Doc Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: If this turns out to be true, and counsel wasn’t there, I suggest that this entire Kangaroo Committee be held in contempt of Congress! At least, she should be charged with perjury.
BillStime Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: Well placed source - lmao - gtfo If these guys want to testify under oath - sign them up. Otherwise get this HEARSAY out of here. Idiots
SoCal Deek Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Doc said: At least, she should be charged with perjury. Yes…but if the committee knew she was lying then the committee is all in contempt. 1
B-Man Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 TO BE FAIR, THAT’S ONLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT ISN’T TRUE: Report: Jan. 6 committee hasn’t corroborated Hutchinson testimony about Trump SUV incident. https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/06/30/report-jan-6-committee-hasnt-corroborated-hutchinson-testimony-about-trump-suv-incident-n479986 1
B-Man Posted July 2, 2022 Posted July 2, 2022 Byron York: The Jan. 6 committee charade. FTA: Then Cheney discussed "a call received by one of our witnesses." The witness described the caller's message this way: "He knows you're loyal and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." From that, Cheney said, "I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns." It was indeed a serious allegation. But that's all Cheney said. She offered no details, no names, no timing, no context, no story — no nothing. Just a sensational, anonymous "without identifying any of the individuals involved" tidbit to tease the public and the media and get them talking before the committee's next hearing. As the committee's TV consultant might say, end it with a cliffhanger and ensure the public will stay tuned for the next exciting episode. But here's the thing. We have now found out who those two examples — "one witness" and "one of our witnesses" — were. They were one and the same person. And that person was none other than Hutchinson, who was sitting right in front of Cheney as Cheney spoke those words. Yet Cheney didn't tell the public about that. Instead, with her anonymous tease, she set off lots of leaking and speculation that kept people talking until the committee's next hearing. The reporting of Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney at Politico revealed that both of the persons cited were in fact Hutchinson. It was a kind of charade. This is very serious, Cheney said, but I won't tell you anything else. In what way is that the purpose of a congressional investigating committee? And there was no one on the committee who had the courage and independence of mind to say to Cheney, "The person you're referring to is sitting right here. Ms. Hutchinson, tell us what happened..." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-jan-6-committee-charade 1 1
nedboy7 Posted July 2, 2022 Posted July 2, 2022 Is this where B-man and DR suck each others loads? What a pathetic thread. You guys should be on Breitbart. Getting your brainwashing.
ChiGoose Posted July 2, 2022 Posted July 2, 2022 A lot of people here seem to want a committee to release all of their evidence and testimony while still investigating, allowing parties to coordinate their testimony with what was already provided and obscure or outright hide the truth. Which is not how an investigative body would ever work.
Albwan Posted July 2, 2022 Posted July 2, 2022 1 hour ago, nedboy7 said: Is this where B-man and DR suck each others loads? What a pathetic thread. You guys should be on Breitbart. Getting your brainwashing. i thought lib tards were sensitive to gays...sounds like your a nazi pig imho. 1
nedboy7 Posted July 2, 2022 Posted July 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, Albwan said: i thought lib tards were sensitive to gays...sounds like your a nazi pig imho. To morons anyone who doesn't hate like them is a liberal. So predictably stupid. Isnt it time for you to grab your tiki torch and scream "We wont be replaced" or some other Nazi slogan then attack others of being a nazi turdball. 1
BillsFanNC Posted July 3, 2022 Author Posted July 3, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, nedboy7 said: Is this where B-man and DR suck each others loads? What a pathetic thread. You guys should be on Breitbart. Getting your brainwashing. Again son, be original. You swallowing the sham committee's load is my line. Edited July 3, 2022 by DRsGhost 1
Albwan Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 14 hours ago, nedboy7 said: To morons anyone who doesn't hate like them is a liberal. So predictably stupid. Isnt it time for you to grab your tiki torch and scream "We wont be replaced" or some other Nazi slogan then attack others of being a nazi turdball. lib tard 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 22 hours ago, ChiGoose said: A lot of people here seem to want a committee to release all of their evidence and testimony while still investigating, allowing parties to coordinate their testimony with what was already provided and obscure or outright hide the truth. Which is not how an investigative body would ever work. Maybe, but the information, disinformation, speculation by media, pundits and talking heads is most definitely a part of it. Calls for transparency are not new or unique to this hearing. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 18 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe, but the information, disinformation, speculation by media, pundits and talking heads is most definitely a part of it. Calls for transparency are not new or unique to this hearing. The committee has stated it will release the transcripts at the end of the investigation, which they expect to be September. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to release them sooner, but if they do not release them when they are done with the probe, they should be rightfully criticized and it would taint everything they have been working on.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: The committee has stated it will release the transcripts at the end of the investigation, which they expect to be September. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to release them sooner, but if they do not release them when they are done with the probe, they should be rightfully criticized and it would taint everything they have been working on. The criticism ship has kind since sailed. The job of the opposition is to hammer inconsistencies, point out flaws (real or imagined), and paint the committee members as untruthful and unreliable political hacks. None of this is new, either. 1
BillsFanNC Posted July 4, 2022 Author Posted July 4, 2022 So Trump should have been indicted and thrown in jail yesterday based on the one sided sham committee's narrative.... Yet if it turns out that their promise to release all the testimony by September turns out to be a lie, and it will, well then that would open up the J6 committee to criticism! Well golly gee, really? Clown. Show. 1
BillStime Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 1 hour ago, DRsGhost said: So Trump should have been indicted and thrown in jail yesterday based on the one sided sham committee's narrative.... Yet if it turns out that their promise to release all the testimony by September turns out to be a lie, and it will, well then that would open up the J6 committee to criticism! Well golly gee, really? Clown. Show. What’s todays date?
B-Man Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 So telling a person of color why they should care about something? Sounds condescending and racist. Opinion contributor Sara Sadhwani has a piece in The Hill examing why people of color should care about the January 6 select committee’s hearings. Bold move @thehill . Talking down to your targeted audience will CERTAINLY bring them around. https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/07/04/the-hill-looks-at-why-people-of-color-should-care-about-the-january-6-committee-hearings/
Recommended Posts