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.

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

  1. The left keeps making things up and then forgets about it. Anonymous the Stupid is famous on this blog for that type of nonsense.

    —-
    Jan. 6 panel gets caught spreading a whopper worthy of Russia collusion, Biden laptop

    Capitol police chief says there is ‘no evidence,’ as Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney alleged, that a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission for Jan. 6 protesters”

    “Ironically, the man who blew that whistle is the new Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who got his job on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s watch but handed Republicans vindication on an allegation they long claimed was a smear.”

    “I’m wondering how many of these political writers — The New York Times Washington Post, all these folks — are actually lining up to give the retractions,” Collins told Just the News. “…Let’s just be honest. They buy any narrative they can to impugn conservative congressmen, to malign Donald Trump, to make this event that they’re trying to pin basically on the conservative movement. And they’re willing to destroy lives, you know, really to do it without actually investigating, without reporting.”

    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/jan-6-panel-gets-caught-spreading-whopper-worthy-russia-collusion?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. But, but, but buuuutttt. there is FILM!!!!!

      (it just proves democrats have to lie. IF all this evidence existed, they would have led with it. Instead we get “witnesses” reading from a script to support the narrative.

    2. Far-left groups, including Antifa, just recently, were stoking violence and engaging in “mindless lawlessness” under the guise of protesting police brutality. This is Biden’s AmeriKKKa

  2. Some of the posters on this blog are telling us that Pelosi was fare when she hand picked the members of the Jan 6 committee. She composed a panel made up of seven Democrats and two RINO Republicans. Let’s contrast the make up of the Benghazi investgative committee.

    Republicans

    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chair
    Susan Brooks, Indiana
    Jim Jordan, Ohio
    Mike Pompeo, Kansas
    Martha Roby, Alabama
    Peter Roskam, Illinois
    Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia

    Democrats

    Elijah Cummings, Maryland, Ranking Member
    Adam Smith, Washington
    Adam Schiff, California
    Linda Sánchez, California
    Tammy Duckworth, Illinois

    As you can see there were seven Republicans and five Democrats. With this information at hand it is clear that today’s Jan 6 committee is compromised as a stacked deck. Oh my, that pesky history.

      1. Here Anonymous is again with the stooge epitaph. I knew it was coming. She says I’m boring. To Anonymous the facts of a matter are always boring. I understand. It’s the best that she can do.

        1. Stooge, we want to debate real commenters. Your puppets are just names on paper.

          Thinkthrough is James, Estovir, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, Alma Carman, N.N., Hullbobby, Upstate Farmer, Iowan2, Ray SC and many, many more.

    1. And if McCarthy hadn’t chosen to withdraw the other 3 Reps he nominated, it would have been 7 and 5 on this committee too. Put the blame where it belongs, on McCarthy. Or blame the Senate Republicans. They could have had a Commission split 5 and 5, but they filibustered it.

      1. And if McCarthy hadn’t chosen to withdraw the other 3 Reps he nominated,

        Facts are, Pelosi picked the whole committee.

        1. Of course she did. The Speaker ALWAYS picks the entire committee for select committees, per the House’s rules, some of which I quoted to you earlier.

          Facts are: Pelosi invited McCarthy to nominate Republican members, and after Pelosi said she would not accept 2 of the 5 people McCarthy nominated, McCarthy withdrew his remaining 3 nominees, even though Pelosi would have accepted them had McCarthy not withdrawn them.

          1. Anomaly,

            The house rules state the the following;

            (a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker **shall** appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

            The committee has only nine members and is therefore illegitimate.

            https://january6th.house.gov/about

            1. ashtRay,

              The Resolution clearly didn’t anticipate Republicans refusing to serve on the Committee.

              You’re free to complain to your Rep. about the composition. Complaining to me has no legal impact.

              1. Anomaly,

                I am surprised to hear that you acknowledge that the J6 committee is illegitimate. I will give you credit, it is never too late to pull one’s head out of his (or her’s) ass.

    2. 27 Democrats in the House voted against protecting SCOTUS Justices. The 396-27 vote clears the way for President Biden to sign the measure into law, which he is expected to do. All 27 “no” votes came from Democrats, including far-left “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)

      Remember their names. Remember they inciting violence in America in 2020, 2021 and today as well

    3. ATS keeps repeating the same stuff thinking non-credible statements become credible with repetition.

      Jan6 is a Trump hate fest. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle one picks from. It matters that they all hate Trump. In fact Liz Cheney is one of the biggest haters so one can count on her for almost anything.

      This stupidity of ATS doesn’t seem to end.

  3. The problem with the Select committee goes back to the beginning when Pelosi violated the normal House procedure for selecting committee members in force for a century or so. Instead of specifying that the committee would consist of the Dem/Rep ratio of the House she tilted the playing field and said it would consist of an 8-5 ratio. Then to make matters worse, when five were appointed by the Rep she took the unprecedented action of kicking two off which precipitated resignation by the other three. She then appointed not five but two openly anti-Trump Rep members resulting in a one-sided committee incapable, as we have seen, of conducting an adversarial hearing. As a result, there was essentially no cross-examination of witnesses which is a sham. No wonder many view the committee as an illegitimate kangaroo court.

    1. Olesmithy says:

      “No wonder many view the committee as an illegitimate kangaroo court.”

      Thankfully, Turley is not among those who believe that the committee is a “kangaroo court.” Only lying Trumpists think so.

          1. Wrong again Jeffey. Turley said; “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**.”

              1. Jeff,

                That reply should win the non sequitur of the year award. You really are an empty vessel.

                1. Ray,

                  If ever you agree with one word I say, I will rethink what I said. I hope that you will always disagree with me. I don’t want to think like you or be like you.

                2. Jeff no longer wishes to be an empty vessel. He became an ignorant compliant vassal instead.

  4. Plot twist: A reinvigorated Ukraine invades Russia, pushing eastward through Volgograd, Voronezh, and Saratov oblasts towards Kazakhstan, conquering oblasts and republics south of the salient, such as Rostov, Astrakhan, Dagestan, Chechnya, etc., liberating grateful Russians from Putin’s tyranny. As a result, Russia loses access to Black Sea, and the wheat can flow freely once again.

  5. To be sincerely honest… in my humble opinion, articulating succinctly and without a hidden agenda, visions of grandeur, ulterior motives, sentimentalism, sarcasm, becoming nostalgic or disingenuous and of course, without offending anyone who holds views contrary to my own, and without burying any impure thoughts within my subconscious and without lies or deception, to the actual truth with my clear open mind and loyal loving heart, expressing whatever has been embedded inside me for a long time which I didn’t share with others because I was petrified of doing so, is about to be revealed without myself becoming a slave to fear and/or a co-signee of preposterous political correctness. Today, by gathering all the courage and motivation I could muster, I just want to state the fact that I actually feel and think that I have absolutely nothing prophetic, inspirational or even remotely interesting to say.

  6. Here is CNN’s pushback to Trump’s 12-page “response” to the first two Committee hearings:

    In response to the second public hearing of the January 6 committee, former President Donald Trump released a 12-page statement – yes, 12 full pages! – seeking to rebut the charges leveled against him.

    It’s filled with the usual name-calling, exaggerations and conspiracy theories that have dominated Trump’s post-2020 election life. But it’s also a window into the former President’s psyche as the January 6 committee weighs whether to recommend a criminal indictment of Trump to the Department of Justic

    I went through Trump’s, um, statement. The lines from it you need to see are below.

    1. “If they had any real evidence, they’d hold real hearings with equal representation.”

    Remember that the reason there isn’t an independent commission – like the one that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks – is because Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell killed it after it had passed the House with 35 GOP votes. And away we go!

    2. “They use the illegally-constituted committee to put on a smoke and mirrors show for the American people, in a pitiful last-ditch effort to deceive the American public … again.”

    It’s not at all clear to me what Trump thinks is illegal about the January 6 committee. It is a select committee established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Not unlike the Benghazi select committee established by then-House Speaker John Boehner.

    3. “They have refused to allow their political opponents to participate in this process, and have excluded all exculpatory witnesses, and anyone who so easily points out the flaws in their story.”

    Again, this is not quite accurate. First off, the reason the committee has two Republicans and nine Democrats is because a) McConnell nixed the idea of an independent commission and b) House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all five of his picks for the committee when Pelosi rejected the appointments of Indiana Rep. Jim Banks and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. Second, plenty of strongly pro-Trump witnesses have been subpoenaed by the committee. In fact, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, two close Trump confidants, have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the committee.

    4. “The Unselect Pseudo-Committee has coordinated with their media puppets to broadcast their witnesses on national television without any opposition, cross-examination, or rebuttal evidence.”

    I hate to sound like a broken record here, but the committee took more than 1,000 depositions from all sorts of witnesses – including Bill Stepien, who managed Trump’s 2020 campaign, and Bill Barr, who served as Trump’s attorney general. Those aren’t exactly portraits of Trump haters. Plus, the committee tried to talk to people like Bannon and Navarro.

    5. “What are the members of this treasonous ‘Committee’ afraid of?”

    This is coming from someone who refused to accept the results of a free and fair election and incited people to protest the results because of a series of easily debunked conspiracy theories.

    6. “Democrats created the narrative of January 6th to detract from the much larger and more important truth that the 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen.”

    Uh, what. So, several people died as a result of the riots on January 6. More than 100 police officers were injured. Over 800 people have been criminally charged for their roles in the insurrection that day. That’s less important that a set of lies about supposed election fraud?

    7. “They illegally inflated voter rolls, illegally allowed harvested and stuffed ballots, abused the use of mail-in ballots, physically removed Republicans from counting facilities, abused the elderly in nursing homes, bribed election officials with donations, stopped counting on Election Night, gave Democrats three extra days to harvest ballots, and demanded that the American people believe it was legitimate.”

    Wow. That’s, um a lot. There has been absolutely no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

    8. “The truth is that Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. in massive numbers (but seldom revealed by the press), on January 6th, 2021, to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the Election.”

    Crowd size has long been a Trump hobbyhorse. But there’s just no evidence that the press purposely low-balled the crowd on January 6. Also, that is totally beside the point. Which is this: A mob of rioters stormed the US Capitol fueled by an election lie pushed by Trump that he had somehow been cheated out of victory.

    9. “This is all a ridiculous and treasonous attempt to cover up the fact that Democrats rigged the Election and are siphoning Americans’ freedoms and power for their own benefit.”

    What, exactly, is treasonous about the January 6 committee? Trump – surprise, surprise – doesn’t explain.

    10. “On Election Night, America watched as my lead grew and grew over Joe Biden, as I was set to claim another victory.”

    Simply not true. We knew well in advance of Election Day that, in large part because of new rules in place to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of mail-in ballots would be far higher than in past elections. And we knew that it would take some time to properly process all of them. Here’s what Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager, suggested he say on election night: “My recommendation was to say that ‘votes were still being counted, it’s too early to tell, too early to call the race but we’re proud of the race we ran and we think we’re in good position.’” Trump didn’t take that advice.

    11. “The Swamp was so determined to keep their stranglehold on power that they delayed the results of the Election so that they could find, manufacture, or produce more ballots, after they knew how many they needed to beat me.”

    “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr said on December 1, 2020.

    12. “There’s no reasonable explanation for why it took so much longer to count the few remaining ballots as opposed to the millions on Election Day – other than they needed to traffic more ballots, and it took four days to produce the ballots and do it.”

    Aside from simply claiming it to be so, Trump offers no evidence for his claim that there were “few remaining ballots” left to be counted after Election Day. The reason he doesn’t offer any proof for this claim is that none exists.

    13. “Like drug mules, in this context, mules are those paid to illegally traffic ballots from nonprofits organizations and drop them into the ballot drop boxes.”

    It’s well worth watching – or reading – Barr’s complete takedown from Monday’s hearing of the film “2,000 Mules” which is where Trump gets this bogus information. Here’s the gist of it in one Barr quote: “If you take 2 million cell phones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition, you will find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes.”

    14. “The truth is, according to Joe Biden, that the Swamp has created the ‘most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics – and it centers around ballot trafficking.’”

    As Reuters noted of the Biden quote cited by Trump here: “It was a slip of the tongue – Biden was describing the voter protection program his campaign has launched in anticipation of potential legal fights over the outcome of the Nov. 3 election against President Donald Trump.”

    15. “It’s also highly likely that True the Vote did not uncover 100% of the mules, making the numbers much larger than a landslide in scope, and that there were many more mules out there affecting more of the Election than we realize. This was not a close Election.”

    Joe Biden won more than 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million. So no, by recent measures it wasn’t a particularly close election. But I don’t think that’s what Trump means.

    16. “Joe Biden, a candidate who never left his basement and can’t speak without a teleprompter, outperformed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their two high-charged elections.”

    In terms of raw vote totals, that’s true. Biden’s 81 million votes is more than either Clinton or Obama received. But, in both 2008 (365) and 2012 (332), Obama received more electoral votes than Biden.

    17. “Either there’s a lot of black voters in America who identify more with Joe Biden than Barack Obama, or Democrats are stealing black votes – and we all know the answer to that.”

    Before this line, Trump cites a handful of majority-Black counties and areas where Biden did better in 2020 than Obama did in 2008 or 2012. That fact is proof positive of fraud, according to Trump. Of course, it’s not. First of all, the population, in the Black community and elsewhere, grew between 2008 and 2020, meaning that there were just more voters to be had for Biden than for Obama. Also, and I am just spitballing here, isn’t it possible that the desire to vote Trump out of office was a powerful motivator for lots and lots of Black voters?

    18. “Mark Zuckerberg contributed $419 million dollars to election initiatives around the country.”

    Trump is suggesting here that Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that Democrats won the 2020 election. The only thing he gets right though is the amount of money Zuckerberg spent. Trump would do well to read this Protocol piece headlined “How ‘Zuck Bucks’ saved the 2020 election — and fueled the Big Lie.”

    19. “Zuckerberg should be criminally prosecuted. Election laws prevent individuals from donating more than $5,000 per year, yet Zuckerberg gave $419 million.”

    Again, Trump is simply wrong about what Zuckerberg did in the 2020 election. As Protocol notes: “He offered grants to any election official who wanted one, so long as they spent it on what a lot of people would consider mundane essentials that make it easier and safer for everyone to vote: ballot sorters, drop boxes, poll workers and — because it was 2020 — hand sanitizer.”

    18. “Rumors circulated that the Justices devolved to shouting and argued intensely over how to handle the Texas v. Pennsylvania case. Ultimately, the Justices yielded to the same fear mongering tactics Democrats had deployed for years. They punted and threw the case out on standing.”

    As CNN reported of the election fraud case brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: “The court’s order, issued with no public dissents, to dismiss the challenge is the strongest indication yet that Trump has no chance of overturning election results in court, and that even the justices whom he placed there have no interest in allowing his desperate legal bids to continue.” No public dissents. So, yeah.

    19. “But, the Swamp runs deep. I guess that turning around an election was a step too far.”

    Yes, I would say overturning an election was a “step too far.”

    20. “Americans are struggling to fill their gas tanks, feed their babies, educate their children, hire employees, order supplies, protect our border from invasion, and a host of other tragedies that are 100% caused by Democrats who obtained power through a rigged election, and the people of our country are both angry and sad.”

    This sentence is 53 words long. Yup.

    21. “Nobody brings this up, but as President, I suffered years of vicious lies, scandals, and innuendo concerning a fake and contrived narrative of Russia, Russia, Russia.”

    Allow me to quote from the Mueller Report: “(I)f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” reads the Mueller report. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. … Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

    22. “This is merely an attempt to stop a man that is leading in every poll, against both Republicans and Democrats by wide margins, from running again for the Presidency.”

    So, is Trump saying he is running for president again in 2024? Big news! Yeah, this feels like a good place to end.

    He just can’t stop lying and obsessing about his loss. The disciples remain immune to facts.

    1. The committee IS nothing but a political cudgel. Pelosi knows it. They had to reschedule Thursdays dog and pony show, because the polling clearly shows the partisan, one sided process looks nothing like American adversarial justice system. The message is hurting Dems, and not moving the needle concerning President Trump. The delay is to change the messaging.

    2. Where do you get this nonsense ?

      McConnell prevented Senate democrats from doing the same stupid nonsense house democrats have – nothing more.
      Do you think Two star chambers are better than one ?

      House democrats have violated their own rules – house rules that have been in place for centuries that require house committees to have proportionate representation, and that require the minority party to pick its own committee members.

      Our ancient adversarial system is imperfect – but it is the best way found today to reach the actual truth.

      I noted Pence’s testimony in an earlier post.
      There is absolutely no way Pence would have testified as stupidly and sloppily had he expected to be cross examined.

      But witnesses before the J6 committee already know that only one side of the story will be allowed to be presented.
      That they will face leading questions without challenge that if they spin their answers to suit the committee no one will hold them to account.

      This is the problem with start chambers, with soviet style show trials.

      It is exactly this type of nonsense we decry in Hong Kong Today.

      Democrats are giving new meaning to “Make American Great Again”

      Joe MacCarthy was taken down easily by a single attorney and the question “At long last have you no shame ?”

      No one is there to ask that of the J6 committee.

      But most of us are not as stupid as you are.

      If you are so sure you know the truth you should not be afraid of subjecting it to brutal examination.

    3. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

      ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

  7. The left downplays the participation of the FBI in the Jan 6 riot. They want us to think that there is no way that the FBI or the Justice Department would do such a thing but we have not forgotten that the Justice Department sold guns to the Mexican cartels. Their overlooking of the FBI choir boys is just a part of the apparatchik of the New Democratic Party. There will be awards for valor and courage to follow. The Medal “For Courage” or Medal “For Valour” (Russian: Медаль «За отвагу») is a state decoration of the Russian Federation that was retained from the Soviet awards system following the dissolution of the USSR. Your donations to the New Democratic Party will surely be appreciated.

  8. Since becoming a paid Fox pundit, Turley has left behind all sense of logic and decency. According to Turley, the Jan 6th investigation is “one-sided” and therefore allegedly lacking in a “sense” of “authenticity and authorty: “However, such one-sided accounts rob these proceedings of a sense of authenticity and authority.” There are two Republicans on this Committee, but since they aren’t pro-pig, they are automatically biased. So, according to Turley, the only way any investigation of Jan 6th would have authenticity and authority would be for pro-pig members of Congress to be there, to undermine the process and to advocate for the pig, to push back against the devastating evidence that is being adduced, to fight for the hog and his legitimacy. This argument comes straight from Fox, which tells its viewers that the hearings aren’t worth the time because they are biased. They said this before the first hearing was even held, just like Trump told his disciples that the only way he could lose would be if the election was rigged, which, of course, ignores all of the polls predicting otherwise. Sadly for Turley and Fox, there’s a very inconvenient truth: EVERY witness who specifically testified about Trump and what happened on election night was from his inner circle: Bill Barr, Ivanka Trump, and members of his campaign staff. None of these are Democrats or even pundits: they were insiders, and they all testified that Trump was repeatedly told about the “red mirage”: meaning that same-day vote totals would make it look like he was ahead, but when the absentee ballots were opened and counted, any advantage he had would vanish because mail ballots would tend to benefit Biden. The Committee even called a former producer from Fox who called Arizona for Biden, and who got fired for doing so because it displeased the pig whose ego wouldn’t allow him to accept the fact that he had been rejected in Arizona, home to John McCain, someone he had trashed because McCain prevented the pig from overturning Obamacare. A drunken Giuliani told him to just claim victory anyway, so that’s what he did: in the wee hours of the next morning, he took a victory lap. His ego won’t let him back down from the Big Lie, despite 60+ llitigation losses, 38 recounts and audits and virtually no proof of widespread election fraud. But, the point of Turley’s little piece was to feed credibility into the Fox narrative that the Jan 6th Committee isn’t credible, despite the fact that the evidence they are disclosing is all from Trump insiders. Then, there was the opportunity to take jabs at Nancy Pelosi and the 2 impeachments of the pig, attempting to undermine the legitimacy of both.That’s his assignment, so that’s what he did.

    1. Natacha, you can turn it and you can toss it but the fact still remains that none of the members of the committee were chosen by the Republican leadership in the house. We see that you find no moral problem with the use of a stacked deck. Thank you for always letting us know where you are coming from and the depth of your character.

      1. McCarthy could have left the remaining 3 Republican members on the Committee. He chose to pull them. If you consider that a “stacked deck,” then McCarthy helped to stack it.

        As for your absolute garbage that “no one of any political party other than the Democratic party should be allowed to have a say,” Cheney and Kinsinger are Republicans, whether you can admit that fact or not.

        1. Anonymous, you have peaked my interest. Please provide a source verifying that McCarthy pulled three republicans from the Jan 6 committee. The Republicans on the committee were appointed by Nancy Pelosi. She found the most RIHNO RHINOS she could find and the leadership of the Republicans in the house was not consulted. Once again, please provide your source. WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected two Republican members for the select committee that will investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded by threatening to pull House Republicans out of the process. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/. Pelosi was determined to pick and chose the people who would be allowed on the committee. Let’s see, seven democrats and two RIHNOS. With that combination there is no doubt that a fare proceeding will occur. Pelosi only wanted the so-called Republicans who will kiss her ring. No others need apply. Pelosi stacked the deck because she wanted to predetermine the outcome. Willful blindness on your part can’t be determined to be reality. You wish it may, you wish it might be the wish you wish tonight. The star in the sky isn’t listening.

          1. “Please provide a source verifying that McCarthy pulled three republicans from the Jan 6 committee.”

            Sure: https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1417895887083393025
            But I’m not sure why you’re asking when you already have a source. McCarthy nominated 5, Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5, and McCarthy pulled the other 3 himself and refused to nominate any replacements for any of the 5, after which Pelosi chose Cheney and Kinzinger.

            You’re an idiot to call Cheney and Kinzinger RINOs (or in your bizarre spelling, “RIHNO RHINOS” — what does the “H” stand for?). Cheney voted with Trump more than Repubs like Stefanik.

            1. Hollywood Democratic donor Ed Buck sentenced to 30 years for meth ODs

              Democratic megadonor Ed Buck was sentenced to 30 years in prison on Thursday for fatally injecting two gay men with methamphetamine in exchange for sex at his West Hollywood apartment.

              Judge Christina A. Snyder said the sentencing decision was difficult as she balanced the philanthropic work Buck had done in his life supporting LGBTQ and animal rights causes with the “horrific crimes” that she called “more than just an accident.”

              Prosecutors sought a life sentence for Buck, 67, arguing he was a sexual predator who abused vulnerable men — often young, black, homeless and addicted to drugs — who’d resorted to sex work in order to get their fix. The defense requested a 10-year-sentence — below the federal minimum of 20 years — claiming he was sexually abused as a child and that health problems led him to drug addiction.

        2. The committee lacks advocacy for the other side, therefore, the committee is a sham. Anonymous is as well, but we are used to that.

          1. Unlike you, iowan, I never have a problem admitting facts.

            It’s easy to admit that Cheney and Kinzinger weren’t McCarthy’s choice, as that’s true. But Pelosi was willing to seat 3 of McCarthy’s choices — Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls — and they’re not on the committee because McCarthy pulled their nominations. You see, I admit the facts of Pelosi’s AND McCarthy’s AND McConnell’s actions, whereas you can only admit the first.

            1. Not until Pelosi removed two Republicans. McCarthy pulled all the Republicans because Pelosi refused to respect the Republican leader’s choices, for no reason.

              Facts are hard. But the precedent will be useful, when Republicans take control and liars like Schiff, and Nadler, will no longer sit on committees

              1. Pelosi did not “remove them,” as they were never seated on the committee. She refused to accept them as nominees. Just as the President nominates judges, but they don’t become judges unless confirmed by the Senate, the Minority Leader nominates select committee members, but they don’t become select committee members unless accepted by the Speaker.

                And there was a very good reason for Pelosi rejecting Jordan and Banks: they rejected the committee’s work.

                The “precedent” you refer to here is hundreds of years old, and you should know that, because I already quoted from the House rules about how old it is. Of course the Speaker has total control over the membership of non-permanent select committees and always has. Also, for the umpteenth time, idiot, learn the difference between how the membership of standing committees is determined and how the membership of non-permanent select committees is determined. Nadler is not serving on any non-permanent select committees and cannot be removed by the Speaker. The J6 Committee will — again by House rules — be terminated at the end of the current congressional session, so Schiff won’t be a member of any non-permanent select committee either. Neither one can be removed solely by the Speaker from their other committee assignments.

                I don’t think facts are hard. But you consistently have trouble keeping track of all of the relevant facts. I guess facts are hard for YOU.

                1. And there was a very good reason for Pelosi rejecting Jordan and Banks: they rejected the committee’s work.

                  There was no committee so they could not have rejected the committees work.

                  (I can pedantry just as well as you)

                  Again, the precedent has been set. Because Republicans will launch another committee. Take testimony, edit the video to push a narrative, lie about having evidence, but they will just use it as smears. Like the lie about Congressmen leading groups through the Capitol doing recon for Jan 6, has been exposed by Capitol Police.

                  Never before has the speaker denied the minority choices. But the precedent is now set.

                  1. Your so-called “pedantry” is a lie. The Committee was already formed by House Resolution 503, which was passed by the House on 6/30/21.

                    “Again, the precedent has been set. ”

                    Yes, as I’ve now pointed out several times, that precedent had already been set for hundreds of years.

                    “Never before has the speaker denied the minority choices.”

                    Prove it. (And don’t resort to your usual “you can’t prove a negative.” One can prove negatives to the same extent that one can prove positives.)

                2. “And there was a very good reason for Pelosi rejecting Jordan and Banks: they rejected the committee’s work.”

                  ATS seems be correct. Jordan and Banks were in favor of an investigation that was complete and meritorious, not functioning to attack and pry information from future opponents.

                  Nancy Pelosi’s idea of a committee is a firing squad.

                3. Anomaly,

                  “Pelosi did not “remove them,” as they were never seated on the committee. **She refused to accept them as nominees. Just as the President nominates judges, but they don’t become judges unless confirmed by the Senate**, the Minority Leader nominates select committee members, but they don’t become select committee members unless accepted by the Speaker.”

                  It follows from your argument that McConnell’s refusal to accept Garland as a SCOTUS nominee was perfectly acceptable. Thanks!

                  However, the problem remains that the house rules require that the speaker choose 13 members with 5 presumably coming from the minority party. The committee has only 9 members with 2 coming from the minority party. The committee is therefore illegitimate.

                  1. The Senate is not governed by House rules idiot.
                    A justice-ship is not a committee membership idiot.
                    So no, your claim does not follow from mine.

                    I addressed the rest elsewhere.

                    1. Anomaly,

                      “Pelosi did not “remove them,” as they were never seated on the committee. **She refused to accept them as nominees. Just as the President nominates judges, but they don’t become judges unless confirmed by the Senate**”

                      These are YOUR words, YOU are the one who justified Pelosi’s actions by comparing them to the Senate confirmation of judges. So yeah, it is YOUR logic that what happened to Garland was acceptable.

                      As for the rest, you are simply wrong. The rules say;

                      (a) Appointment Of Members.—**The Speaker shall** appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

                      https://january6th.house.gov/about

                      Try as you might, you can’t spin you way into explaining how this committee is legitimate if Pelosi has failed to follow the House rules.

                    2. No, idiot ashtRay, I didn’t JUSTIFY “Pelosi’s actions by comparing them to the Senate confirmation of judges.” I ANALOGIZED how a nominee comes to sit on a select committee to how a nominee comes to serve on a court — in both cases via acceptance of the nomination by the person or body with the power to decide.

                      Apparently you do not understand the difference between an analogy and a justification.

                      “yeah, it is YOUR logic that what happened to Garland was acceptable.”

                      It isn’t my logic, despite your lie to the contrary. Note that here, you also confuse McConnell (a single Senator) with the full Senate (the body that votes on judicial nominees). McConnell cannot confirm any judge or justice by himself.

                      “As for the rest, you are simply wrong.”

                      Then write your Representative to complain about it. Complaining to me does nothing.

                    3. Anomaly,

                      I will grant that you offered an analogy and not a justification and I will compliment you on offering such a brilliant analogy.

                      Pelosi, as House Majority Leader, unilaterally refused to accept Jordan and Banks to the J6 committee much the same as Mitch McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader, unilaterally refused to consider Garland as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

                      Since you have insisted that Pelosi was within her rights as Speaker of the House to refuse Jordan and Banks then it follows that you also believe that McConnell was also within his rights as Senate Majority Leader to refuse Garland.

                      It is not a position that I would have expected you to take but hey, things like this are what make you an Anomaly. More power to you!

      2. Natacha, Fishwings, Anonymous eb, all commented within seconds of each other.
        Connect the dots.

      3. When McCarthy couldn’t get Jordan and another rabid pro-Trump Republican to disrupt committee proceedings and try to defend the pig, because they are both biased and Jordan was directly involved, McCarthy pulled all 5 nominees. THAT IS A FACT. There are still two Republicans: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. History will treat them as the patriotic Americans they are who stand for the cause of justice. Trump and those who go along with the Big Lie will go down in infamy, just like his attempted coup.

    2. In other words Natacha, no one of any political party other than the Democratic party should be allowed to have a say because as you so adroitly put it they should be considered to be no more than pigs. Back in the USSR Natacha. You don’t know how lucky you are.

    3. Uh no sorry. When something like this is happening, it is necessary to have an advocate for the person being condemned. Innocent until proven guilty. It is more than obvious to anyone with an objective bone in their body that this fiasco is purely political and for Liz Cheney especially, revenge! Videos were selectively edited to cut out the beating, by Capitol Police of Rosanne Boyland. No one has had to answer for the death of the unarmed Ashley Babbit (and don’t say something ignorant, like she shouldn’t have been there, and the anger isn’t justified. This country went through months of turmoil, and businesses being burned down over the death of a drug addict). Next, they edit out the words of the President to Peacefully and Patriotically march to the Capitol. No mention is made of Ray Epps who just disappears into a memory hole. No talk at all is had about how many Feds were embedded that day. Yes, the whole thing is a typical Fed operation that caught up several people in a Fed honeypot. That is the real truth of J6 that isn’t talked about, and that is why this is the equivalent of a Soviet show trial.

      1. Who is being “condemned” here? The Committee is gathering evidence of what happened, so we can know how to prevent a recurrence. Ashley Babbitt is responsible for her own death–she had no right to try to enter the Speaker’s Lobby. None whatsoever, and it’s not ignorant to say so. She was a trespasser, part of a mob intent on disrupting the Constitutional process of certifying Biden’s victory. She was egged on to do this by the Big Lie. But, at the end of the day, she is an adult and should know better than to trespass, ignore the commands of police officers and proceed past the door via a broken window. The door was barricaded, and there were guns pointed at her before she decided to go for it anyway. She got shot and it’s her own fault. Where was the right for her to try to enter a broken window anyway? There weren’t any “feds embedded” that day. There was a reporter embedded with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who documented that they surveilled the Capitol hours before the pig spoke to his disciples and told them he’d be with them in marching to the Capitol. The purpose for the reconnaisance was to figure out the best entrances to use in order to force their way into the Capitol. All of this evidence refuses the alt-right media lie about Jan 6 being nothing but a peaceful protest that got out of hand. It was planned in a war room at the Willard Hotel. They had a cache of weapons in a Virginia hotel, waiting for their exalted leader to give the word to invade. These are facts, but the other things you mention are just distractions, things you believe because you saw them on alt-right media.

    4. Turley writes: “I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given”. But, I followed the link to his Twitter post. Where, in that post, does he actually condemn anything? All Turley says is that Trump is wrong about constitutional and federal law.

      1. Matthew Dunn asks:

        “Turley writes: “I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given”. But, I followed the link to his Twitter post. Where, in that post, does he actually condemn anything? All Turley says is that Trump is wrong about constitutional and federal law.”

        Read Turley’s condemnation of Trumpists here:

        “A desecration of our democracy”

        https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533084-a-desecration-of-our-democracy/

        “All the images of protesters scaling the walls of the Capitol and briefly occupying Congress will remain seared in our collective memories for decades. Some called it a riot. Others called it an insurrection. Whatever you call it, it was a desecration. The rioters desecrated the most sacred moment of our constitutional system when the nation comes together to certify our next president. That is why it is too easy to treat this like an insurrection crisis. It is far more dangerous. It is a crisis of faith.”
        ——————

        The crisis of faith continues as Trumpists here begin to lose their faith in Turley as he stands by Barr as Barr takes down Trump.

    5. Ignoring your spin – YES, the only way for humans to HOPE to arrive at the truth is through an ADVERSARIAL process.

      Until recently the US have not conducted soviet style show trials.

      The FACT is the evidence you claim is damning – isn’t. The J6 hearings are not damning, they are a yawn, a failure.
      They likely would have been no matter what.

      But when we make claims of malfeasance our constitutional values REQUIRE us to allow BOTH sides to present evidence.
      Allow BOTH sides to present witnesses and examine the witnesses of the other side.

      I read part of Pence’s testimony and he greatly disappointed me. A man who sells himself on his rigid moral center testified in an obviously self serving fashion. He would not have done so had he expected to be cross examined – he would have looked like a fool.

      This is just one of many reasons we have an ancient legal system that is at its foundation adversarial.
      Because as imperfect as that is, it is the best route we have to the actual truth.

      It is self evident to most that those excluded fromt he committee were excluded because they would have made the farce of the hearings self evident.

      Calling them names does not alter the fact that these disasterous hearings are YOUR pig.

      It is a tale
      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
      Signifying nothing.

    1. Unless its her husband George. Have you noticed that there is no denial coming from Queen Pelosi. Just like Hunter never denied that the laptop was his. The Russians made Pelosi’s husband drive drunk because they made the vodka the he was drinking. It was probably the best vodka that money can by. If you don’t wear your mask you are endangering the lives of others but its no big problem if you hurdle a three thousand pound steel object through space while under the influence of alcohol. Their fake concern is sickening.

  9. Authentic Commenters Scarce

    Because Blog Stooge So Boring

    One, creepy writer fancies himself as interesting enough to hold our attention around the clock with an endless parade of puppet commenters. This is the reality of Johnathan Turley’s Blog. How the forum ever reached this point is absolutely baffling.

    Commenters once came to this forum because they liked to argue. That was the whole idea: ‘Round the clock debates’. But somewhere someone decided this forum wasn’t Trump-friendly enough. The forum needed a ‘protector’ to ‘bury’ the comments of any liberals who posted. Enter The Blog Stooge.

    No one can guess if The Stooge is a paid professional or an overzealous activist with no life outside the blog. But his constant presence has long-stymied any real discussions. Real discussions can’t possibly develop when swarmed by puppet brigades.
    Consequently The Blog Stooge is increasingly the ‘only’ commenter on this forum. Which gives these threads the essence of some warped universe where everyone is part of a faceless, formless mob.

    1. Anonymous, real discussion can’t develop when you call anyone who disagrees with you a stooge or an idiot. When you can’t defend your ideas you play the intimidation card. We know you don’t want to hear it but we are not intimidated. You would do better presenting your thoughts in a way that would convince others to come around to your way of thinking instead of resorting to name calling. Isn’t this what discussion should be about? The only real discussion you want is with those who agree with you. In your mind all others who don’t agree with you are stooges. Your sanctimony is poorly applied.

        1. Anonymous, Is stooge a word of inspiration or proof of a lack of vocabulary? The question answers itself. Why don’t you just say poo poo head. It would show a greater command of the language and more maturity.

  10. @Dennis and @Gregory…

    Trump pushes the ‘big lie’ because there is some truth to it.
    The election wasn’t a fraud, yet that’s not to say that there wasn’t fraud.

    SCOTUS didn’t want to get involved. This message was clear and it was further followed by the lower courts (State).

    Too many wanted to turn a blind eye to the fraud that did take place.
    Barr would only look at ‘massive fraud’. So ‘death by a thousand cuts’ wouldn’t matter.

    Nor did anyone want to address the laws that were created due to the pandemic that were not in alignment with their state’s constitution.

    There’s a lot more at the lower levels.

    The thing that Trump and others miss is that the election had to be close in order for the fraud that did occur to matter.
    That’s a very important issue that many gloss over.

    You take the mail in ballots and you remove the safeties to ensure lawful votes being counted.
    You create ambiguity on the process so that its possible to dump votes that could be fraudulent and are difficult to prove to be fraudulent. (e.g. A mail in ballot for John Smith is received yet John Smith didn’t vote. )

    You allow external third party to put in ballot boxes… yet these boxes are placed in locations that favor one party.
    You allow ballot harvesting to occur in states that don’t allow ballot harvesting.

    You deny the right for legal challenges till after Jan 6th.
    State lawmakers avoid going to special sessions to address complaints which could be valid.

    This is why election law is hard to prove.

    Even when you have criminal activity caught on tape… there is a reluctance to do anything about it.

    And then you have Dominion which is a whole different set of issues.
    I wonder why Turley hasn’t gone and looked at the contracts each county/state have signed.

    History will be kind to Trump. Not so to Biden and Obama.
    While this may sound like its a political statement. its not. Its unbiased and its based on the material coming from the Durham investigation.
    Trump was the most villain-ized POTUS in recent history. This is why history will be kind when you take a less biased look at his record.

    -G

    1. Gumby says:

      “Trump was the most villain-ized POTUS in recent history. This is why history will be kind when you take a less biased look at his record.”

      You are assuming that Trump will not be civilly or criminally convicted of wrongdoing. The jury is still out on Trump’s record.

  11. I have asked many people to ask the question-why did not the Capital police to lock the doors? No need for fence or national guard troops. I have been to capital many times and they have bomb proof doors with electronic locks. Where they told not to lock the doors? If so, Who directed that decision or are they just inept? It should have never happened and could have been avoided. Someone in power or even media needs to ask these questions.

    1. And why did they wave people in?? They took selfies with people, and showed them where to go in some cases. We will never know because this is a kangaroo court that is stacked with Never Trumpers. Their main objective is to GET TRUMP!!!

      1. I agree but still needs to be clarified as to exactly who, what, and why. Who directed them to waive people in and NOT Lock the doors. If asked and answered it might shine a light on the process.

      2. They are not Never Trumpers.

        They are Marxist Communist Global One World Government enthusiasts which they have been calling it ‘Their New Order’ for 75 years.
        No Nation States, just one government control over everyone alive.

    2. Apparently you never learned that rioters broke the windows into the building and entered through the windows. Locking the doors doesn’t prevent that.

      1. It reduces the number of people willing to enter the Capitol. Those doors were open and that tells the masses entry is OK. Didn’t you know that? Do you have difficulty putting things together?

  12. Turley… off by a bit …

    Pelosi gambled that she had the clout to impeach Trump and win.
    She also knew that the case against Trump was weak and that there were ample chances for Trump’s legal team to rip her and the Dems to shreds.

    So she pushed it.

    This Jan 6th hearing was also pushed.
    She’s been inside the beltway too long.

    While those in DC may buy it and give Dems a break… the rest of the country doesn’t.
    They see this for what it is.

    Maybe they should spend more time in the ‘fly over’ states.

    There will be a Red wave in Nov.
    Pelosi and everyone knows this… so they must act quickly, and take risks.

    Lets call this for what it is… a hail Mary.

    There are many questions left unanswered by the Dems and the Capitol police. (FBI included).
    Pelosi would have been better served trying to answer them. Unless of course she already knows the answers yet doesn’t want to share them.

  13. 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.

  14. Jonathan: The is a good reason Trump keeps pushing the “big Lie”. It is bringing in lots of money. Zoe Lofgren let the cat out of the bag towards the end of yesterday’s Jan. 6 hearing when she said: “Not only was there the Big Lie, there was the Big Rip off”. What was she alluding to?

    From yesterday’s hearing we learned Trump knew he had lost the election because there was no evidence of “election fraud”. He was told this by his campaign manager, Bill Barr and others. But Trump had a Plan B. He chose Giuliani to go on Fox to continue the Big Lie–and Fox provided an echo chamber 24/7 until Jan. 6. This provided Trump an opportunity to raise millions of dollars from his supporters who were convinced the election was “stolen”. How did this work? In millions of emails Trump encouraged his supporters to send money to his so-called “Official Election Defense Fund”. It turns out that “Fund” did not exist–it was bogus. Instead of pursuing “election integrity” efforts the donations went into Trump’s newly created “Save America” PAC that Trump controlled. The PAC then directed money to Mark Meadows “charity”, to a conservative group employing former Trump officials, to a group that organized the Jan. 6 rally and, get this, to Trump’s favorite “charity” the “Trump Hotel Collection”. These fundraising solicitations continued up to Jan. 6. It was a total scam by the master of scams.

    For you out there in this chatroom who contributed to Trump’s “Official Elections Defense Fund” I can only say you should have seen it coming. You fell for another of Trump’s many con jobs!

    1. Sure, and speaking of con jobs…who really believes Joe Biden got 81,000,000 legit votes? As Joe would say, “Come on, man.”

      1. I do. Actually I’m surprised trump got 74 million votes.

        Wondering when MAGATS will ever wise up to a) how played you got by trump in the first place, and b) how played you got by the repub establishment by buying into trump’s bs?

        eb

  15. Barr “Versus” 2000 Mules

    People need to be more suspect and more thoughtful about what they read in the media, especially when the story concerns *complex* claims of fraud. In such cases, media reports are often misleading, misreport the documentary evidence, and are filled with glaring omissions.

    This is one of those cases.

    On the one hand, here is a statement by Barr that is being widely reported:

    “The premise that if you go by a box, five boxes or whatever it was, you know that that’s a mule is just indefensible.” (Barr)

    On the other hand, there is this statement from the film’s law firm:

    “Fourth, this preliminary data, first provided to the FBI in March, has been augmented by True the Vote’s further data analysis, voter drop box surveillance video, chain of custody documents, and other critical, corroborating evidence.” (From a letter to Gov. Kemp, written by the film’s attorney.)

    I have no opinion of the claims made by “2000 Mules.” (I barely understand what “geotracking” means.) And I have no opinion of Barr’s take on the film’s claims.

    My *only* point is that in complex cases of claims and counter-claims — be objective. Realize that there is almost always more to the story. Don’t make a judgment until you have access to *all* of the evidence. (Assuming, of course, that you are able to get your hands on that evidence.)

    1. Stooge, Trump lost in 61 courts. That’s all we need to know. “2,000 Mules” is revisionist history based on junk science.

      1. You need to do your homework and develop critical thinking skills. Being dopey sends the wrong message.

        1. I see you picked up on those points also.

          I don’t need a bunch of words to say they are Evil Anti-American Trash & that Prof Turley’s “Can’t, Can’t we all be civil” while they are murderously attacking our Nation.

          No, Evil will never be Civil.

    2. Sam, Barr’s negative opinion would be fine but for the fact that when repeating the details he used phony numbers and argument that didn’t hold water. He knows better, so whether or not there is a point on his side, by not using the appropriate facts he looks like a spinner or worse a liar.

    3. It is more than Barr versus “2000 Mules”. It is also Barr versus the Digital Integrity Group’s analysis of public records that showed cumulative votes decreasing and adjudication done for votes than could physically be done by the number of people involved. Both investigations showed that election fraud was involved but that’s just the starting point. The question of “Who” committed the fraud, “How” was it accomplished and “Whether” it was sufficient to flip the election remain to be answered.

      https://youtu dot be/e2mH9X4jQT8

Leave a Reply