Pelosi’s Court: How the Jan. 6 Committee Undermined its Own Legitimacy

Below is my column in The Hill on the January 6th Committee hearings and how the Democrats undermined the legitimacy of their investigation by breaking the long tradition of bipartisan and balanced membership on such special committees. Many of us support the effort to release more information and evidence on what occurred on that day. However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to forego even the pretense of a bipartisan and full inquiry.

Here is the column:

In 1924, Lord Gordon Hewart famously declared, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The lord chief justice of England, he believed that even a small allegation of possible bias by a court clerk meant justice was not seen to be done and, thus, was not done.

Lord Hewart’s quote came to mind while watching the opening night of the House’s Jan. 6 select committee public hearings. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) decided a year ago to break from tradition and blocked two Republican committee members selected by GOP leaders. In response, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pulled his other committee nominees, and Pelosi then seated two staunchly anti-Trump Republicans — Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyoming) and Adam Kinzinger (Illinois).

Congress has a long history of bipartisan investigatory and select committees. Many were formed during deep political rifts — yet, for 230 years, Congress maintained the need for bipartisan membership. That was the case with the Watergate committees, the House Committee on Assassinations, the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions and other investigations. It would have been easy to stack the decks and limit the members by party on each of those committees, but past congressional leaders understood that the credibility of such investigations required balance, including opposing views.

Pelosi’s decision to gut that process was something of a signature muscle play. As a witness in the first Trump impeachment, I was highly critical of her insistence that the House would impeach before Christmas rather than conduct the traditional impeachment investigation with witnesses. Instead of building a more convincing case, Pelosi preferred to impeach with virtually no record, for a certain defeat in the Senate. In the second impeachment, she went one better: She held no hearing at all and pushed through the first “snap impeachment.”

The Jan. 6 committee was similarly stripped of any pretense. It was as subtle a political move as Pelosi’s ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union speech. Asked what she hoped to achieve from the committee on the first day of hearings, Pelosi tellingly referred to it as a “narrative.” It is the difference between seeing and simulating justice.

According to The New York Times, that narrative is meant to “recast the midterm message” and “give [Democrats] a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.” It was packaged with the help of a high-powered media figure brought in to help stage the event. Much of the media touted how the hearings would be “must-see TV” and would force voters “not to look away” from Trump’s “coup.” Countervailing evidence was edited out. Thus, Trump was shown calling for the protesters to “march” on the Capitol — but not his additional words to do so “peacefully.”

That withheld line from Trump would hardly have exonerated the former president. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given, and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the Capitol riot. The new footage shown by the committee only magnified the revulsion many of us felt in watching this desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. However, such one-sided accounts rob these proceedings of a sense of authenticity and authority.

However, they deliver precisely what Pelosi demands: politics unburdened by process. Ironically, it is the very same dismissal of process and principle that is often attributed to Trump.

The shame is that it could have been so much more if the committee were balanced and allowed a broader scope of inquiry.

For example, the first two witnesses highlighted the ongoing controversy over the failure of Congress to adequately prepare for the riot despite repeated warnings from the executive branch. Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards and Nick Quested, a British documentarian, both noted the shocking absence of sufficient officers around the Capitol. Quested described “hundreds” of Proud Boys marching on the Capitol and seeing a single officer at one barricade; Edwards described a handful of officers holding back hundreds of protesters. Critical anti-riot equipment was not distributed or was affirmatively withheld. Security objectives were ignored, and even Edwards said officers were quickly and easily overrun due to lack of support.

Four days before the riot, records indicate the Capitol allegedly was asked if it wanted to request National Guard troops but declined. Yet The Washington Post and PolitiFact have insisted this is false. It would be useful to get the full story on what decisions were made — but House leaders appear to have curtailed inquiries into the failure to properly staff or equip officers at the scene, to erect fencing, or to call for the National Guard after the riot erupted.

This first hearing looked like the uncontested opening statement in a persona non grata proceeding, a hearing designed to denounce or expel an individual. Much of the evidence was designed to show that Trump repeatedly was told that he lost the election and thus had no good faith basis to challenge the election’s certification.

Well, many of us said exactly that two years ago. Moreover, if the effort is to convict Trump of being a narcissistic or craven person, you hardly need a select committee to make that case to the Democratic base or to much of the rest of America.

Perhaps the most surprising element in the start of the hearings is the person who was portrayed as the guardian of democracy: former Attorney General William Barr. After Democrats called for Barr to be impeached or even criminally charged, he was shown repeatedly as holding the line against Trump’s claims and demands. For those of us who have defended Barr for years, it was a welcome but weird sight to behold.

There is considerable evidence that Trump’s people planned for a certification challenge, but that was always anticipated. Not long after the election, I wrote about that possibility in what I called the “Death Star strategy.” It is not a crime to plan such a challenge, even without good cause. Without any direct connection to organizing or supporting the ensuing violence, that would remain a moral — not a legal — failure.

Indeed, if opposing views were allowed, then Republicans likely would call for the testimony of committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challengeorganized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.

The difference, of course, is that while there were violent protests in 2016 in Washington, there was not a riot that breached the Capitol. Yet, given that history, it was more important than ever for House leaders to reinforce the credibility of this committee by adhering to the long-respected principle of bipartisan appointments.

But this is Speaker Pelosi’s — not Lord Hewart’s — “court,” where the only thing “manifestly and undoubtedly” guaranteed is politics, without the pretense of principle.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

542 thoughts on “Pelosi’s Court: How the Jan. 6 Committee Undermined its Own Legitimacy”

  1. “Prosecutors unveil harrowing details in plot to kill Justice Kavanaugh, ties to leaked ruling”

  2. Like I said, The Precedent will be welcomed when Schiff and Nadler no longer get committee seats.

    1. Like I said: learn the difference between the House rules on standing committee membership versus non-permanent select committee membership.

  3. Mark Levin: We are staring tyranny in the face
    Jun 12, 2022

    1. Oky1,

      Of those 745,556 views, do you know who did not watch this screed?

      Jonathan Turley. How do I know?

      I regularly listen to the radio show of this mamzer Levin, and I have never heard him refer to his Fox legal colleague Turley. Just today, Levin vilified and ridiculed Bill Barr for going out of his way to trash Trump as either unhinged or a liar. He accused Barr of enjoying it.

      To the contrary, Turley praises and defends Barr. Turley and Levin could not be more opposed to one another. Indeed, vile Trumpists like Levin (upon whom Hannity bestowed the title, “The Great One”) convinces me that Turley is a NeverTrumper. Levin is the personification of the “age of rage” which Turley decries.

      Turley has NEVER once mentioned Levin as his Fox colleague, cited his books, or appeared on his radio show. Turley would be mortified that anybody would ever associate his name with that of Levin’s.

    1. Now you have done it! Just for that, we will get a barrage of “John B. Sayisms.”


      1. I actually work for a living. I spent much of last week in Cincinnatti without my computer.

        Doing Work.

        You know the stuff that results in the production of goods and services that allow you to live in the fashion you have become accustomed.

      1. Yes, David is going through his second childhood and thinks he is a pirate. He had visions of you walking the plank. He also has visions of the Statue or Liberty under water and temperatures so high that the ice at both poles will melt and the water will rise flooding the entire world. Unreal visions are not uncommon in one’s second childhood.

  4. While we are off-topic, I want to post this news item since Turley will not mention it for reasons too obvious to mention:

    “Fox News Won’t Be Getting Out of a $2.7 Billion Lawsuit Over Its Rigged Voting Machine Claims”

    “An election technology company’s case against Fox News can move forward, with a judge finding “substantial basis” for the claim that Murdoch’s network “evinced a reckless disregard for the truth.”

    “There is “substantial basis” for the claim “that, at a minimum, Fox News turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous claims about [Smartmatic], unprecedented in the history of American elections, so inherently improbable that it evinced a reckless disregard for the truth,” Judge David Cohen wrote in a 61-page ruling.”

    As Fox and Turley all too well know, this 1/6 hearing is not only an indictment that Trump turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous election claims, but that Fox did too. But for Fox, Trump’s Big Lie could not have led to the “desecration” of our Capitol as Turley called it.

      1. Hardly:

        “CISA has no evidence that these vulnerabilities have been exploited in any elections.”

        1. Jeff,

          Perhaps also of interest:
          “Evidence suggests Newsmax knew 2020 election fraud claims ‘were probably false,’ judge says in Dominion defamation case … in a June 16 ruling, Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware wrote that Dominion had provided sufficient evidence for the case to move forward. In fact, Davis wrote, the company’s lawsuit supported ‘the reasonable inference that Newsmax either knew its statements about Dominion’s role in the [alleged] election fraud were false or had a high degree of awareness that they were false.'”

          1. Anonymous,

            Because you will not identify yourself, I hope you will not be offended if I refer to you as “Deep Throat” since you are providing me with great information! Thanks to you, I realize that I am not as crazy as 98% of the Trumpists here say I am!


            You would think that Turley, the free speech advocate, would have something to say about the progress of the titanic First Amendment lawsuits against those networks being sued for recklessly broadcasting defamatory election voting falsehoods. Here’s another one which bears directly on his network:

            “New York judge denies Fox News’ motion to dismiss Smartmatic defamation lawsuit against network over 2020 election falsehoods”

            The judge wrote:

            “Even assuming that Fox News did not intentionally allow this false narrative to be broadcasted, there is a substantial basis for plaintiffs’ claim that, at a minimum, Fox News turned a blind eye to a litany of outrageous claims about plaintiffs unprecedented in the history of American elections, so inherently improbable that it evinced a reckless disregard for the truth.”


            Turley has been as silent as the grave on all these defamation cases against Fox, Newsmax, and OAN. On the other hand, how many stories has Turley written about Hunter Biden’s laptop as if that Fox narrative bore on the First Amendment? What more evidence does one need to prove that Turley has sold out his free speech principles for a quick buck?

            As I’m sure you did, I watched the hearings. The most comprehensive article Turley has written to date about the legitimacy of Trump’s legal theory has been this:

            “The Death Star Strategy: Is Trump Contemplating The Ultimate Constitutional Trick Shot?”


            I doubt that Turley would treat this serious subject so lightly had he before him then the damning evidence against Eastman which was revealed in these hearings. But even way back then, Turley frankly acknowledged:

            “The Thursday press conference by President Trump’s legal team left many breathless as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani alleged a global communist conspiracy to steal the 2020 election. While making passing references to credible election challenges over provisional ballots or “curing” rules, he repeatedly returned to the allegation of a purported massive conspiracy directed by Democrats to change and “inject” votes into state tallies.”

            “It was a strange narrative that seemed to move away from the provable to the unbelievable. The question is, why?”

            “One possibility: to raise sweeping allegations with insufficient time to resolve them in order to force an Electoral College fight. The idea would be to give license to Republican-controlled legislatures to intervene with their own sets of electors or block the submission of any set of electors. Concern over such a strategy was magnified when Trump called key Republican leaders from Michigan’s legislature to the White House on Friday.”

            “Call it the “Death Star strategy.”
            When an election narrative
            is “unbelievable,” is it any wonder that Giuliani and other Trumpist lawyers are having their law licenses suspended and perhaps revoked for perpetuating a fraud in courts of law?

            If Giuliani and Eastman’s strategy was to “raise sweeping allegations with insufficient time to resolve them in order to force an Electoral College fight” that sounds like *bad faith.*

            Turley concluded his tongue-in-cheek analysis of Trump’s strategy by stating that it was “quite a long shot.” In light of all the evidence now accumulated, however, Turley needs to revisit his opinion whether Eastman’s theory of the case was made in good faith when so many Republican Conservative lawyers thought otherwise. Even Eastman himself seems to think so given his taking the Fifth and seeking a preemptive Presidential pardon!

            The question is whether Trump’s strategy was a long shot or a *trick* shot, that is, “a cunning scheme intended to deceive.”

        2. Jeff,

          It goes without saying that the just released CISA report cannot provide evidence that the vulnerabilities found in the Dominion voting machine software used in the 2020 election were exploited because the report was based on an analysis of the Dominion voting machine software alone. This report does not include an analysis of any of the machines that were used in the election. Why? Because the Democrats have denied by hook or crook any attempt to analyze or audit the machines used in any of the key districts in the swing states that turned the election.

          The vulnerabilities described in the report are the same as those that were identified by those claiming that the Dominion machines used during the election were deficient, were subject to manipulation, and were likely manipulated. My ‘favorite’ one follows.

          The authentication mechanism used by voters to activate a voting session on the tested version of ImageCast X is susceptible to forgery. ****An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to print an arbitrary number of ballots without authorization****

          Damn, this sound familiar. Wasn’t there a local race somewhere in NY that was thrown out because it was proven that somehow (wink, wink) “test” ballots that were generated before the election were counted during the actual election? Have there not also been reports that the number of ballots counted in several key districts in several key states was greater than those that were sent out? Are there not 37 districts in GA that are missing legally required chain of custody documents tens of thousands of ballots.

          This report is noteworthy with regard to the Dominion defamation lawsuit against various individuals and news organizations because one of the key tenets of the lawsuit was the original announcement by CISA about two weeks after the election that the Dominion and Smartmatic machines were fully tested, fully certified, and were 100% safe and effective (sound familiar?) and that the 2020 election was the most secure election in US history (or some other hyperbolic crap like that). It should have been clear to anyone who is not a retard that there is no way that CISA could have made such a determination in such a short time and. voila, here is the proof that this claim was nothing but conjecture or worse, disinformation.

          I don’t expect you to acknowledge any of this because you are too busy shadow casting bones and then claiming to be able to discern from them whether Turley wears boxers or briefs, whether he likes ranch or blue cheese dressing, and whether he prefers Uber or Lyft.

          1. Ray,

            All of this will be litigated in court. I confess that I am not competent in election software vulnerabilities. If these defamation lawsuits are litigated, I will abide by the decision of the jury.

            The question is: will you?

  5. (OT)

    “SCOOP: Herschel Walker has a secret 10-year-old son, who he doesn’t see. He also repeatedly rails against fatherless homes in the Black community, and says the greatest achievement of his life is being a good dad [to his other son]. … Walker was hit with a paternity suit, in which he admitted being the father. He pays child support, but according to a person close to the family, sends Christmas & birthday gifts. He doesn’t see the son, who still hasn’t met his older half-brother. Here are some of the many, many, many remarks Herschel Walker has made about being a father. To Diamond and Silk in 2020: If you have “a child with a woman, even if you have to leave that woman… you don’t leave the child.” To Charlie Kirk the next month: “And I want to apologize to the African-American community, because the fatherless home is a major, major problem,” adding that he had been “like a father to some of those kids that had never had fathers.”
    “… Walker was romantically involved with 3 women around the time of this child’s conception & birth—including being engaged to the woman who is now his wife. He has been plagued with accusations of domestic violence, including allegedly threatening to shoot two women in the head. …”

    More here:

    This is who Trump is supporting (no surprise). Walker is running against Sen. Warnock. Here’s hoping Warnock wins.

    1. Anonymous has a lot of slime built up so he wants to release it whether his story is true or not. Since he likes slime, he can talk about this as well.

      “Police Video Drops of Raphael Warnock’s Domestic Abuse Incident: Ex-Wife Told Police Warnock is a ‘Great Actor, Phenomenal at Putting on a Really Good Show’

      Police footage of the domestic abuse allegations against Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock by his ex-wife, Ouleye Ndoye, surfaced late Tuesday night.”

      …and for fun there is a video:

      Anonymous thinks this accomplishes a lot. As an aside will anonymous be cheering the killing of a few more babies?

    2. Warnock is going to lose and lose badly.

      “Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, who repeatedly points to the “pandemic of racism” when speaking of his brother’s life sentence, conveniently has been leaving out details that his brother was a corrupt police officer convicted of facilitating a cross-country drug trafficking operation, a report says.

      The Washington Free Beacon reported that Warnock’s half-brother, Keith Coleman, a former officer for the Savannah Police Department, was convicted on Nov. 21, 1997, of conspiring and attempting to aid and abet the distribution of cocaine and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.

      The newspaper cited recently obtained records that detail how prosecutors painted Coleman as the ringleader in an illegal scheme in which he used his police-issued firearm and department vehicle to escort purported drug dealers as they drove kilos of cocaine to airports, hotels and warehouses.

      1. “Warnock is going to lose and lose badly.”

        Speaking of which:

        Mayra Flores just flipped to Red a U.S. House seat in Texas that had been Blue for some 150 years.

        Let the slaughter begin.

    3. Aninny:

      As someone smart said, “if you only care about someone’s morals when they’re running for office, you really don’t care about their morals or yours.” So spare us the convenient bad baby-daddy rap. We’ve got bigger reprobates to dislodge and Walker is the guy to do it.

      1. Walker is himself a big reprobate, and I care about all parents who abandon their kids, not just those who run for office.

    1. The bill isn’t about protection for the Justices, who already have protection under other legislation. This bill is about protection for the Justices’ families.

      According to your own link, “Democrats who opposed the bill argued that it also needed to include protection for court staff, including clerks, and their families.” So they’re not against protecting the Justices’ families; they simply wanted the legislation to cover more people. Or don’t you believe your own Fox link?

      1. It certainly is about protection, but the Democrats don’t want to give it. They won’t even protect the public and provide bail fro rioters, Such bail goes all the way to the top and VP Kamala Harris ,It was the left and their rhetoric that increased the risk. Jeff supports that type of idiocy.

  6. TiT says:

    “The left downplays the participation of the FBI in the Jan 6 riot.”

    What about Turley? Not only is he not downplaying the “participation of the FBI, he has not even intimated it!!

    I say Turley is a NeverTrumper. What do you say?

  7. George says:

    “I call bullsh** on you Jonathan. Trump had every right to say what he said. The election WAS a fraud. While you cannot meet the legal definition of fraud there were a lot of irregularities. He DID NOT incite any kind of a riot. The FBI and it’s agents provocateur may have.”

    Chalk up another Trumpist turning on Turley. Didn’t I predict it long ago? It’s only going to get worse for him. As I speak, Trumpists are lining up against Bill Barr:

    “Team Trump: Jan. 6 committee hearings reveal Barr is a ‘shill’ for ‘Marxist Democrats’”

    “So how did Barr become a “cowardly RINO” shill for “Marxist Democrats.” That came about when in early December 2020, when he told The Associated Press that he saw no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In his testimony to the House committee, Barr described Trump’s reaction when they met shortly after the AP article came out.”

    “He said, ‘This is killing me. You didn’t have to say this,’” Barr said Trump yelled at him. “‘You must have said this because you hate Trump. You hate Trump.’”

    “And that’s all it took to make Bill Barr, a lifelong ultra-right conservative, a shill for Marxist Democrats in Trump’s mind. Barr finally drew the line over going along with a lie too far and decided to cover his ass by agreeing to testify.”

    The more Turley defends Barr, the more he will alienate himself to Trumpists who had hoped that Turley was on their side.

    Little did they know…

  8. Someone says that Turley has said:

    “Below is my column in The Hill on the January 6th Committee hearings and how the Democrats undermined the legitimacy of their investigation by breaking the long tradition of bipartisan and balanced membership on such special committees. **Many of us support the effort to release more information and evidence on what occurred on that day. However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to forego even the pretense of a bipartisan and full inquiry**” (emphasis * added)

    “This echos Turley’s comments on a previous article where he said that the J6 committee has a partisan composition and agenda and that it lacks transparency.

    We need more nevertrumpers like Turley!”

    Turley is LAMENTING that Trumpists will have a pretext to dismiss the truthful testimony of his friend Bill Barr’s damning accusations that Trump is either out of touch with reality or a liar.

    Turley has not uttered ONE WORD disputing the testimony of Barr. THAT says it all. Whether the committee is perceived as legitimate or not by Trumpists, Turley stands behind Barr’s accusations because he has always been a NeverTrumper from the money he denigrated Trump as a “carnival snake charmer.”

    Face it.

    1. Turley hasn’t agreed with you at all. At best Turley feels that some statements by Trump are not beyond reproach. However, he has said a lot of bad things about Democrat leadership. In fact, I think Turley is disgusted with the Democrats, and if he read this blog he would be disgusted with you as well.

      Turley would probably classify you in the Avenatti class.

  9. So who did the cloven-hoof party put up for human sacrifice today at their Summer Solstice … er Jan. 6th Kangaroo Court? I’m guessing they piously decried any violent threat to democracy (i.e., their power) by that unarmed mob of Capitol Police invitees as inimicable to civilized behavior. And then sped off to the BLM/Antifa rally where they chanted that pithy, ditty “‘Pigs in a Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon.” Probably knelt down, too — like the vassals to the “movement” they so clearly are.

    1. Mespo,

      Some wonder who are these Commie/Dim Dims & Rinos in the US/elsewhere the rest of us are forced to put up with? Well some see them now going public who the really are, Satin Worshiping Pedos!


      A so called ‘ethics professor’ from Norway has claimed that pedophilia should be classed as an ‘innate sexuality’ and taught in schools.

      Yes, really.

      Reduxx reports that Ole Martin Moen from Oslo Metropolitan University is calling for the ‘destigmatisation’ of pedos, claiming that “the mental state of finding children sexually attractive is very common.”

      Moen, a gay man who identifies as “queer,”also claims that a significant “percentage of high school students have an innate pedophilic sexual identity,” something he equates with those who identify as LGBTQ+.

      Oh, are we finally adding the ‘P’ now?

      What colour will the pedos have on the rainbow flag?

      The report further notes that ‘professor’ Moen authored a paper back in 2015 titled “The Ethics of Pedophilia,” in which he asked “how bad is” pedophilia, “And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad?”

      1. Oky1:
        I’ve always contended pedophilia Is the Achilles heel of the Left. It’s the sole issue every parent will rally around to denounce and it, along with abortion, is the glue holding that gang of reprobates together. Fundamentally, the Dims are about social upheaval. They see no value in any traditional more — sexual or otherwise. So why nor pedophilia, they ask? It’s what happen when you’re not grounded morally or ethically.

        1. You’re a nasty liar. Democrats condemn pedophilia. It’s child abuse.

          1. There are loads of Democrats that supported pedophilia by way of their support of pedophiles. One doesn’t have to use words to demonstrate their lack of concern over pedophilia.

            We are glad you know pedophilia is child abuse. Too bad your underlying thoughts are that Ashli Babbitt was killed because she was stupid. You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently.

            1. There are at least as many Republicans who support pedophiles or are themselves pedophiles, but you don’t find me condemning all Republicans because of it.

              You’ve never seen my actions, only my words. You regularly ignore my words when they undermine your preferred delusion about me, you pretend that I believe things I don’t believe and pretend that I’ve said things I haven’t said. That’s why you’re Meyer the Troll Liar.

              1. “There are at least as many Republicans who support pedophiles or are themselves pedophiles, but you don’t find me condemning all Republicans because of it.”

                There is no you as you hide behind an anonymous identity. As we saw on Turley’s other thread “Schiff: House Select Committee” all you did was lie and deceive. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid or ATS. That name separates you from the anonymous group.

                We are glad you know pedophilia is child abuse. Too bad your underlying thoughts are that Ashli Babbitt was killed because she was stupid. You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently.

                  1. We are glad you know pedophilia is child abuse. Too bad your underlying thoughts are that Ashli Babbitt was killed because she was stupid. You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently.

                    1. Responding and replying is an action.

                      We are glad you know pedophilia is child abuse. Too bad your underlying thoughts are that Ashli Babbitt was killed because she was stupid. You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently.

                      Your response made yourself very clear.

                    2. Your claim “You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently” is a lie. There is no content to the action of replying except the words in the reply.

                      Your nickname is Meyer the Troll Liar because you like to troll by lying.

                    3. You have no defense for the words you put on paper, however, we are glad you know pedophilia is child abuse. Too bad your underlying thoughts are that Ashli Babbitt was killed because she was stupid. You say one thing but your actions prove that you think differently.

  10. Here Are All 27 Democrats Who Voted Against Protecting SCOTUS Judges. The vote was 396 to 27. All “nos” were Democrats. Here are their names:

    1. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio)

    2. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D., N.Y.)

    3. Rep. Cori Bush (D., Mo.)

    4. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D., Texas)

    5. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D., N.Y.)

    6. Rep. Chuy Garcia (D., Ill.)

    7. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D., Texas)

    8. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D., N.J.)

    9. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D., Ariz.)

    10. Rep. Steven Horsford (D., Nev.)

    11. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.)

    12. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D., Mich.)

    13. Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.)

    14. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D., N.J.)

    15. Rep. Marie Newman (D., Ill.)

    16. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.)

    17. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D., N.J.)

    18. Rep. Donald Payne (D., N.J.)

    19. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D., Colo.)

    20. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.)

    21. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.)

    22. Rep. Albio Sires (D., N.J.)

    23. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.)

    24. Rep. Norma Torres (D., Calif.)

    25. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D., N.Y.)

    26. Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)

    27. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D., N.J.)

    We will never forget

    1. All the New Jersey idiots voted no. This after Menedez and Booker co-authored a bill protecting judges in 2021 because of the shooting of the son of Judge Salas who was targeted. The New Jersey idiots don’t care. They want dead judges so they can install their BLM pick who doesn’t know what a woman is.

Comments are closed.