There is an interesting initial battle brewing over an accusation made by Rep. Liz Cheney during the first public hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 riot. Cheney called out Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry by name as seeking a pardon from former President Trump for his involvement in post election challenges. However, Perry has denounced the accusation, stating on Twitter that “[t]he notion that I ever sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress is an absolute, shameless, and soulless lie.”
During her opening statement, Cheney, the vice chair of the select committee, said Perry worked to get Justice Department lawyer Jeff Clark appointed as attorney general in the hope that he would send a letter to Georgia and other states that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.”
It was not illegal to push for the appointment of a more favorable attorney general though I believe such a letter would have been fundamentally wrong. I have long defended the record of Bill Barr and the integrity that he showed in resisting such demands. Other justice officials appeared ready to resign like Barr rather than yield to such a demand.
The suggestion is that Perry not only knew that he could be criminally charged for his actions after the election but sought the protection of Trump. This allegation does not seem a matter of interpretation. It is either true or not. Either Cheney or Perry are lying. Cheney promised to put forward evidence to prove the allegation: “As you will see, Rep. Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after Jan. 6 to seek a presidential pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.”
Perry is one of five Republican lawmakers the committee subpoenaed for testimony in a sharp departure from tradition in the House.
I do not believe that the statement is on its face defamatory. The suggestion is clearly that Perry believed that he could be charged with a crime but it could also reflect distrust in the incoming Administration in pursuing political opponents. In the end, however, the primary defense to defamation is truth.
This is a major allegation to announce in a primetime public hearing against a colleague. The Committee will now be expected to make good on this and other specific claims.
Here is the letter sent earlier to Rep. Perry by the Committee: 2021-12-20bgt-letter-to-perry
It seems that if Liz Chaney made such an accusation and the reaction from the lawmaker. It is more likely to be true.
I’m willing to bet this has to do with the fake electors issue. Remember they had a plan according to Trump’s lawyer John Eastman who was working with Trump to force VP pence to illegally stop the electoral count. Those Republican lawmakers were convinced they were going to overturn the election and proceeded to lay the groundwork for putting in these fake electors by sending documents to the National archives. Problem is the attempt to overturn the election collapsed when Pence refused to cooperate. That’s why they sought the pardons, because they knew what they did was illegal. It’s the same reason why trump dangled pardons to the proud boys and the oath keepers. If they succeeded in convincing Mike Pence to “send back the votes” trump would have pardoned them as president. Obviously they didn’t succeed and Trump left them dangling in the wind as he usually does. I mean this man threw his own daughter under the bus.
Those lawmakers are certainly nervous and that reaction is telling.
We have been through this eastman nonsense before – the constitution and the law allow everything Eastman noted in his brief.
In fact the Senate is in the process of proving Eastman’s view on the law and the constitution to be correct by changing the law to explicitly make the VP’s role ceremonial and to make challenges to slates of electors more difficult.
You do not change the law to prevent something that is already illegal.
“We have been through this eastman nonsense before – the constitution and the law allow everything Eastman noted in his brief.”
Eastman’s legal rationale is severely flawed. Author Mathew Seligman pointed out why Eastman was wrong.
“The only reason that this theory ever arose in the first place is that the critical phrase in the 12th Amendment is written in the passive voice: “The President of the Senate [i.e., the vice president] shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted” (emphasis mine). The obvious question is, who does the counting?
The text doesn’t explicitly say. But context suggests someone other than the president of the Senate does the counting. After all, its drafters could simply have written “The President of the Senate shall open the certificates and shall then count the votes.” But it doesn’t say that. As Justice Antonin Scalia and legal lexicographer Bryan Garner explained, “a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.” Here, the variation in tense indicates that the vice president opens the certificates but doesn’t do the counting.”
“Historical practice: That critical sentence in the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804) used the exact same words that Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the original Constitution (ratified in 1788) used. During the 16 years in between, four presidential elections took place under the constitutional framework established by the unamended Article II. In those four counts of the electoral votes, its drafters showed us what they meant by that critical sentence, which remained in both versions: that Congress, not the vice president, counts electoral votes.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/john-eastman-crazy-election-memo-trump.html
Congress, and not the vice president, had constitutional power to count and to resolve disputes about electoral votes.
Do you know what a Straw man or red herring is ?
You are beating a straw man to death here.
First – if as YOUR “expert” claims the law is ambiguous – then you can not violate it. That is a well established principle of legal construction – so your own expert has proven Eastman’s argument flawed.
Your 2nd problem is that What Trump wanted has ALLREADY OCCURED – see the election of 1876.
You – as well as Pence in public statements have MISREPRESENTED the legal and constitutional argument.
The Vice President does not determine the outcome of the election. Congress does. The Vice President provides the Congress with each states slate of electors, And Congress decides whether to accept the votes of each states slate of electors.
The Vice President HOWEVER can decide when there are competing slates of electors – which slate to offer FIRST.
The constitution dictates that the appointment of electors is the sole responsibility of the state LEGISLATURE.
The Vice president is on SOLID constitutional ground presenting the slate of electors approved by the State legislature where there are claims of election fraud and the State Secretary certified a different slate.
It is HIGHLY unlikely that had Pence done as Eastman’s brief stated, and Trump wanted – that there would be any difference in the outcome of this election.
The Vice President does not have the power to unilaterally determine whether to certify a specific slate of electors.
But he DOES OBVIOUS control how slates of electors are presented to congress.
Regardless, you and slate are misrepresenting Eastman’s brief and in doing so beating a straw man to death.
No one asked Pence to unilaterally throw the election to Trump.
No one has claimed that the decision to accept a specific slate of electors – whether those offered by the State Secretary of State or by the legislature resides anywhere but with congress.
I would note that congressional challenges to slates of electors have occured during every election in which a republican president was elected in my lifetime. OBVIOUSLY objecting to slates of electors is legitimate. I would also note that Hillary asked electors to vote differently than the popular vote outcome in their state – and atleast one chose to do so. No one has ranted that Hillary engaged in insurection. Hillary is still claiming she won the 2016 election, and that the Russians put Trump in office – despite the fact that is aknown HOAX orriginating with HER.
You are trying to manufacture crimes from thin air.
Hillary is obviously a sore loser.
The same could be said of Trump – except that the election was inarguably conducted lawlessly and inarguably there was large scale and widespread fraud. Even Alan Derschowitz has conceded the 2000 mules evidence is damning with respect to widespread mailin voting fraud. He is merey unwilling to go from massive fraud occured, to the net result of the fraud flipped the outcome.
It is in theory possible that there was widespread Trump fraud in other places, It is also in theory possible that the widespread fraud in th 6 major cities that flipped the election was not entirely Fraud in favor of Biden. Maybe these 501C3’s in Biden country were trying to throw the election to Trump.
What is beyond debate is that there was large scale organized fraud sufficient to throw the election.
And That means:
Our state election officials FAILED.
Our Courts – federal and state FAILED.
Our Congress FAILED
While it is increasingly probable that Trump actually won the 2020 election.
What is CERTAIN – is that the election was lawless and fraud ridden and that our federal and state governments FAILED.
You rant about J6.
But the necescary investigation is of Election Fraud.
Even Derschowitz concluded that we con not continue widespread mailin voting – it is just too dangerous.
This conclusion is obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking.
Addressing another reason that Eastman is correct and your slate pundit is wrong.
From end to end elections are chock full of speed bumps and processes, and obstacles.
These are all present as means to assure election integrity.
They are not there to rubber stamp elections.
Every single election process – the voter ID requirements, signature matching. election officials and notaries signing off on the chain of custody of ballot batches, the local certification process, the state certification process, the vote by the electoral college, the congressional election count and certification. The process of appealing.
NONE of these are PRO FORMA, None are Cerimonial.
Every single one of them is an Anti-Fraud measure.
The entirety of the process of Congress certifying the election is to prevent Fraud.
In 1876 Congress refused to certify the election results – because of allegations of Fraud.
That was what SHOULD have happened in 2020.
At EVERY point from the first election questions to the certification by congress honest government officials shoudl have said – These results are dubious, there MUST be serious investigation to restore the confidence of voters in elections.
It is not important what they found. Only that where there is significant doubt, there MUST be inquiry and public reassuarnce.
That did not occur.
You can have legitimate government where nearly half the country thinks the other half voted incorrectly.
You can not have legitimate government is even 10% of the country thinks the winner of an election cheated.
As the declaration of independence makes clear – Legitimate govenrment rests on the Trust of the people. when that trust is lost – for whatever reason, there is no legitimate government.
The American revolution was fought against a government that was on paper atleast legitimate.
It was not govenrment that had the trust of the colonists.
I find it hillarious that Democrats are fawning over the Daughter of Dick Cheney
We have the patriot act because of him.
We still have it because of her.
Chenney’s is a neocon. If Democrats want her they can have her.
One of the really good things about Trump is that he has dramatically diminished the power of NeoCon’s in the GOP.
I listened to bits and peices of the hearing – including remarks by Chenney.
This is a flop. You are damaging yourselves.
You are trying very hard to criminalize politics.
Meanwhile more and more damaging revelations come out.
Trump approved the use of the National Guard to Secure the Capital a week before J6.
Trump wanted the capital open and secure. He wanted protests in the capital, not a riot. And he wanted the NG to assure that.
Schumer and Pelosi did not trust the NG, and were hoping for violence.
We now know the FBI informed Pelosi and Schumer that various protest groups intended to occupy the capital and confront Congressmen. Contra the left there were no actual threats of violence – but the FBI reported to Pelosi and Schumer the possibility of violence.
So instead of calling in the NG, they barricaded themselves in the capital and did not tell the capital police to be concerned or prepared.
“I listened to bits and peices of the hearing – including remarks by Chenney.
This is a flop. You are damaging yourselves.”
So you determined it is a flog because you didn’t listen to the whole thing. That’s not a good way to make an analysis.
“Trump approved the use of the National Guard to Secure the Capital a week before J6.”
No, he didn’t. Here’s the official timeline and who ordered what. It was the pentagon who asked if the capitol would need national guard troops. Not trump.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf
“Schumer and Pelosi did not trust the NG, and were hoping for violence.”
That’s a flat-out lie.
The assessment that it is a flopp appears to be shared by the majority of the country.
It has weakened the conviction of democrats, and strengthened the conviction of Republicans that this is all a partisan sham.
No, I did not listen to all of it.
Why would I ? Fundimental to the entire US process is that we arrive at determinations in an adversarial process.
That all sides are represented. We do not conduct this kind of soviet show trial. Or atleast we did not in the past.
If you want people to watch, If you want people to trust the outcome – then you need a process that is conducted in public, and that is subject to rigorous challenge by those who disagree.
You did not do that and it shows.
The arguments made – particularly the essentially keynote arguments made were weak, and obviously would not hold up to the slightest challenge.
What little new evidence has emerged is almost entirely damning to Pelosi and Schumer.
You are correct – we should hear ALL the facts before reaching final conclusions – but it was Self Evident that the J6 committee was NOT providing all the facts.
Daddy TOLD me I’d be PRESIDENTETTE!
He promised!
I want it!
I want it!
Give it to me NOW!!!
WAAAAAAAAA!!!
You’re pretending to be Ivanka?
LizzyC lied when she read some of President Trump’s words – but omitted the sentence that followed what she read in which he clearly and unmistakably said go home and be peaceful. FOX News showed a graphic of what she read, but it included the sentence that followed. Her father should be disgusted having a lickspittle as a daughter.
Yeah because only the last sentence of that statement is all that matters. Trump is a well known pathological liar. It’s more likely his sentiment of “peaceful” was fake.
Svelaz ” It’s more likely his sentiment of “peaceful” was fake.”. So you are a mind reader “of intent”. Well, hell Comeynshould have brought younin on The Hillary tribute. What was Hillary’s intent oh great pseudo-savant one? By the way, it is legal for you to have a name change.
So when Turley cuts off quotes, that makes him a lickspittle too?
11th Commandment
“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
– Ronald Reagan
Cheney is NOT an R – in spirit, words or actions. Let’s hope she loses big time in the WY primary.
“Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)”
– Huffington Post
She’s absolutely a Republican. She simply isn’t a Trumpist.
RINO.
We’ll discover what the “fake” republican, Dizzy Chainme, is, genuinely, in November.
Cheney’s opponent has a double-digit lead.
From the facts known about 2020 election irregularities it’s obvious to me at least that William Barr is compromised. He didn’t do his job, and his comments post election are disgraceful, he has ruined his reputation and his demeanour shows he knows it.
ONCE IN THE “DEEP DEEP STATE,” ONE CANNOT GET OUT
William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr was assigned to interdict President Trump, facilitated the Obama Coup D’etat in America to “stop him,” and appointed John “Dudley Do-Wrong” Durham to whitewash the Obama Coup D’etat and tie it all up in a neat little bow for history.
Barr and Durham took their case down to the D.C. Court for fixing and that was that.
The Deep Deep State has no need for “votes,” the Deep Deep State owns the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act Court, and the Deep Deep State retains options on any and every other additional department, agency, bureau or court it may require the services of in the future.
You need not ponder and conjecture why American Constitutional Freedom does not exist.
The Global Communist Deep Deep State, initiated by Lincoln at the behest of Karl Marx, through Lincoln’s herculean efforts toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…,” and shaped by Lincoln’s communist successors’ “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” abrogated the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and commenced the incremental progressive implementation of the principles of the Communist Manifesto, and maintains unassailable and impregnable dominion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
The American Founders and Framers gave Americans the 2nd Amendment, and Americans haven’t a clue why.
Hint: “Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State”
___________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
“ He didn’t do his job, and his comments post election are disgraceful, he has ruined his reputation and his demeanour shows he knows it.”
Translation; Barr refused to be a lackey for Trump so he’s now part of the enemy. So ivanka is no longer Trump’s daughter either?
Svelaz,
It was all too predictable that the Trumpists would turn on everybody who would not lie for them. They will attack Turley; it’s inevitable.
M4seroski says Barr’s:
“comments post election are disgraceful, he has ruined his reputation and his demeanour shows he knows it.”
And yet Turley says:
“I have long defended the record of Bill Barr and the integrity that he showed in resisting such demands.”
Conclusion: Turley’s undeniable and unwavering support of Barr’s conduct must be no less disgraceful in the eyes of Trumpists. Turley has not defended Trump against Barr’s damning comments because Turley is a NeverTrumper as I have been stating all along.
Did Democrats Break The Law, Manipulate Evidence And Commit Perjury During The January 6th Hearings?
22,484 views
·
Jun 10, 2022
21
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Pete Santilli of thepetesantillishow joins host Owen Shroyer on The Alex Jones Show to break down the unjust prosecution of political prisoners in the pursuit of damaging Trump and his supporters.
https://banned.video/watch?id=62a3d84374f0a713c90781eb
Oky1,
Here is what Turley thinks of Alex Jones (and Steve Bannon for that matter):
“There are hundreds of “legitimate” Democratic and Republican trolling sites (some supported by campaign activities) that did little but generate gossip, conspiracies and false stories. Hillary Clinton was infamous for her association with characters like Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock. Trump had dubious allies like Steve Bannon and Alex Jones. From the descriptions in the indictment, these Russians look like the tee-ball league in comparison to these major league players of political slime.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/03/05/beware-of-politicians-promising-an-honest-internet-new-bills-targeting-russians-may-bag-free-speech/
Alex Jones and Steve Bannon are slimeballs.
Let me offer an old piece of wisdom passed on from the very distant pass to Lizzy and Adam Schiff. “Put up or shut” up cause if you don’t the possibility of the creditably of your reputation will crumble to ashes and you will be recognized for the fool you are.
If she puts up, what are the odds anyone here will care?
Enigma, if she puts up I for one will agree that her compatriot was angling for a pardon and should be condemned for doing so. You and I should speak again when she produces her proof. In the meantime I would appreciate it if you would finally write about the proof that Adam Schiff said he had and has failed to provide. By doing so you could show us all your true feelings about what is fair and what is not. Please pontificate.
If it is true, it’s not a crime. Protecting yourself from the vindictive persecution of a Biden administration
Is good planning.
Asking for a pardon isn’t a crime.
But the act that you’re requesting be pardoned is likely a crime. Otherwise you wouldn’t need a pardon.
General Flynn has a much more accurate view of reality.
You definitely need a pardon to protect yourself from the Biden regime.
It’s the Trump regime that prosecuted Flynn.
You must be unaware of the left’s efforts to criminalize the opposition.
Look at Peter Navarro. He was arrested but was disputing the J6 subpoena, until the courts decided if the subpoena was legal. Since when do we force people to do things before the court finds that the force is legal?
I guess along with being anonymous, you don’t bother to think.
TiT,
You want proof of Russian collusion?
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/11/an-absolute-shameless-and-soulless-lie-pennsylvania-republican-lashes-out-at-liz-cheney-for-pardon-accusation/comment-page-2/#comment-2192636
Are you trying to insult the intelligence and caring of people on this blog?
Think, you assume that Adam Schiff’s reputation and credibility still exist in the aftermath of his disgusting performance in the House “Intelligence” Committee hearings where he failed to either put up or shut up.
These 2 fools are already recognized as such by any thoughtful person who knows what is news and what is fake.
Lizzy is just upset because Trump called her daddy out. Oh how we soon forget. Remember Dick Cheney was the guy who authorized water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Dick Cheney was a hated Republican by the left but now our leftist friends welcome Liz Cheney with open arms. She just wants let daddy Cheney know that baby Cheney is on his side. Some say this is bravery but it’s only blatant filial loyalty. Real bravery would be admitting that daddy was wrong. Somehow she believes that people won’t see it for what it is. See the picture I made daddy.
Like anything to do with the subject of 1/6/2021, this allegation (or this explanation of this allegation) is confusing. Did he need a pardon for trying to get a favorable AG appointed? Did it matter that he sent a letter ? Would it have been OK if he just called Mark Meadows?
..this ‘commission of High Priests’ is omitting all of Trump’s words in whatever paragraph they target.. I just listened to his WH Lawn speech where Trump clearly said to march in protest ‘peacefully and patriotically’ and he had no malice in his voice… this whole affair reminds me of when ‘they’ went after Jesus and his followers, to destroy them at all costs….(and, no, I am not comparing Trump to Jesus as a person, etc….. I am comparing Liz et al to the High Priests…)
Trump only made that “speech” after refusing multiple times to call his followers to stop rioting in the Capitol. He was forced to make a speech because it was getting out of hand and he was enjoying the mayhem.
Cheney promised to put forward evidence to prove the allegation:
Another Lucy/Football moment. What are the odds her evidence will be presented before Adam Schiff’s Trump/Russia evidence sees the light of day?
I would give that 50/50 chance. I would give a 0% chance of either ever happening
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/11/an-absolute-shameless-and-soulless-lie-pennsylvania-republican-lashes-out-at-liz-cheney-for-pardon-accusation/comment-page-2/#comment-2192636
Have a lefty friend.
She is absolutely convinced that we are on the verge of a right wing coup.
Lefties can be stupid, but it plays right into the politicians’ hands.
I have family like that. Leftists are the only people on earth that would call an election a ‘coup’ (and I saw it my tiny district election. Republican won. Nope! Runoff! Naturally our dem mayor installed the dem that lost fair and square. Small enough district that no one cares. Felt like a microcosm of what may be to come in November). Some children never get over not getting their way, and it is becoming increasingly concerning. They will not relent, and for the first time it has me a bit legitimately worried. What the people actually want is increasingly irrelevant.
monumentcolorado,
We have a friend like that.
I asked her, by what evidence do you have to come to that conclusion? And what is the source?
She never comes up with any kind of evidence, and ends up saying, “I just feel that way!”
She watches a lot of CNN.
Chenney is using the well worn Democrat Play book. When asked if he knowingly lied about Candidate Romney not having filled income taxes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid replied, “we won didn’t we?”
The Democrat selected committee, that refused to seat members selected by the Republican caucus, is nothing but political propaganda. Channey got caught tampering with evidence during the show trial. She failed to quote the Presidents Text in full. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
I just watched Barr live, being interviewed by Neil Cavuto. Barr said the net affect of the committee will be NOTHING but political.
So is Barr unassailable? truth teller?
I’m betting the cut and paste trolls here will switch sides.
I still have not watched the new series staring Lying Lizzi and Aesop Schiff. When the political overlies are removed, all the real facts and those involved inside and outside the government are revealed my interest is on: gasoline price’s, the economy, the coming recession, my 201k (used to be 401k), items missing on shelves, the government encouraging illegal immigration, CRIME, and you can add any I missed.
Right now this production is just a Russia Russia Russia Part 2.
Yes, and we all are still awaiting Schiff’s incontrovertible evidence that Trump in fact colluded with Russia to win in 2016 —
Margot says:
“Right now this production is just a Russia Russia Russia Part 2.”
Thank goodness Turley has NEVER voiced nor condoned such Trumpist sentiments. He is on the record approving this committee in the interest of “transparency.”
This is one time I agree with your comment, as Prof may think tranparency. But leaving off and out certain Repubs from the comittee is not transparency any more that that you are a conservative. NO the only thing you can do is (in your mind) repartee (but not received in that vain) your hatered for DT, Fox, the Prof, and any Conservative.
Lighteredknot,
I know, I know, I hate everyone and everything, but you love me, blah, blah, blah.
No Jeffey, Turley is on the record as questioning the committee’s transparency because, as he describes it, the committee clearly has a “partisan composition and agenda”. These are Turley’s words, not mine.
Minor typo, the previous comment was from Ray in SC.
Ray,
Wrong. Turley is in favor of the hearings. Here is what he FULLY said:
“The House hearings are likely to add details that damn Trump for fueling the riot and failing to immediately call on the rioters to pull back. Yet many of us reached the condemnation stage years ago; I reached that point while Trump was still speaking on Jan. 6, 2020, and opposed his efforts to challenge the certification.
The problem is not that the committee will move forward with hearings or a report. Despite its partisan composition and agenda, there is always a value to greater transparency about what occurred on that tragic day.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/06/subpoena-wars-washington-is-on-a-path-to-mutually-assured-destruction/#more-189570
Nice try, but I exposed your Trumpist lie.
I hope many progressives hold their breath waiting for the evidence
Professor….you need to re-think this part of your Blog Entry…..”The Committee will now be expected to make good on this and other specific claims.”.
Not by the Media or other Democrat left winged outlets.
Was Adam Schiff is made to provide the damning evidence about Russia Collusion that he promised to reveal for YEARS?
Did the Mueller Investigation make good on the leaks by Weismann and the Media?
Has the Committee required Pelosi and others testify under Oath to relate their actions, communications, and decisions that led up to the January 6th event?
Democrats Impeached Trump twice and did not make good on their allegations and he was Acquitted Twice….they shall fail to live up to their claims in this third impeachment of Trump.
The American people are fed up with these antics of the Democrats…..as we see through them like a transparent piece of Saran Wrap.
This is just a way of trying to deflect from the utter disaster the Democrat Party has become by allowing the radical Leftists to control its agenda.
We care about gas prices, inflation, the flood of Illegal aliens and fentanyl crossing the open border, the damage to our retirements and standard of living…..healthcare costs and national security…..and we really do not give a damn about this latest Democrat Kangaroo Court set up by Pelosi and her cronies.
As to Liz Cheney…..she has pooped in her own mess kit by joining the Democrats……a very poor decision but then she and Dead Eye Dick her Daddy are Never Trumpers and are blinded by that hatred.
As to who I chose to believe….it sure isn’t a Democrat, this committee, and darn sure not Liz Cheney.
Well stated!
Is there any chance that Chaney could call Biden to testify why gas is over 5 dollars a gallon? Ask questions that really concerns Americans.
Democrats know they are on their way out and want to do as much damage to Trump as they can….
Nothing like an attempt at misdirection.
Lizzy is 30 points behind in Wyoming. Bye bye Liz.
I have rarely agreed with Ms. Chaney but her decision to live up to her oath even though she knew it would end her career is impressive. A kind of political courage we rarely see.
..how is quoting people out of context all the time to craft something different from the full Truth living up to an oath?
If that is what you believe, you are afraid of your shadow. We already know you are an idiot that says nothing.
JH Yes, She and Mitt Romney are really impressive DT haters. If she is not disclosing the full truth, what does that make her? I don’t see the courage you are refecting here. Did she believe the said Steel Dossier was evidence that proved guilt of DT Russia collusion? ? Was she misled by Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Hillary, DNC, et als? She voted for impeachment? Evidence is Suppossedly verified as fact when one swears to it and presents it as such? Don’t we now know that it was abject lies? If they willfully, arbituarily and capriceously presented lies as evidence, to remove DT, would that not be insurrection?
“are lying” ??
Turkey’s struggles with grammar are a market of the sloppiness of his thinking
Weisberg
“…are a market of the sloppiness of his thinking.”
Focused comment there, buddy.
It’s always the stupid people that complain about Turley’s grammar.
SOME FOLKS HAVE TO HATE, & DESTROY OTHERS BECAUISE THEIR VIEWS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THEIR OWN… OR… THEY’RE JUST FEELING INADEQUATE IN THEIR OWN ACHIEVEMENTS…. PATHETIC.
Robert: You have had that limited brain out playing with it too long. Put it back and fertilize some neurons,
You keep using “Clark” where “Perry” would make a lot more sense.
Posting late at night is not a good idea.