Select Page

Pelosi’s Select Committee is a dog that won’t hunt

Pelosi’s Select Committee is a dog that won’t hunt

I could say that my anticipatory commentary was spot on.  But modesty and discretion require that I not proclaim “I told you so” until the Pelosi’s production is over – at least this phase.  Remember … this is only an interim report offered up to impact on the 2022 midterms elections.  You will see more of this show until after the November election.  In fact, it will be the second-longest bogus political narrative – right behind the Russian conspiracy accusations that run for several years until Special Counsel Robert Mueller debunk it.

My overall reaction to the primetime opening of the Democrats so-called public hearings is … zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  They were actually less impressive than I anticipated – and my expectations were not very high.

The first problem is that there was nothing new.  We actually got to see snippets of the depositions of folks like former Attorney General William Barr, Ivanka Trump, and others saying that Trump was told he lost the election, but their testimony was reported widely previously.

Yes, there was unseen footage of the riot, but it was basically no different than the footage we have seen thousands and thousands of times in the past year and a half. It was a difference without a distinction.

The opening remarks by Chairman Bennie Thompson were sanctimonious, pompous, and self-praising – and too long in terms of content.   Vice Chairman Liz Cheney was equally self-praising by separating herself from other Republicans, using the broad brush of slander to accuse them of being dishonorable.   

Cheney was given the task of presenting what has been widely described in post-session reports as the opening statement of the prosecution.  That was my pre-session point.  This Select Committee was never undertaking a fair inquire, but rather pursuing a one-sided prosecution – and the opening session proved it.

Keep in mind that in America truth can only be determined and justice can only be served when both sides present their perspectives … their witnesses … their cross-examinations.  A one-sided case is automatically unfair, uninformative – and unAmerican.  It is partisan propaganda by definition.

A couple of analysts on CNN agreed with my assessment.  They made note of the fact that the Committee provided no opportunity for an essential counter argument.  There was no opportunity for the “other side” to call witnesses or present hard evidence.  There was no opportunity to cross examine witnesses.

Not only did the Committee show only carefully selected snippets of hours of taped depositions, but … ponder this .. they refused to release the entire depositions.  A prosecutor doing that in a court-of-law would be punished – could even lose his law license.  It is called “withholding evidence.”

Even as the Committee claimed to be defending American democracy, they were abusing it – literally nullifying basic constitutional protections that would apply if this was not solely a partisan political process.  If the Committee had irrefutable evidence and no exculpating evidence, they would not have needed to block the testimony of others and the cross examination by those proffering a defensive case. That is why I called it a “kangaroo Committee – and that is why it should be given no credibility.

For example, the prosecutorial Committee claimed that President Trump knew and believed that he lost the election – but that claim was never proven because there are counter arguments that have been reported to suggest that he truly believed the election was stolen.  That is the most critical point for a real indictment.

He was told that by many people – none of whom were presented – that the election was stolen.  And there was evidence of some vote fraud to be seen – although not sufficient to overturn the election as it turned out.  Critically, that is key to any future prosecutions of Trump.  If he can credibly show that he truly believed the election was stolen – that he had been so advised — there are no legal grounds for prosecution.  That why so many – even on the left — believe that Trump will not be charged and prosecute by the Justice Department.

They can claim that Trump committed crimes on television, but even they are uncertain if it is sufficient to prevail in a real court-of-law, where the defense has constitutional rights and there are rules-of-evidence and where the prosecution must make its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  

That is why Ivanka Trump should have been asked if she believed that her father really believed the election was stolen or whether she was aware of him receiving such information from others.  That is a critical question that the Committee prevented from being asked – from being explored.

The Committee staged a highly emotional argument that Capitol Hill Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of his participation in the riot.  There were camera shots of the crying mother and later interviews with the brothers.  Early on, the news media claimed that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher.  Video of the action and an official autopsy disproved that claim.  The media then claimed that it was a consequence of being sprayed with protective bear spray – then pepper spray.   Again, the video and the medical examiner’s report debunked those claims.  

According to the official autopsy report, Sicknick died of “natural causes” – in his case a post-event serious of strokes.  The medical examiner has never been interviewed or allowed to testify.  Imagine that … they continue to proffer a false claim of the cause of death, just as they claim an officer who later died from suicide, was killed as a result of the riot.  And again, the latter’s grieving mother was essentially put on the stand by focusing her on camera in the audience.  Those is all the methods and manners of propagandists – forget the facts and play to the emotions.

The prosecutorial opening remarks presented by Cheney never dealt with the question as to why the Capital Building was left so poorly guarded at a time when intelligence reports were predicting potential violence.  Why did both Speaker Pelosi and District Mayor Muriel Bowser reject hardening the target?  It is arguable that so many of the Capitol Hill police were injured because they were insufficient in numbers and insufficient equipment to handle the crowd.  It was a little like Benghazi, where pleas for help were ignored and rejected at a higher level.  Even worse than Benghazi because of all the forewarnings.

Both Pelosi and Bowser bear legal responsibility for protecting the Capitol Building and those who work or visit the historic structure.  And yet, they were never on the witness list.

The two witnesses for the prosecution were not key.  The testimony of Capitol Hill Officer Caroline Edwards, elicits sympathy – as one would feel for any police officer attacked by an angry mob. That is the same feeling I have for all those police attacked by angry and violent rioters in major cities over the past half century.  Folks on both sides agree that the rioters on Capitol Hill should be punished, but only one side feels the same about the rioters that attacked the most common of the common folks in their homes and businesses.

Photojournalist Nick Quested was embedded with the Proud Boys.  He tracked the movements and their statements.  The implication is that the Proud Boys were engaged in long-range planning to violently attack the Capitol Building in an effort to stop the counting of ballots AND to overthrow the government by force.  Virtually every peaceful demonstrator and protestor on Capitol Hill that day wanted the count to be stopped under the banner “stop the steal.”  To suggest that even the Proud Boys intended an actual coup to not only stop the certification but to disband the Congress and install Trump as el presidente is utter nonsense.  I mean … who attempts a coup without some guns?

There are three central issues that the prosecution is proffering; that Trump lost the election fair and square and he knew it; that the actions on Capitol Hill were an attempted coup; and that the attempt to seize control of the government by force and chicanery is ongoing –threatening the legitimacy of the 2022 and 2024 elections.

I have repeatedly opined that Trump should stop whining about the 2020 election.  If he is going to run again, he should focus on providing his vision of a Trump in America’s future.  If he is not, he should just shut up about 2020.  I have already stated my intention to NOT vote for Trump if he decides to run in 2024– just as I did not vote for him in the 2016 Republican primary.  I am of the opinion that he will not run.  If he does, I do not believe he will win the nomination for reasons I articulated in previous commentaries.

Trump’s fate in terms of criminality has nothing – as in nothing – to do with the deliberations or the trumped-up charges by the politically motivated and biased Select Committee.  That is all up to the Department of Justice … period.

In fact, in terms of Trump’s legal culpability, there was no need for the Select Committee.  As one formal federal prosecutor put it, the DOJ has a lot more authority and resources – including the FBI – to investigate any criminality by Trump and others – and they are doing just that.  The Select Committee is merely a political side-show – a kangaroo Committee in the court-of-public-opinion.  It is a political vehicle with a partisan purpose that has more to do with the future election than the past election.

Yes, the highly promoted presentation by the Committee is good theater – but that is all it is.  A docudrama based on as much fiction as fact.  We have seen this movie before.  Despite the hopes and best efforts of Democrats and their media allies, this political production is not going to be a gamechanger in terms of the midterm elections.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry HoristLarry 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.

24 Comments

  1. the old marine

    This is the worst ” dog and pony show : I have seen, but look who is the leader and the ones who are staring in it. Any thing to distract from all the other pressing problems they don’t want to face. American voters don’t be fooled and remember who caused all this crap when you vote. Who said if you don’t like the gas prices buy a electric car, remember all.

    Reply
    • the Redhawk

      OO Rahh !! It is like going to a CARNIVAL SHOW to see TRAINED APES perform for BANANAS AND PEANUTS ON COMMAND !

      Reply
      • Micala

        Only the Monkeys have wings and their trainer (Pathetic Pelosi) is the Wicked Witch of the West! Can we throw some water on her and watch her MELT AWAY?
        I’m sure NP’s AGING BRAIN thinks she is in the Wizard of Oz, and DJT is Oz! She is half right. She IS the wicked witch who loves destroying things, not the Good Witch that protects all the munchkins!

        Please send Todo to pee on NP’s leg and let’s see if she actually will melt!

        Reply
    • Micala

      This COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE JAN 6 SUPPOSED BREAK IN IS NOTHING BUT A COVER UP FOR PELOSI WHO ACTUALLY ORCHESTRATED THE WHOLE DC EVENT! Now she is using this pathetic grouping of loser speakers to HIDE PELOSI’S part in creating another event to BLAME DJT SO SHE COULD TRY TO IMPEACH HIM! Come on folks! Her desire for another impeachment WAS WRITTEN ALL OVER THE WEB FOR EVERYONE TO SEE!! You’d have to be ignoramuses to miss that!

      We were watching all of the very first videos that occurred during the event. Not only did we see the actual SHOOTING OF ASHLEY BABBITT (as it happened in real time), but we saw several “MEN TOTALLY DRESSED IN BLACK WITH MASKS AND BASEBALL CAPS HIDING THE COLOR OF THEIR HAIR RACING UPSTAIRS TO THE OFFICE AREAS AND THEN RUNNING DOWNSTAIRS WITH COMPUTERS and FILES in their arms! Those were PROFESSIONAL FBI, CIA OR SECRET SERVICE MEN PICKING UP SOMEONE’S PRIVATE INFO — PELOSI’S COMPUTER/FILES — SO NOTHING CONNECTING HER TO THIS B.I. WOULD SURFACE!!

      YES! “PATHETIC PELOSI” HATED DJT THAT MUCH THAT SHE WOULD CRAZILY JEOPARDIZE HER OWN JOB — that is destructive, seething hate my friends!!

      Nancy Pelosi is a TRAIN WREAK WAITING TO HAPPEN AND NEEDS TO BE KICKED OUT OF HER POSITION AND THE HOUSE FOR HER ACTIONS THAT CREATED THE JAN 6 EVENT! Do NOT believe her — she is lying 100%! This Committee is just a COVER UP FOR HER TO HIDE HER PART IN CREATING THIS WANTON DESTRUCTION OF OUR CAPITOL!!

      Reply
  2. The Redhawk

    one more thing about the DEMOCRAT ” rule of law”……Raskin nad Bennie Thompson refused to accept the W Bush nad Trump legally won Elections …. Are we seeing HYPOCRITE CLOWNS along with that LYING Dog Adam SChifft on this Panel of CIRCUS CLOWNS ???

    Reply
    • Ben

      Stupid shit Ruskies need better English classes before attempting their disinformation assaults.

      Reply
  3. Tom

    Well Larry, GOP was asked by Pelosi to participate and could have sent reasonable minded people, but instead they sent ardent stop the steal people. And then they decided not to send anyone at all. Also, this is not a court action or trial of any type. So the committee is not obligated to get into court type proceedings. They are only obligated to get to the truth. Actually William Barr told him there was no evidence of fraud or stealing the election. Ivanka clearly told him he lost. This is not in debate. Recall Trump in his deranged mind was already laying the ground work for his beliefs back in August when he said the only way he could lose is if the Democrats steal it. Trump was already spreading the steal myth. You do have a good point on protecting the capital. And I will award you another point for the medical stuff, as we all want the truth no matter which party it might favor. You ask, “Who attempts a coup without some guns?” Answer: Same kind of people that attend a supposedly peaceful protest in riot gear and special forces get ups! And the same kind of people that break into offices and steal documents and other things that they should not have seen. These same kinds of people attempted that day to stop the lawfully required processes of government and peaceful transfer of power by vote certification. So yes, they were attempting a coup. What is a coup is when one group tries to stop the lawful operations of a government. I agree, Trump should not run again and I commend your decision not to vote for him in the past or now. I agree in that I doubt that it will be a game changer in the midterms, but it will serve to wake people up! The people will have to decide what is fact and what is fiction, and Trump loves drama so he is probably secretly enjoying it all. You are a stand up kind of guy Larry, I do not care what Moe (Frank) and Curly (Ben) say, you’re alright!

    Reply
    • beven nation

      Oh Tom…..you devil……think “what’s love got to do with it,” and a 1 and a 2 and a:

      Oh Tom,,,,,
      “It may seem to you that I’m acting confused
      When you’re close to me
      If I tend to look dazed, I’ve read it someplace
      I’ve got cause to be
      There’s a name for it
      There’s a phrase that fits
      But whatever the reason, you do it for me

      Oh-oh, what’s logic got to do, got to do with it?
      What’s logic but a second-hand emotion?
      What’s logic got to do, got to do with it?
      Who needs a mind, when a mind can be broken?”

      There’s a lot of broken minds out there Tom. Much breakage.

      Read the “logic” these Trumplicant Insurrectionists spew as the rationale for their participation in the festivities of 1/6. “It will be wild” summarizes the places-in-the-mind these Trump mega-sheeples were coming from. Think about all the video shot. Why would you do that unless you thought it needed to be memorialized in a way that the original patriots were never able to do. Hell, they were concerned they were signing their death with the Declaration, can’t imagine them putting some pics in for King George at the same time.

      Reply
      • Perry

        It’s all going to cause embarrassment to nasty pussy and her disciples

        Reply
    • larry Horist

      Tom … Pelosi broke a tradition of allowing the opposition party to name their committee members. she objected to two forceful Republicans but had no problem putting the most strident and partisan Democrats on the Committee and the two Republicans totally aligned with the Democrat’s. That is not in the spirit of bipartisanship. You opinion that they are only seeking the truth. If that were the case, there would be Republicans on the Committee. One does not get to the truth in a one-sided presentation. It is why these are not “hearings” or even an “investigation.” They do not seem to be resonating well with the American people who have a sense of fairness.

      Reply
  4. Mike

    Larry, Even given the low expectations that I have when I read your tomes, this one is really flawed. I guess when you are attempting to defend the indefensible, and writing for MAGAT’s that should be expected. It is hard for us to know if you are really clueless about how this process is supposed to play out, or just lying to your base. Day 1, which you based your commentary on, was meant to disprove the words of many conservatives that “seeing the videos the viewer would think that this was just a normal tour group going through the Capitol”. While we have seen many of these videos before, the point was clearly made that the MAGAT’s who entered the Capitol were determined to disrupt the proceedings, and did not care if they caused injury to the Capitol Police force who were protecting the building. So much for Conservatives respecting the Police and the rule of law-only when it suits their needs. As has been previously pointed out, the Republican members of Congress were invited to join in a bipartisan investigation led by the Senate, when that failed, Nancy did what she had to do and set up a commission in the House, which she invited Republican House Members to participate on. McCarthy provided two ringers, Jim Banks and Gym Jordan, who due to their propensity for theatrics, were rejected. Instead of providing other choices, McCarthy decided not to participate. Pelosi then chose two credible Republican Candidates and the committee moved on. Bottom line-you and Republicans in Congress have no basis to complain that “the other side is not being represented”, that was a choice made by both House and Senate Leadership. Moving on, we had Day 2 of the hearings, where the point was made (repeatedly) by members of Trump’s team that Trump was told he legitimately lost the election. Words like “detached from reality” and “absolute bullshit” were used to describe Trump’s decision to listen to people like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell rather than the advisors from his administration. You also repeated the right wing talking point that Pelosi bears responsibility for allowing this to happen-not so…..https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/ Many people were involved in the decision, and the fact is they were not expecting that Trump would be inciting a riot to stop the Senate Voting and attempt to “hang Mike Pence”. And you say that the people inside the Capitol were not armed, so it couldn’t be an insurrection-again not true…. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tucker-carlson-slammed-by-fact-checkers-for-claiming-none-of-the-january-6-rioters-had-guns/ar-AAYqnmhocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5465bb23e12f40c6ac8b9f945b824e6a Guns were present, and there were certainly plenty of other weapons in use judging by injuries sustained by the Capitol Police. You also complain that only “snippets” of testimony were played, but given the time constraints of the hearings, there is no other way to handle this testimony. I have not heard any of the witnesses complain that their comments were taken out of context, so I am led to believe that these “snippets” are accurate. You have attempted to judge the results of this multi-day hearing based on what you saw on Day 1, I suggest that you wait until all the evidence is presented before you jump to the conclusion that what we are seeing is “Political Theater”….

    Reply
    • Joe Gilbertson

      Turns out the “indefensible” was easily defended. Just based on the video alone, the best evidence that they could come up with in all that time, there was no “riot”

      Reply
      • Ben

        who are “they” that said there was no “riot?”

        Reply
  5. frank stetson

    I am not sure how a city guy from Chicago who probably does not hunt, does not own a gun, can say that phrase with a straight face……

    Needless to say, this was perhaps the longest description of a nothing burger, a snooze fest, that I have ever witnessed. And you know I am a “long talker.”

    “”The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Reply
  6. frank stetson

    Larry opens with: “In fact, it will be the second-longest bogus political narrative – right behind the Russian conspiracy accusations that run for several years until Special Counsel Robert Mueller debunk it.” Beyond the need for remedial English, Larry, who loves “rule of law,” has opened the door to discussing the Russian conspiracy accusations and Mueller’s debunking of said conspiracy. Tis not a tangent, tis Larry opening the door. Also, whatever Larry means by second longest is shrouded in his definition of “political narrative,” to which I say one word: Benghazi.

    It struck me as humorous to see the “Russia witch hunt nothing burger total exoneration” spin no doubt Larry alluding to if Dems did it once, they can do it again. Larry wisely calls it conspiracy accusations, points for accuracy. Surprised the failed Trump Ukraine extortion impeachment attempt did not get worked in. On Russia, I can only paraphrase Larry himself: Larry…. you are a johnny-one-note propagandist. No matter what I write, you start haranguing on Russia-gate. The irony is that I have never claimed that Trump conspired with Russia or would be caught. I think debating that point is meaningless. Meaning your contributions to the discussion is meaningless. The outcome of the 2020 election is already locked in the hearts and minds of the public. I think you and Trump need to let go of Russia, they are evil now, not your best buddy. I know that is not easy since Trumplicant are reliving the past every day since they know they have no chance of winning on any real issue. In case, you had not noticed … most Americans are turning off the entire subject.

    But, like the legal beagle you seem to be, since you opened Russia-gate issue as your argument’s defense, let’s examine the facts.

    First, for conspiracy, Barr concluded with Mueller’s statement: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” which means total exoneration to some folks, like Larry. I, myself, have said for some time that while we can’t prove squat, legally, in court, that having over 200 contacts with Ruskies before being elected stinks to high heaven, always will. Unfortunately, can’t get a conviction for a meeting. Larry conveniently spins Barr’s famous letter when he purposely leaves out Mueller’s direct response to that, saying Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of the work effort conclusions creating what Mueller called “public confusion.” IOW, falsely claiming total exoneration, according to Muller, and his report, does not capture the report conclusions. Neither does Larry.

    As Barr intended and Muller illuminated, Larry is publicly confused. In the report he again missed Mueller stating: while unable to legally establish a conspiracy, it is clear that a “statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

    According to the report,

    – the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

    – “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

    – “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” which targeted Clinton. They released the documents, sometimes by public request of Donald J. Trump at certain moments in time.

    – There were numerous mysterious links between the Russian Government and Team Trump. The report has over 200 pages of said links, calls, meetings, etc.

    – Team Trump sharing Midwestern state polling data where Trump mysteriously won upset victories

    – Team Trump conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference

    – Team Trump communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia.

    – There are no provable ACTS of conspiracy, under our laws, there was not exoneration according to Mueller himself.

    Most of the above can be described as collusion, not a legal crime, but the public can be the judge as to whether right or wrong. And justice for Larry, in this case, seems blind. I can easily see there is no PROVABLE conspiracy, especially given the limitations Mueller was under. But to see all this collusion and believe there was nothing wrong seems to be holding Team Trump to a lesser standard than previously set by Republicans, before they became Trumplicants. They brought fire and brimstone down on a guy for getting a blowjob, legally, and lying about it, but having over 200 contacts and meetings with Russians, before the election, while everyone knows the Russiabs are stealing our data, publishing it illegally, establishing a massive disinformation campaign, hacking our state and local voter registration databases, and mucking with our elections —– that’s appears to be a nothing burger to Larry. Most politicians would have run from such meetings, Team Trump embraced them. I wonder what happened, we may never really know completely. But we do know what Mueller found and he found nothing that would lead to a conspiracy conviction. We also should listen to Mueller when he said that it is clear that a “statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” This is not Mueller saying total exoneration, far from it.

    One thing Larry and I can agree on for RussiaGate is that it is over.
    Except, in my case, for the crying :>)
    Now on to Trump’s DonorGate —- $250M raised off The Big Lie. Apparently it is true for a lot of people Larry and all your protests about The Big Lie have not quelled that. That’s where your party is spending it’s capital, personal and pecuniary.

    Reply
  7. larry Horist

    Frank … you are the perfect propagandist. Out of contexts snippet from the Mueller Report to “Intimate” a conspiracy but you leave out the conclusion. Mueller did not say there was insufficient evidence for a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling. He said there was no conspiracy. And you you write as if you are proffering a case that is closed. And the habit of Democrats to create elaborate false narratives is fair consideration in terms of the Select Committee. They can do it because the left-leaning media pumps the hot air in to their flimsy and baseless accusations. And like good prosecutor you attack the messenger over and over to distract from the weaknesses in your looooong screeds. I know you are obsessed with the Larry Horist of your mental invention. I thought one of your most telling comments was when you wrote “No matter what I write, you start haranguing on Russia-gate. The irony is that I have never claimed that Trump conspired with Russia or would be caught.” You actually have the delusion that my commentaries are directed at you personally — that I have you on my mind. You also write about me in the third person as opposed to addressing the commentaries — as if you are in a personal competition, with you at the prosecution table and me (your invented Larry Horist) at the defense table. Now that is funny — but it does explain your obsession. But I certainly will not waste time engage point-by-point with your cascade of garbage arguments, flawed logic totally wrong information because I trust the readers to see through them.

    Reply
    • frank stetson

      Since I was paraphrasing a Larry attack on me, I guess you know the feeling.

      But I wrote what Mueller said, what he has said, and what he continues to say.

      It is you who took Barr out of context in his ill-fated “summary.”

      Reply
    • Mike

      Larry, In your “snippet” from the Mueller report you very conveniently leave out the part that he could not make his decision on criminal wrong-doing due to the lack of testimony from people involved. While the issue is closed, the report did not exonerate Team Trump…

      Reply
      • larry Horist

        Mike .. You seem to be confusing two distinct issues. Mueller cleared the Trump campaign of criminal collusion with the Russian meddling… period. You seem to be referring to the obstruction of justice portion in which Mueller made no conclusions — but left it up to the DOJ to decided. And AG Barr and the folks in the Office of Professional Conduct (or something like that) made a group decision that there was no criminality. End of case. You can play the illogical that nothing proved Trump did not do those things, but in the eyes of the law, Trump was exonerated. Maybe you do not think he should have been .. but he was. Presumption of innocence is the foundation of American juris prudence. So, you can play out your opinions in the court-of-public-opinion, but under the law, Trump is innocent of those accusations…. period. We will have to see what develops in the future. Personally, I would not be surprised if Trump had more trouble with the law on his private practices than his public activities. Have to wait and see.

        Reply
  8. frank stetson

    I laughed as Larry laments on the length of my “screeds;” did you see the length of this one of Larry describing why it’s a nothing burger? I think the kitchen sink drops in paragraph 227.

    Around 1/6 Joe’s party had some feelings about Trump and the insurrection:

    “I still cannot believe that a mob was able to take over the United States Capitol during such a pivotal moment — certifying a presidential election. It would have been so easy for terrorists to boot strap onto this protest and wreak even further destruction on the U.S. Capitol,” Lyndsey Graham-cracker

    Moscow Mitch said: “There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it,” he said then, calling it “a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

    “POTUS needs to calm this shit down,” GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina wrote that afternoon.
    “TELL THEM TO GO HOME !!!” former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus messaged at that same time.

    “POTUS should go on air and defuse this. Extremely important,” Tom Price, former Trump health and human services secretary and a former GOP representative from Georgia, texted.
    “Fix this now,” wrote GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas.

    During and shortly after the attack, it looked like the aftermath of 9/11 when we all came together in common cause, Republicans and Democrats, not Trumplicants and Democraps. Like 9/11, it was evident by all that there was a need to get to the bottom on this, to find out what really happened and why. A 9/11-type commission was brought to the floor of the Senate and then, everything changed. Folks remembered it was an election year. Suddenly, Republicans became Trumplicants, said it was yesterday’s news, they said that we saw it all, they said it was just a typical rock concert type melee, and let the DOJ take care of it. Republicans voted down a 9/11 type bipartisan committee.

    After Trumplicants just said NO, Nancy created a select committee and openly invited Republicans to join them in investigating, by Congress, the events of 1/6. Democrats would have rather had a non-partisan 9/11-style commission. Trumplicants said no.

    By design, the House voted for a select committee with Pelosi’s eight members McCarthy’s five. McCarthy appointed Banks, Jordan, Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls. Pelosi, as is her right by House rules, rejected two: Jordan and Banks. This is uncommon but happens. Especially when the minority will not bend to discussions about selection appropriateness. McCarthy opted to pull all of his people out. Do I agree with this? No. But it is the rules, it is uncommon, but it does happen. And I understand that Jordan and Banks would have attempted to sabotage the affair as has been their history of disruption and not following the rules of discourse. After McCarthy cried and took his marbles home, Pelosi appointed Cheney and Kinzinger. Again, I do not agree. They are fine Republicans, no matter what Trumplicants feel, but IMO Pelosi should have named five members. But, again, they are the rules of the House, Larry, so buck up, buttercup, you made your bed, she warned you. Trumplicants had two bites at the apple and they rejected both.

    For Trumplicants to cry partisan witch hunt is whining about a self-inflicted wound. For them to argue it’s politics during a mid-term, they should have considered that one shortly after 1/6. The fact that they didn’t speaks volumes as to their ability to govern if they can’t read a calendar. They wasted months putting the conclusion right smack dab in the middle of the midterm. If they had more people on the committee, they may have navigated that better, before or after the midterms — there was time.

    For them to argue it’s unfair and does not follow House tradition, until 1900, the Speaker made the picks. That was our tradition. When we founded the nation, the speaker of the House selected all committee members. Since 1900, both parties have selected, but often the Speaker provides some quiet pressure behind the barn and the Speaker always retains the ability to deny which is uncommon, but has been used. McCarthy refused to heed the warnings and made the personal choice to extract his party and now he, and pundits like Larry, decry what they created. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways Larry, but I guess it is an election year and you are caught with a real issue here. There is no upside and not tackling the actual issue, what happened and why on that day, speaks volumes.

    Lastly, Larry argues: “in America truth can only be determined and justice can only be served when both sides present their perspectives.” Well, Larry, like I said, you folks made your bed, you must have known the rules, and you either screwed the pooch or figured if you opted out that folks could make hay by writing feckless pieces like yours.

    Reply
  9. larry Horist

    Frank … Your obsession to debate me is getting ridiculous. You are not rebutting things where we seem to agree. I have said that the violence on Capitol Hill was reprehensible — and that the rioters should be punished. Especially the attacks on police. They were both the victims of the mob AND the people who failed to give them adequate support — like Nancy Pelosi. (Who is not dragging her high heels in protecting the Supreme Court justices.) As you (should) know, every Republican condemned he rioters — as you note in your screed. I am not convinced that Trump wanted the riot, but was certainly slow in calling them off. That was irresponsible, but probably not criminal. We seem to agree on that. I have also questioned McCarthy’s decision to not add GOP members to the Committee — and even suggested he do so belatedly. But that does not change the fact that Pelosi broke tradition by denying members appointed by McCarthy. That was an abuse of power, in my judgement. She was not hesitant in adder the most strident and partial members of her own caucus. For whatever reason, the Committee turned out as a very partial and unfair instrument of partisan propaganda. The GOP members make it officially bipartisan, but even as one Democrat admitted … it is a one-sided panel. That will never produce the truth or justice. Such a body has no real credibility. It operates with the insidious power of one version .. one spin … one pre-ordained conclusion. To claim fairness and truth out of such a body can only be made by stridently partisan or hopelessly ignorant people. By the way, you say a Speaker rejecting members proposed by the other side is “uncommon” but has happned. Honestly, I am not aware of it every happening. And yes, Pelosi had the “right” (power) to pick ALL the members of any committee. That is why I call it an abuse of power.

    Reply
    • Eric

      Nancy isn’t a speaker. Just a loud mouth bitch

      Reply
    • frank stetson

      I did reply, I think, Larry. Believe that post is in the penalty box, will give it a few more hours.

      Reply
  10. frank stetson

    Larry, my obsession is clearly not with YOU. Don’t flatter yourself, narcissist. Being Frank….I suggest you tone it down, I will try the same, and we can discuss. But if you continue with the snarky, I will feel free to respond in kind. I know, I started it, it’s all my fault, I am Mr. Guilty, but you can be the bigger man and stop it now. I will give you a mulligan on this one.

    “You are not rebutting things where we seem to agree.” Well, that could be a problem. Are you asking me to rebut things I agree with? Another typo?

    You are wrong: Nancy Pelosi is not responsible to protect the Capitol from Trumplicants, Trumplicant white supremacists, or anyone else. If I remember correctly, only one man was charged as Commander in Chief, pledged to protect us from all comers, foreign, domestic, and Trump-sent.

    “every Republican condemned he rioters” Even if I take your misspeak as actually meaning “every Republican in Congress,” you know now that one of them gave a tour to the seditious conspirators so they could case the joint. This man is facing real legal problems and should be tossed from Congress ASAP. He is an enemy of the people. Rep. Andrew S. Clyde (R-Ga.) said it was a “normal tourist visit.” Rep. Paul Gosar said they were “peaceful patriots” and added Babbitt was “executed.” And then the fool claimed DOJ was harassing these peaceful folks. Rep. Ralph Norman said they were not Trump supporters at all but plants. Gaetz said he was proud of the work these fine folk were doing that day. I can go on and on Larry. I think you are misinformed or accepting of the flippy flops. But they said it.

    “I am not convinced that Trump wanted the riot, but was certainly slow in calling them off. That was irresponsible, but probably not criminal.” Personally Larry, where is your line? Not criminal, therefore OK? You regularly treat me like shit and I am doing nothing criminal. Trump, the most powerful man in the world at that point, our Commander in Chief, the man who took the oath to be charged with the nation’s protection from all comers, foreign and domestic, does not raise a finger for over four freaking hours, watching the whole thing unfold live, on TV, as the National Guard and Police sat watching the thing, making panic calls to get the go-ahead, and waiting over 2 hours after they first raised the alert and told officials they were ready. He’s the President. It was HIS crowd. Like Nero, he just fiddled away. If you are OK with that because its not criminal, I can only sigh. It’s certainly not OK with me; impeach the son of a bitch one more time and then neither of us will have to worry about him on the ballot again. Do it fast and you might save shooting yourselves in the foot one more time, this time the mid-terms.

    “I have also questioned McCarthy’s decision to not add GOP members to the Committee — and even suggested he do so belatedly.” Good for you, and I agree that Nancy could have optic’d this better by picking less incendiary members, if for no other than the history your mentioned creating the optics I suggested. “But that does not change the fact that Pelosi broke tradition by denying members appointed by McCarthy. That was an abuse of power, in my judgement.” OK, that’s a funny one. First, until 1900, the minority had no say, traditionally. Since then, the offer is extended, often behind-the-barn negotiations get rid of the barnburners, BUT the Speaker can do what they want, and while not the norm, it has been done upon occasion. This was an occasion, given McCarthy’s stance. However, what happened to “That was irresponsible, but probably not criminal” and “abuse of power?” In for a peck, in for a pound :>) Can I toss in “dereliction of duty” and “violation of his oath to the Constitution?”

    The rest is your opinion, I can disagree but I can’t say you are wrong, “tis” your right. I will say you summed: “For whatever reason, the Committee turned out as a very partial and unfair instrument of partisan propaganda.” Partiality yes, I agree. But your side made it that way so suck it up. We wanted a non-partisan 9.11-type commission, Mitch said no need. We offered to make the Select Committee a 5 to 7 bipartisan affair, McCarthy wouldn’t deal on the participants — he might have dealt on both party’s using the informal process. He is the minority, fish or cut bait — he cut bait. No matter what they say, it is a stacked deck, no doubt, if for no other reason than the mid-terms makes everything political this year. Unfair? One Spin? Abuse of power? Only time will tell based on the evidence provided. Your side can bring anything to the table, at the committee or even public level. I could care less if Liz or whoever is presenting, I care more about the evidence. And you should admit, it already looks damning.
    In all honesty Larry, while you claim to be unchanging, what I see is the new evidence slowing bringing the Larry-camel’s head into the tent. It seems to me that you are more accepting that something wrong went on. You seem to think more was wrong today, than yesterday, and that’s fair as the evidence unfolds. IMO.

    But I think we need to wait to see it all before we can determine what we really think or what might be done about it. I have questions from Trump to the pre-planning to the Willard hotel to the response to the extremists to the “tourists” caught up in the melee. I still say there is much to learn. Will we catch Trump? Only if 1) he has done something criminal and 2) a inner-circle Trumper flips. Even if guilty as sin, that’s a stretch given Trump’s history of operation. Since we now are seeing planning, intent, motive, and all sorts of crap from all sorts of places, we are still not sure IF any ties to higher ups, or coordinating places, might be discovered.

    We certainly presume that Mr. Loudermilk will be visited by the FBI, Select Committee and perhaps other denizens of the law soon. Wonder what he might say?

    See the other “caffine-adjusted” tome I wrote to your other 1.6 treatise, Now there’s some conspiracy, ala liberally caffeinated.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.