Why the Work of the January 6th Committee is Not Reliable
To give The January 6th Committee more credibility than it deserves, the statements from the Committee – and from those in support of the committee’s objectives, especially the news media – are deceptive.
Neither the work of the Committee nor the reporting is an objective presentation of the facts. Rather it is a propaganda-style narrative that began with prejudgment and proceeded with a biased narrative.
Propaganda narratives depend not only on the selection of “facts” and “evidence” out of context but on the perpetration of lies.
Lie #1 … The Committee is bipartisan
While that lie is advanced and accepted by the most hardline partisans, anyone looking at the makeup of the Committee with an objective and rational mind would see through that prevarication. While two of the members were officially registered and elected Republicans, they aligned themselves with the mission and goals for which the Committee was created by Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats.
Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger were not named to the Committee by the Republican leadership – which has been the historic tradition of the House. They were appointed by Democrat Speaker Pelosi. They, like the Democrats on the Committee, were selected by Pelosi because of their strong articulated anti-Trump, anti-Republican establishment views.
There is another little-known nuance. Normally, the vice chair of a committee is selected from the same party as the chairman and would assume the leadership when the chairman is not available. A committee leader from the opposing party is the “Minority Leader”. In this case, Cheney was selected by Democrat Chairman Bennie Thompson to be HIS vice chair. In other words, Cheney was appointed to the Committee by the Democrat leadership – and given the traditional Democrat position of vice chair.
Pelosi & Co. have abused the meaning of bipartisanship – by appointing two members who were totally in line with the Democrats’ narrative … the Democrats’ objectives … and the Democrats’ strategy. Cheney and Kinzinger were no longer operating under the GOP flag. That is NOT bipartisanship. There can be no argument that ALL the members of the Committee were bound by a common cause.
Lie #2 …The Committee was holding hearings
I have personally been involved in hundreds of legislative hearings – from state houses to Congress – and the January 6th Committee was not holding anything that conformed to a traditional legislative hearing. Hearings involve the exploration of facts, documents, and testimony from all viewpoints to arrive at a yet undetermined truth. In terms of legislatures, the hearing process is to develop information leading to new laws, tax policies, and appropriations. The January 6th Committee had no interest in hearing all the facts – or any legislative purpose.
Lie #3 … The Committee was investigating the events of January 6th.
An investigation is more than a hearing. There can be a search for wrongdoing. Even then, however, there is an examination and presentation of ALL the facts – those that tend to incriminate and those that tend to exculpate. An investigation is conducted to discover If the subject is guilty of wrongdoing. Historically legislative investigations provide opportunities for both sides to give testimony and cross-examine witnesses. That was not the case with the January 6th Committee. Even without members representing a Republican viewpoint, the January 6th Committee could have maintained some semblance of objectivity and fairness in terms of witnesses. But … they did not.
Some argue that there was an opportunity for other witnesses to appear – potentially representing an alternative viewpoint. The problem with that argument is that such a witness would have had to appear before a biased tribunal. They would not have gotten a fair hearing.
Lie #4 … The Committee provided irrefutable evidence of criminal activity.
The Committee did not provide any proof of criminal activity because it does not have the authority to render such judgment. Congress cannot only NOT determine the guilt of anyone for anything, it does not even have the power to indict – to bring a person into a court-of-law to have the case adjudicated. As has been said many times – but seldom appreciated – Congress is a POLITICAL body. It can only render a POLITICAL opinion. In this case, it was a partisan political opinion based on prejudgment.
Summary
If what the Committee carried out for all these months was not a hearing … an investigation … and did not provide legal PROOF of criminal activity, what was it doing?
That is very obvious. It was operating as a faux prosecutorial body – arguably more like an inquisition. Like all prosecutorial cases, there is a presumption of guilt on the part of prosecutors –but that is only an opinion. They then packaged the evidence and testimony not to judge the case, but to prove THEIR narrative.
It is the same when a prosecutor presents a case to a Grand Jury – which only hears the evidence and arguments from the point-of-view of the prosecutors. There is no opportunity for the defense to rebut in a Grand Jury hearing. That is why they say that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
That is how unfair a one-sided prosecution is. And is why courts-of-law have procedures and rules guaranteeing that the accused has the right to mount a full defense – to bring forth evidence to rebut the prosecutor’s case.
The one-sided nature of the Committee’s work makes its final report, and all its conclusions and accusations, suspect – no matter how much praise the Committee receives for its “good work” from sycophantic political allies and media.
Whether President Trump or others are guilty of crimes is yet to be determined – public opinion notwithstanding. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court-of-law. They most certainly deserve better than inquisition-style conviction in the court-of-public-opinion sullied by political partisanship.
I understand people who hate trump and are convinced of his guilt, but the folks that bother me are the members of the Committee … Democrat leaders … and the news people … who claim to be the defenders of the Constitution and yet are so willing to kick to the curb the most basic rights articulated in the document.
So, there ‘tis.
INDEPENDENT’S COURT IS NOW IN SESSION, HONORABLE TOM PRESIDING:
Lie #1 – Denied and dismissed. McCarthy is the root cause, he failed to appoint members to the committee which was already entered into evidence in a previous post. Facts: GOP is happy to brag bipartisan when one senator, Manchin, votes with them despite the whole Dem party not agreeing with Manchin. Fact: GOP cannot have it both ways. If two congress persons were GOP on the committee, then it is bipartisan, at least until someone officially re-defines bipartisan, specifically what it means to have “two parties in agreement over a choice”. While it is true that the majority of the GOP congress persons did not like the choice made by Pelosi, there were some that did like the choice, at least 10 of them – so part of the GOP was in agreement with the choice, and the GOP never defined “consensus” within its own party during the selection process.
Lie #2 – Denied and dismissed. Facts: The Select Committee meets the non-legal definition of hearing, 1) it had an approved congressional committee, 2) it was open to the public, 3) it did investigate (Definition 3, “make inquiries as to the character, activities, or background of (someone).” events of Jan 6th. The definition of “hearing” that you are attempting to sell is a legal definition “court room hearing” (definition #1) which the Select Committee never said they were nor tried to be. They were using Definition #3. The use of Definition #3 is also testified to when as you say in Lie #4, ” Congress cannot only NOT determine the guilt of anyone for anything, it does not even have the power to indict – to bring a person into a court-of-law to have the case adjudicated. ” Your own argument “where Congress cannot adjudicate” in Lie #4 verifies the use of definition #3 for hearing referenced herein in Lie #2, and used by the Select Committee.
Lie #3 – Part 1 Accepted: Because there could have been more questions asked at minimum by the GOP representatives to get to the whole truth. Cross examination is not required under definition #3 of “hearing” which is a non-legal definition, but full truth is an implied objective, and full truth could have been achieved through the questioning process implemented..
Lie #3 – Part 2 Denied and dismissed – Regarding the statement, “witness would have had to appear before a biased tribunal. They would not have gotten a fair hearing.”: This statement is denied and dismissed since it is speculation and opinion only, hearsay of a dangerous and inflammatory nature. The truth is, they were asked, they could have given their facts in public or private, and their facts would have been recorded despite any questioning directions of the committee.
Lie #4 – Accepted : Based on the acceptance of Part 1 Lie #3, and, dismissal of Part 2 of Lie #3, Lie #4 is accepted with the statement, “In this case, it was a partisan political opinion based on prejudgment.” denied and dismissed based on Lie #1 decision and the fact that “partisanship” cannot be decided until Congress firmly defines all aspects of “bipartisanship”.
SUMMARY – Rejected and dismissed: Based on decision of Lie 1, 2, 3, 4. Also dismissed because news people have not claimed “to be defenders of the Constitution”, this is hearsay and opinion only
THIS SESSION OF INDEPENDENT’S COURT IS CLOSED, HONORABLE TOM PRESIDING.
APPEALS TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CAN BE MADE IN BLOGGING TO THE HONORABLE FRANK.
You sir are about as independent as Nazi Nancy herself. All you ever do under your hood of independent is spew left wing talking points and praise for others that do the same. I find your claim of honorable questionable at best. This comes from a true independent who listens to both sides and can discard the crap and pay attention to the truth. You should try it some time.
Spoken as a true GOP MAGA person parading as an Independent. IF you are an independent you are an insult at best. I have stated all of my definitions, and evidence from previous posts, as well as Select committee statements upon which I based my conclusions. You are about as independent as Santos is Jewish! LOL But do have a happy MAGA new year! 🙂
Tom … Technically, you are correct, There were two Republicans on the committee — but appointed and elevated by Democrat leadership. By the time of the Committee Report, Cheney’s membership in the GOP was rejected by the local Republican Party and by the voters. More importantly, there were no two-sides to the procedures — as Rosenberg so eloquently explained. Whether there were dubious Republicans on the Committee or not, they operated under the supervision and direction of Democrats.
One of the problems he have in Chicago is Democrat precinct workers taking the Republican positions as poll watchers. Under your theory, that would have been okay because both parties were officially represented. How about the fact that Mayor Daley (the first) was originally elected to the state house as a Republican. Upon arrival in Springfield, he suddenly remembered he was a Democrat and caucused with them. But again, you would rule that he is a bone fide Republican.
Your entire judgment has been predicated on your acceptance of technical membership — ignoring the REALITY of a corrupt one-sided panel. Therefore, your verdict in this case has been tossed out by the Appellate Court as not founded in law or common sense. Case closed. (Clever treatment, however. You should tutor Frank on the skillful use of language.)
Happy New Year Larry!
With regard to Chicago, no I would not rule that it is ok for Democrats to take Republican poll positions unless the Republicans Party formally offered those positions to them. Such was the case of Cheney and Kinzinger, where both were GOP and were formally offered seats on the committee by Dem Pelosi after McCarthy shut down as a response to Pelosi’s veto of his original choices. Pelosi as the Speaker of the House had authority to offer and veto authority as well under the rules. McCarthy could have found and offered at least an additional two more replacements that would have been acceptable to both leaders but failed to do so, didn’t even try. So any GOP lack of representation on the Select Committee falls squarely on McCarthy’s shoulders and his inability to be a savvy politician.
Personally, I think it is a betrayal of voters for an elected official to switch parties after being elected, period. An elected official should have to serve their term under the flag they flew during their most recent election. IF they do not wish to stay under their most recent election flag, then they should be required to remove themselves for that term and re-run under their new flag in the next term. The vacated position would then be filled years when I was based at Great Lakes for ET school. I never got involved in the politics because I voted absentee ballot to my home state. But I do have a vague memory of people feeling the Daley regime (father – son) was crooked, but I never knew why people felt that way. I suppose this party switch might have contributed to that feeling? My understanding of Chicago politics is very limited. My impression is that Chicago politics has been crooked since the early 1900’s ?
Glad you enjoyed my courtroom presentation style. I had a lot of fun writing it. Its been an enjoyable experience responding to your posted articles in 2022. I’m looking forward to reading your posts in 2023! Sincerely, Tom
Point #1: McCarthy *DID* offer a slate of committee members. But Pelosi rejected offered member without stated reason, or discussion. Upon which, McCarthy withdrew the offered slate.
Pelosi rejected two of four; McCarthy did not offer alternatives , pulled the other two and boycotted. All within house rules.
Pelosi put two Republicans on the panel.
Also within the house rules was Pelosi’s authority as the Speaker of the House to offer positions and veto candidates without explanation.
Tom … I have never said that Pelosi did not have the power to do what she did. I said it is an abuse of the power — and outside the norms and traditions. It is corrosive and will have a negative impact in the future. McCarthy has already let it be known that he will not allow certain Dems on certain committees — if he gets to be Speaker, that is.
Tom …. LOL Frank misspelled his first name. Should have been a “C”.
Point #2: How do you have “an approved congressional (sic) committee”, when you say that Republican leadership did not appoint any members?
Point #3 denial: Kash Patel’s testimony was omitted from the report. So, rebuttal denied.
Kash is memtioned a number of times in the report. I am not any complete testimony is in the report.
Patel’s complete testimony relased to public on 12/30/2023. Was it a rebuttal?
Point #4: The majority party declaring a thing to be so, does not make it so.
How about scored of arrested Republicans saying they were lied to and instigated to riot by Don?
How about over 100 Republicans working in or near the oval office saying Don failed his oath of office?
Did they all lie under osth?
Larry, I have just one question to ask you-who are you writing this for? The vast majority of the population understands that trump invited a riot at the capitol with the express purpose of keeping himself in office. The purpose of the Jan 6 committee hearings was to document his wrongdoing in the public record, which they have overwhelmingly done. The committee has attempted to gain information from those closest to him (admittedly some of those close to him have refused to tell their side of the story-but those thinking logically realize that is because their testimony would be more damning to trump). Obviously they have succeeded in documenting what trump was thinking and why he did what he did. Your comments on the pro forma organization of the committee simply don’t hold up-the democrats wanted a more bipartisan commission initially, but the idiot McCarthy appointed people who would never be objective in any manner, so they were rejected. The results of the committee are valid, even if you and the diehard trumpists don’t care for them-the thinking majority in the country realizes that…
Mike F, your premises are not correct. There was no riot. There was no “insurrection”. It was a protest. The Jan 6 committee is a political show, meant to damage Trump as much as possible.
Okay, but what parts of what they presented were not factual? The witnesses testified under oath, were in many cases video recored, and in others were transcribed in their entirety. The damage was done via first hand testimony of the events leading up to, occurring during, and in the days following what took place on January 6th. Call it a protest if you want, but the successful prosecution of hundreds who took part that day would suggest that the actions of many went well beyond protest. You may object to the political spin applied to what was learned from the investigation, but I have not seen you provide one example of something in the report that was untrue.
Andrew Robinson. A LOT of the testimony was not factual. A lot was hearsay — not admissible in a court-of-law. Witness disagree on what took place. Some one is wrong …maybe lying. You seem to believe that because people are under oath they do not lie or embellish. If only that were true. Even worse, lying to Congress under oath is no big deal. It happens routinely because Congress cannot impost penalties. Only contempt of Congress — and that goes no where unless the DOJ charges it as a crime — and they almost never do. There is still a lot of road ahead before any of these issues get resolved. One thing you can be sure of. If or when these accusations get to court, they will not look as compelling — and some of the accusations may be too weak to get to court. That is up to the AG. And as far as the rioters — most of them are being charge with minor crimes, trespassing, vandalism — a few with theft. That is not to excuse their behavior, but to put it into legal perspective.
Joe, I can understand that you think it’s a protest; it certainly started as a protest.
But how can you watch the tapes show these Republicans, hear the Republican guilty’s testimony, see the carnage caused by Republicans, and finally, listen to the Republican faithful working in and around the oval office, and conclude “It was a protest?” Gonna tell us about the summer of Floyd and the 7/11 that got burned? There wasn’t a lot of planning to the spontaneous outbursts in the summer of Floyd. Some of these folks have testified to their planning way in advance. Read the transcripts and testimony.
If Republicans do not stand up against this, denounce it loud and clear, condemn the guilty, then they condone it as just a protest and that’s the new low bar.
IMO, it was an insurrection inside a riot inside a protest. My facts:
– heck, we all agree there was a protest. And I would bet that most protestors stood down and began to leave just as the riot took over.
– not only the tapes, but the guilty pleas prove there was a riot going on’
– the seditious conspiracy guilty pleas and expected guilties on about one dozen people for seditious conspiracy which is defined as “as two or more people plotting “to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States …” Insurrection is defined as: an act of violence, revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects.
Looks top dead center to me.
I totally agree Frank! And I like your “Stetson Theory of Nested Violence” as stated when you say, “IMO, it was an insurrection inside a riot inside a protest. WOW! That’s good stuff!!!
Mike F … We shall have to wait an see what the Justice Department does with all your personal “proof” ” from indictments to convictions. Personally, I think you will be greatly disappointed.
Larry, At no point in my writing did I say that the purpose of the committee was to either get an indictment or put Trump in jail-that would just be icing on the cake. As I said, the purpose of the hearings was to document the wrong-doings that the idiot committed by calling his supporters to DC, getting them riled up by feeding them lies, and then have them march to the Capitol and obstruct the proceedings that were to take place on Jan 6. The committee did that in spades. Had there been any rebuttal to their assumptions, those would have come out-they did not. At the time of Cassidy Hutchinsons testimony, you said she was lying to the American public. She quoted what she was told, and six months afterwards there has been no rebuttal under oath to her testimony (you may recall the committee asked for that, but that individual refused to testify). You erred when you said she was lying under oath, any you are sadly misinformed when you state that the hearings were one-sided, they were as ‘fair’ as the Republicans in congress would allow them to be. 99% of the testimony came from trump’s own people, and yes the committee knew what the outcome of the hearings would be, as did all of us that voted against trump, that was obvious to anyone who was paying attention to the events as they were happening. In addition, Joe’s contention that there was no “riot” is totally idiotic-the man must have snoozed through the hours of videos that were shot showing what actually happened in the Capitol-certainly far more that a “protest”…..
Mike F … If you think the Committee was fair and balanced, you must have loved the Dems’ old all white southern juries with black defendants.
Larry, By your definition, not fair and balanced. Had McCarthy been willing to play ball with the speaker, it would have met your standards. However he only was willing to play if two of the more ignorant members of his caucus were included, which likely would have turned the hearings into a circus. Pelosi wisely rejected these two, and instead two of the more intelligent republicans in the house were chosen to serve on the committee. The bottom line is all that really matters in these matters, irregardless of your concerns about the makeup of the committee. For that, the committee gets an A+, as their investigation was accurate, and their conclusion that trump should never hold office again is spot on…
I agree Larry. As I have stated earlier, I think there will be minimal DOJ action on anything because that would lead to trials which would lead to all of the suppressed facts of the “other side of the story” coming into the light of day – Dems will not want this. Specifically I am interested in the lack of action and lack of preparedness by Pelosi, Mayor of DC when they knew what was coming days in advance, and, DOJ / FBI secret involvement with moles planted in several organizations, mole participation in ideation and planning, and those pipe bombs. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the FBI knows who made and planted those bombs.
I hope someone someday pours over all of the evidence and interviews participants and writes a good book about it.
I am betting on obstruction of some form with be the indictment, if only one.
“Neither the work of the Committee nor the reporting is an objective presentation of the facts. Rather it is a propaganda-style narrative that began with prejudgment and proceeded with a biased narrative.” Your opinion and one that you have not supported by example. Instead you conclude Dems are wrong, Repub’s are not real. Opinion.
Propaganda narratives depend not only on the selection of “facts” and “evidence” out of context but on the perpetration of lies.” Perhaps true, but so what. You can paste this on anything, even a court testimony.
LIE #1 … THE COMMITTEE IS BIPARTISAN
This is true, Larry just does not like the “kind” of bipartisan it is. And remember, there are not more Republicans on the committee because Republican leadership just said no thank you. The vice chair selection is unusual, but not against the rules. Matter of fact, everything Larry whines about is not against the rules. And he should be thankful, now he can say it’s all a nothing burger, nothing to see here. Except the videos. Except the audios. All under oath and under potential perjury to Congress penalties.
I mean it’s better than ANYTHING the other side has come up with. Where’s their testimony, there defense, anything beyond people like Larry crying it’s not fair, we didn’t have our day in court. Well, that’s because you quit early and none of your people want to show up. How many declined the subpoenas? How many pleaded the fifth (admitting guilt about something)? How many couldn’t recall much of anything?
LIE #2 …THE COMMITTEE WAS HOLDING HEARINGS
Uh, it fits the definition of a Congressional Hearing, many of which are not fully bipartisan or even bipartisan. No rules violation which means: Constitutional.
LIE #3 … THE COMMITTEE WAS INVESTIGATING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6TH.
I’m sorry, but after all the issues you raise, are you actually saying: “Please Sir, can I have some more?” I am sure if you give the committee extra time and budget, they will extend the investigation into anything you want.
Better yet, come January, you just roll out the other side, all the events you want covered that are not covered, and Hunter Biden too. It’s your show now, you are in charge, act like it,
Lie #4 … The Committee provided irrefutable evidence of criminal activity.
See the referrals for their side of this. See my response for lie number three for what you must do about it.
Conclusion: The fact that some people avoid the testimony and focus on the committee structure, people, and partisanship, tells me the evidence is pretty damning to the ex-twice-impeached-leader-of-a-handful-of-hopefuls President and 2024 candidate what-be-in first place in the Republican primary race because no one else is stupid enough to announce President.
Happy New Year Larry!
Sorry for the repost. Something went askew in my original response and I did not catch it before I posted. My apologies.
With regard to Chicago, no I would not rule that it is ok for Democrats to take Republican poll positions unless the Republicans Party formally offered those positions to them. Such was the case of Cheney and Kinzinger, where both were GOP and were formally offered seats on the committee by Dem Pelosi after McCarthy shut down as a response to Pelosi’s veto of his original choices. Pelosi as the Speaker of the House had authority to offer and veto authority as well under the rules. McCarthy could have found and offered at least an additional two more replacements that would have been acceptable to both leaders but failed to do so, didn’t even try. So any GOP lack of representation on the Select Committee falls squarely on McCarthy’s shoulders and his inability to be a savvy politician.
Personally, I think it is a betrayal of voters for an elected official to switch parties after being elected, period. An elected official should have to serve their term under the flag they flew during their most recent election. IF they do not wish to stay under their most recent election flag, then they should be required to remove themselves for that term and re-run under their new flag in the next term. The vacated position would then be filled by the leader of the party of the vacated position, voted upon by that party, and required to fulfill the platform of the vacated official to ensure the integrity of the process to the voters of that precinct.
I was out in North Chicago during the Daley years when I was based at Great Lakes for ET school. I never got involved in the politics because I voted absentee ballot to my home state. But I do have a vague memory of people feeling the Daley regime (father – son) was crooked, but I never knew why people felt that way. I suppose this party switch might have contributed to that feeling? My understanding of Chicago politics is very limited. My impression is that Chicago politics has been crooked since the early 1900’s ?
Glad you enjoyed my courtroom presentation style. I had a lot of fun writing it. Its been an enjoyable experience responding to your posted articles in 2022. I’m looking forward to reading your posts in 2023! Sincerely, Tom
Tom .. and a happy new year to you. First … no, the GOP did not offer the election judge positions to the Dems. There were just no Republicans in many precincts willing to take the job. Democrat precinct captains would register as Republican and take the positions — but they worked for the Dems. It still goes on.
With regard to Daley. He was never really a Republican. In those days, Illinois had a system where by each district had three representative. There would be two Dems on the ballot and two Reps. You could give three votes to one … one and a half votes to two … or one vote for three. The system was designed to guarantee that neither party could control more than two-thirds of the House. Daley … who was a Democrat machine guy … took one of the Rep spots. That sent three Dems to Springfield. The Daleys were crooked as hell … but there is still enormous corruption in Chicago … Cook County. Including a lot of vote stealing. It just never gets prosecuted by the Dem States Attorney and Dem judges. One of my friends on the other side told me recently that his precinct is order to delivers a fixed number of votes for the Dems no matter the actually tally. It is common in some precincts for the vote to exceed the number of ballots requested and issued. The Dem machine puts out huge sums of “street money” to bribe for votes. I have — and will continue to avoid taking sides on the 2020 election because it is moot and a waste of time — but the Pollyanna view that there is no vote fraud is utter nonsense.
On one hand you tell us not to worry about that man behind the screen, and on the other, you eagerly jump down that rabbit hole in support of this guy’s actions before, during, and after the pivotal events of 1/6/2021.
“To give The January 6th Committee more credibility than it deserves, the statements from the Committee – and from those in support of the committee’s objectives, especially the news media – are deceptive. “
Credibility of the committee? How about those Republicans in court for the day or those Republicans from the White House who are testifying? Deceptive? Not credible? Personal Agendas? How about those testifying? For certain the rioters feel there is deception: Don’s deceptions.
Why not read the testimony by those who were considered good-enough, and honest Republicans to work in or near the Oval office and, at one time, were credible Republicans?
Why would all these people lie in unison?
Read the testimony of all those arrested at the Capitol that blame Donald J. Trump for lying and instigating them to fight like hell or lose your country. Dozens of them blame Trump for lying to the and begging them to take up arms for defense of the nation. His words on that day, and for many of the days after the election:
• “And we fight. We fight like hell And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
• “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing … We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”
• “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about … We will stop the steal.”
• “Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.
Sure, in your mind, it’s the committee that is to blame. Blame for strongly hinting that the Ex-twice-impeached-popular-vote-loser-liar President might have egged them on to overthrow the election basically grinding democracy to a standstill while the committee forced hundreds to testify against Trump’s actions and non-actions of that day telling thousands and thousand of lies.
After all, the rioters and those testifying are all Trumplicants, just as Larry is acting now. And if they all lied about Trump and his minion’s actions, they are all criminals too, guilty of the type of perjury that has impeached former Presidents.
Tell us with your straight face that this guy upheld his oath of office given the events before, during, and after the election and his actions surrounding those events. Tell me he did not take a part in the riot, that he sat back and watched, for hours, as the riot unfolded instead of protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Tell me why the leader of the free world and commander of the world’s mightiest military sat back watched TV, threw burgers at the wall, as the Capitol was ranshacked by insurrectionists hell bent on hurting people and destroying the People’s house.
“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”
Well Larry, I guess Democrats and hundred’s of Republicans in or near the Oval Office are more upset about the insurrection than you are. Instead of telling us that the panel is bad, tell us how all of the testifying Republicans are criminal lying dogs lower than bull spittle. Tell us how the rioters blaming Trump, in court, under oath, are just doing what Democrats want so they can save their own Republican skins.
You can’t have it both ways. Either Trump did a lot of what the committee has concluded, base on the evidence or hundreds of your fellow Republicans are liars, on the record, and face a perjury offense. That would include rioters, insurrectionists, as well as many working in the White House. Republican liars.