequences. They can be quashed. They are subject to prosecutorial discretion — as you have seen. Congressional subpoenas have even less power than court subpoenas because the Congress cannot enforce them. They rely on the DOJ. As a footnote … the Congress did have the ability to jail those not complying through contempt of Congress — and the Capitol Building had a jail for that purpose. The letter of the law can be very specific, but that is never how it is applied. The law does not rule — prosecutors and judges do. I am addressing how the system works — not the merits of the various cases.

    • larry Horist

      Grace Bruno … If you followed my writings, you would know that I have supported many of Trump’s policies as President. I also agree that the political attacks on him have been unprecedented and dishonest. I voted for him twice in 2016 and 2020. BUT … I have never liked his pugnacious personality. I think it has hurt him and the Republican Party. While we do not know how the various cases will turn out, I personally believe that his greatest danger is in the civil cases against his businesses. I think he is on the losing side of the documents cases. I expect he will win the Georgia case. I am not sure the DOJ will even indict him for all the allegations of the Jan 6 Committee. And they will not be easy to win convictions if they do.

  3. frank stetson

    Are saying you see no wrong doing in the clips or the report? Pretty quick read you are.

    There was a good amount of new information in the last session, your MSNBC teases it out pretty regularly, perhaps too much.

    DOJ was screaming to get the data, they did not have a lot of what the commission found. It’s going to supercharge their efforts.

    And yes, it takes time when you are taking down a President. A normal citizen would have been locked up by now.
    And then there’s Georgia.
    And Mar a Loser document-gate
    And New York keeps humming.

    But it’s a good thing. If for no other reason: never again.

    And just trying to help you put this guy into your rearview. For real. No way back. DeSantis would never be this stupid.

  4. Tom

    I agree that the Select Committee had no real power to prosecute or even bring about charges. It was simply a fact finding mission which is a legal paper tiger. But I disagree with your statement, “While the Committee certainly served a narrow political purpose – as it was established to do – it produced no unique benefit in the pursuit of Trump legally – or to any public interest. ” Actually I think it is just the opposite for Independent/unaffiliated voters. We do have an interest in knowing what happened that day and event leading up to that day. While the committee may have been composed of people “wanting to take Trump down” that is nothing more than opinion on your part. W e Independents/unaffiliateds see the committee as being composed of “people that want to know the truth” just as we want to know the truth.” I see these people as not against Trump so much as against what he did and did not do in defending the constitution and peaceful transfer of power. He definitely interfered with the peaceful transfer of power. Unfortunately I feel the Select Committee was a bit biased in that it did not dig into what Nancy Pelosi and other Dems did that allowed what Trump did or did not do to get so bad. However, just because the committee may have been biased against Trump as you say, does not mean the facts they brought to light are not true. And I was very interested in the facts. I think Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony was very relevant even if it cannot be used in court due to hearsay rules.

    Funny you should mention the wife beating example and being the man next door hearing the domestic disturbance. I was such a man on a vacation trip to Tampa. I heard just what you said. It sounded to me like a bad domestic violence incident. And so I did call the police and report the facts as I heard them. The man next door was removed from the apartment within an hour. While the information I stated to police might very well be legally considered hearsay, I simply reported it to keep a woman from being beaten. The woman thanked me. And so as the woman thanked me, I do thank the Select Committee for at least exposing some of the facts and giving me a glimpse into what happened that I would never have been able to get on my own.

    At this point, my feeling is to let the DOJ handle it on their own. And whatever they decide to do is fine with me. But again, I do think Pelosi’s and Schumer’s harsh rhetoric and things that they did or did not do behind the scenes did play a part in escalating the events – and it is unfortunate that this set of facts will never be known.

    • larry Horist

      Tom … what you reported was not hearsay. You were a direct witness. You were not told about the argument by another person. That is hearsay. You heard if. We can legally witness with our ears as well as our eyes.

      I understand your opinion, but I am nor sure you should present yourself as a spokesperson for the class. By their very nature, independents are not monolithic. Senators Sinema and Sanders are both independents — and I see two very different mindsets.

  5. frank stetson

    I am sorry, but blaming Pelosi and Schumer’s rhetoric while Trump’s is on the razor’s edge of inciting a riot, if not insurrection, seems to get the buy from you fine fellows. No one stormed Trump after their comments, no one broke down the walls and pissed on the walls of his house.

    While Larry touts the legal procedures here as new news, he avoids the facts of what this man did before, during, and after the election.

    I find it interesting that the party of the second amendment has become the party of the fifth amendment. There’s a procedural quagmire Larry skips altogether. We have 2 years of investigations and subpoenas; why should any Democrat appear at all, many Republicans skipped the subpoenas. And if they do show up, why not just plead the fifth like good Republicans do.

    From now on until forever, every four years, the date of 1/6 will be top dead center in our culture. Thanks Don. Larry, I think there’s a lot of things on the table from 1/6 from pleading the fifth, skipping out on Congressional subpoenas, and the big one: why did Trump wait over three hours before doing his job to protect the nation from all adversaries, foreign and domestic? To me, that’s the smoking gun: he seemed to think it was OK for three hours.

    • Tom

      I agree with you Frank! Gosh we are agreeing alot!!! I am feeling the love brother!!! I agree that we should know why Trump waited three hours! And I think we should find out why Nancy who is in charge of capital security did not do her job! And we should find out why the Mayor of DC did not accept the request for National Guard troops to be brought in before it all happened. She refused this request more than once, why? She had accurate information that a large scale incident was going to happen, why did she not act on it? And why has the FBI never been given subpoenas to answer for the pipe bomber, why??? And why were FBI plants in the Proud Boys never given subpoenas?? Why!!!???? Were they all aiding the enemy Trump in giving him and his Proud Boy pretend soldiers a clear path that Dems could use later as a reason to form a select committee? Like the Dem AG Rom Emmanuel once said, :Never let a good crisis go to waste!” Yes I do believe that Pelosi and Schumer’s rhetoric for weeks before the incident did bring about a tit for tat verbal mud fest that helped to fuel dangerous thoughts and rhetoric on both sides and did contribute to the over all feelings of anger and despair. So yes, I do believe they should have to testify for their harsh rhetoric and failures that contributed to the incident.

      But I am still feeling the love Frank, thank you!!! Merry Christmas to you and yours!

      • frank stetson

        Well, even a blind pig finds….. and merry Christmas to you and yours.

        How is Pelosi in charge of protecting the Nation’s Capital? Who made the request to the DC mayor before the siege? Yes, she sits at the top of the matrix managed system, and perhaps that’s not the best management model. The sergeant at arms sits on the board, and they report to Pelosi. But the board handles the day-to-day.

        Some facts:
        The force protecting the Capital has not be broken in decades. It took this mob 15 minutes to pierce the defense. They were large, armed, dedicated, and had a plan.

        There were plenty of calls for help, including to the President, DOD, National Guard and others. But the President did nothing for over three hours.

        Many ask why Pelosi couldn’t see it come and better prepare. Ask yourself who’s show it was, who was on first, who was in the BEST position not only to see it coming, but to provide defense than the President of the United States. And maybe if he, like many feel Pelosi was in a position to forecast, could see that possible outcome, maybe, just maybe he could have anticipated that and tone it down a little?

        Sure, investigate all, but remember what Larry says about where the buck stops. Here’s some links and assessments.
        “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard. Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard.”

        “The Capitol Police Board, which oversees the Capitol Police, did request assistance from the National Guard after the riot broke loose. While a member of this board, the House sergeant-at-arms, does report to Pelosi, there’s no indication that Pelosi prevented this official from calling the National Guard.”

        I am not sure what you feel Pelosi and Schumer said that was so wrong. Got examples?

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … You again create me in hour mind. You say I did not consider what Trump did before, during and after the riot. Did you even read the opening of this commentary? I know you did not comprehend it, if you did. This was NOT about the merits of the Trump issues, but an examination of the real value — or lack thereof — of the work of the Committee. And as for your assessment of January 6th in the eyes of history, I see it in the range of the Teapot Dome scandal. The two impeachments will be better remembers as a subject that involved four Presidents. January 6, 2021 will not be on future calendars.

      • frank stetson

        “January 6, 2021 will not be on future calendars.” Only if you force us to forget, or else.

        ” I am not sure the DOJ will even indict him for all the allegations of the Jan 6 Committee. ”
        I believe you put it out there in the commentary, that’s what I was reacting to in the commentary.

        Yes, your first sentence explained your purpose and how your title was false advertising.

  6. Mike F

    Larry, II just have two comments regarding your tome. Early on, you mention “including crimes he was vindicated for”. Now I am not a mind reader, it I will take a large leap and assume yo meant the russia investigation. You are taking the bill Barr synopsis of that investigation, which Mueller has stated was not accurate. Russia did want trump elected, and meddled in the election. Trump welcomed their help “russia if you’re listening…” + plus the meeting of his team for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary. There were many people who refused to speak to Mueller. The investigation was not ever really “complete” so we will never know. The second comment is regarding the Jan 6 committee and how they had no real power to charge an individual. You likened it to seeing a man beating his wife. In this case we did see the man beating his wife. Anyone with less than half a brain (which excludes every trump supporter) knows that he brought the mob to DC, stirred them up, encouraged them to go to the Capitol, then did nothing for hours while they created mayhem. The purpose of that commission was to provide details on that day, which they did. A job well done by patriots of the country, and yes, those republicans without a spine who did not care to see the truth were left off the commission-another smart idea to prevent a commission from getting bogged down by idiots who happen to be republican elected officials. So there tis-a bit of perspective on your ‘opinion’….

  7. Marie

    This is so ridiculous because the Biden’s has so much corruption. It is not fair to presecute one party and not the other. We the tax payers are tired of the Democrats witch hunt on Trump. We are tired of Biden giving the tax payer money to buy votes. We are tired of.him taking money from other country.for.his benefits. I am so sick of how the admin. Is running our country .

  8. Florida Phil

    “Much ado about nothing” – Willie

  9. Bubba Love

    At the upcoming up Republican controlled house hearings, Liz Cheney can show & tell (under oath) of how she went from 7 million when she was elected to 36 million in 3 short years on her government salary. Liz must have taken lessons on insider trading from Nancy Pelosi.