Congress, Criminal law, Politics

J6 Committee Says Cipollone “Did Not Contradict” Hutchinson but Sources Say He was Not Asked

There is a new controversy over the alleged bias of the J6 Committee and the extreme measures used to avoid alternative or conflicting accounts. On Friday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House select committee, declared that former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone” did not contradict” the testimony of previous witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.  The controversy comes at a time when the head of the Oath Keepers has offered to testify, an extraordinary move since he is facing criminal charges. However, he has one big demand: it must be live and in public. In other words, it cannot be edited or tailored by the Committee.

Lofgren told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “Mr. Cipollone did appear voluntarily and answer a whole variety of questions. He did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses. And I think we did learn a few things, which we will be rolling out in the hearings to come.”

The contradictions with Hutchinson are important after other witnesses contested her account on a key point of her testimony.

This brings us back to the offer of  Stewart Rhodes to testify live. That is an extraordinary offer for a criminal defendant. No defense lawyer (including this one) would support such an appearance before a criminal trial. If the Committee is truly interested in getting to the truth, why wouldn’t it hold an open hearing? It has suggested that Trump was in collusion or a conspiracy with this group. It also alleged that the Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit an armed insurrection. We could now, for the first time, hear from one of the leaders of the two groups on that very subject. It would ideally allow him to make an opening statement and offer a full account on whether he coordinated with anyone in the White House on January 6th.

If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.

206 thoughts on “J6 Committee Says Cipollone “Did Not Contradict” Hutchinson but Sources Say He was Not Asked”

    1. LOL!!! That’s their “proof”? One measly page that lends no context whatsoever to what was transpiring.

      This sounds more like desperation to “prove” a conspiracy theory than actual proof. Especially when it’s being reported by conspiracy theory site gateway pundit.

    1. Has it occurred to you that you need to look at the evidence presented to the court, not just the one file you believe to be exculpatory? And what’s your evidence that this wasn’t made available to the defendants?

  3. Why wouldn’t the committee allow him to testify live?

    I mean, if he testifies live, does that mean he is not going to make a lot of false accusations against a lot of people, rant about the black or the Jews?

    Even some of the Republican Congressmen try to use their time to turn any question about Trump into a rant about Hunter Biden.

    No, that is a formula for turning this into a circus.

    2. Well, he will be under oath and if it turns out he was lying he may end up joining his buddies in jail. He’ll back out just like Ginny Thomas did.

      1. Cipollone didn’t back out, and Committee members have already said they found his testimony helpful.

  4. According to WaPoo’s marketing slogan, “Democracy dies in darkness”. If true, then why wouldn’t the Democrat propagandists on WaPoo’s payroll be urging the J6 Committee to allow the Oath Keepers dude to testify in an open hearing format?

    1. The J6 Committee’s investigation is not a criminal investigation, and I don’t have the impression that they’re interviewing anyone charged with crimes (if I’m wrong about that, name the criminal defendants they’ve interviewed).

      “the Oath Keepers dude” can testify at his trial if he wants, and no one can stop him.

      1. “I don’t have the impression that they’re interviewing anyone charged with crimes”

        My understanding is that he was before the J6 and plead the Fifth. If I am correct, you are batting 100% on being wrong in whatever you say.

        You should get a medal for being wrong so many times without embarrassment.

          1. Occasionally it might be faulty, so correct it. You mostly lie or twist facts like you are doing here. Right now, you don’t know if the statement was right or wrong, so you pretend to know, and use the word ‘often.’ That makes you a liar.

            Now you can look it up and state the truth, but you will only do that if you can prove me wrong. I said, “My understanding is that he was before the J6 and plead the Fifth.”

            ATS, you have no credibility and need not be listened to.

  5. “[T]he New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.” (JT)

    That’s a typical tactic of those who desire to evade something: Don’t allow the question to be asked.

    And if the question does somehow leak out, then get hostile, in an attempt to intimidate the questioner.

    1. a) Do you assume that everything printed in the NYT is accurate? (I don’t. I don’t assume that any news source gets everything right, especially when they’re relying on a source and cannot confirm the claim directly.)

      b) If Cipollone believed that Hutchinson said something false, absolutely nothing prevented him from saying so to the Committee, whether or not he was asked about it.

      1. And there is nothing preventing the committee from ignoring his statements and never including them in their report.

        1. Cipollone could make a public statement if they did that “retard.”

  6. JS:
    It’s the message not the medium conveying it that matters. Dershowitz is devastating in his criticism of the sham, More interestingly, given your argument, there’s doubt that you’re a lawyer at all. The California bar has no listing for a “J Silverman” in or near San Francisco. There’s a “Robert Jay Silverman” who goes by “Rob” but no Silverman name beginning with a “Jay.” Rob’s an estate lawyer and I imagine too busy to be here every moment of every day. I’m guessing you’re a paid commenter impersonating a lawyer. Thanks for arousing my suspicions.

    2. I stand corrected. In my search, I mistyped your name and got bad results. I’ll check again later with the correct name. Mea culpa until I find out.

    3. ROFL that you criticize Jeff and can’t even spell his last name correctly.

      You are the “dim” person you endlessly complain about.

      1. Aninny:
        “ROFL that you criticize Jeff and can’t even spell his last name correctly.”
        ***************************
        Oh don’t worry I’ve corrected and updated with similar results and conclusions. The liar refuses to admit mistakes. The honest person does and apologizes. Your parents should have taught you that but maybe you just divinely appeared on the scene.

        1. Mesomere, I regularly acknowledge my actual mistakes. Do you need examples?

          1. “Mesomere, I regularly acknowledge my actual mistakes. Do you need examples?”
            ****************************
            No, your whole being here is an example.

    4. JS:
      On recheck and under the correct spelling, i still didn’t find any active members of the California bar with the moniker “J Silberman or Jeff Silberman” in the San Francisco area. There was a “Cary Jay Silberman” who resigned years ago from San Jose under some sort of ethical cloud but that seems unlikley its you. There’s a “Jeffrey Harlan Silberman” in San Diego who’s been inactive for 11 years but that’s against your statement here that you have cleints. And there’s a “Jeffrey Paul Silberman” practicing in Los Angeles as “of counsel” so that seems a bit out of your orbit. So, I’m back to my quandry: Is “Jeff Silberman” a lawyer from Marin County or a paid huckster sent to bedevil an outstanding blog? Let’s let the readers decide.

      https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch?FreeText=silberman&SoundsLike=false

    6. Mark, why do we worry about who JS is? If he is telling the truth and is a lawyer, he doesn’t sound like he would be a very good one, so why should we care? He has told us about himself, but should those things be trusted? He lies on the blog about other things and distorts the truth, so why wouldn’t he lie about where he went to school, who he knew, that he went to law school, etc? He says he lives in Marin County. Is that to boost his ego since Marin County has some expensive homes? Who cares what he has when he lacks intelligence, honesty, and virtue. He can tell me all he wants about himself, it doesn’t change who he is.

  7. M4seroski says:

    “The FBI has used cell phone triangulation evidence to prosecute Jan 6th protesters so why is 2000 mules contemptously dismissed.”

    Bill Barr busts a gut over “2000 Mules” documentary:

    https://youtu.be/SXu_E7DltmY

    Turley supports Bill Barr’s credibility 100%. If Barr says “2000 Mules” is laughable, it is.

    1. If Bill Barr knows much about 2000 Mules, why did he get the data wrong?

      Listening to you I can easily see that you don’t know what is happening around you. You keep bumping into things.

    2. The BILL BARR TESTIMONY is complicated. Agree with Prof. Turley that Barr’s Integrity is Unquestionable.. he is telling the Truth re: what he knows. The Problem here is that Bill Barr is NOT a computer/IT expert and we daresay that he, like everyone else, got ‘official’ channel verifications and did not dig into what was going on with the independent computer experts studying this as much as they were allowed. e.g., we doubt very much that Bill Barr found out about the study by a group of ex Navy Cryptologists who tackled 3 counties in western PA and had hard data analytics that these 3 counties could not possibly have achieved those numbers for Biden… period. and a case of 800% turn-out voting for Biden in a very Republican county.. the list goes on. These grass-roots studies were ignored by the ‘officials’ who counted ballots and did not address what was happening inside the computer systems……..which remained online throughout the night, with numbers changing , even though there was no more voting input, etc………….. Computer crime is challenging even for skilled programmers to detect.

      1. 18thhole,

        You are waaaaaay deeeeep down the rabbit hole….

        Yeah, I’m sure that the Attorney General of the US does not have the resources of the FBI at his disposal with all its cryptologists!

        Think, my friend, think!

  8. 18thhole says:

    “Prof. Turley is right about trying to be ‘persuasive….”

    How true. Turley also stated:

    “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

    The new information has convinced Turley to the point that his gut is wrenching!

    Why don’t you Trumpists feel Turley?

    1. It is gut wrenching as it is not a fair attempt yo get to the TRUTH… The Committee is trying to persuade by dicing and splicing words out of context, making piecemeal suppositions…i.e., constantly FRAMING, just as Prof. Turley says… all to try to persuade, just as they did in the Impeachment…where The Defense overturned all of this BS… The Truth, much of which is being hidden here, would speak for itself and does not need to be Framed…..’RES IPSA LOQUITUR.’

      1. I will repeat what Turley has stated again and again until it sinks in:

        “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

        You think Turley has a mild case- not a full blown case mind you- just a mild case of Trump Derangement Syndrome? That is the Trumpist diagnosis of everyone who questions Trump’s actions and statements.

        1. Turley also said the committee lacked authenticity because it didn’t present the other side.

          You don’t know to much, do you js?

        2. TRUE – WE ALL WANT GRFEATER TRANSPARENCY.. and how EXACTLY is THAT even possible with this J6 Highly Partisan Inquisition and Flagrantly One-Sided, Prejudiced, Biased Committee……….? I am sure Prof. Turley also respects the opinion of Prof. Dershowitz, a Classic Liberal, who sees that this is the case as well.

          1. 18thhole:

            How many times do I have to repeat what Turley stated:

            “Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

            1. Baseless voter fraud theories.
            2. Protect the constitutional electoral process.

            Accept it. Don’t fight it. Just accept it.

            1. Mr. Silberman.. some of us can never accept propaganda and/or ignorance born from hate. To follow your suggestions would lead to ‘Heil Cheney.’ or ‘Heil Pelosi….’ the real power here.

              1. 18thhole,

                I stand with NeverTrumper Turley. You don’t. Enough said.

                1. .Mr. Silberman, .WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, as usual t appears you talk over and dismiss anything that objects to your propaganda, which changes as needed to make sure we get it that you hate Trump… Recently, as witnessed in this forum, you continuously, arrogantly and indeed viciously castigated Prof. Turley as the worst kind of ‘Trumper,’ and now, to suit your current needs, you pat him on the back as a ‘Never Trumper…’ This type of paradox leads us to conclude that you really can’t recognize us for who we Really are and for what we Really believe.. ..instead trying to solicit our adoration for your propaganda and philosophy without understanding and respecting ours..

                  1. 18thhole observes:

                    “you continuously, arrogantly and indeed viciously castigated Prof. Turley as the worst kind of ‘Trumper,’ and now, to suit your current needs, you pat him on the back as a ‘Never Trumper…’ This type of paradox leads us to conclude that you really can’t recognize us for who we Really are and for what we Really believe.”

                    Let me explain it to you. Like Turley, I am a Liberal. We both are NeverTrumpers- neither of us voted for Trump. I have always been a fan of Turley’s. I was greatly disheartened to learn that he joined the ranks of Fox News just as I would had he joined Infowars.

                    Still, I generally respect his opinions and welcome his criticisms of the biases and mistakes of the Mainstream media. However, it is undeniable and irrefutable that Turley has never (but once) criticized the rhetoric or narratives of his Fox colleagues. It’s understandable that he does not wish to antagonize his co-workers by doing so, but it is unquestionably hypocritical. I don’t think he would deny it were he so asked. I suspect that he would say that he will not bite the hand that feeds him. But we cannot know what he would say because he won’t take a question.

                    If I thought that Turley was a Trumpist, I would not waste my time here. To the contrary, I believe there is good in the man. I am watching with delight as he distances himself from the lying Trumpists who make up the vast majority of his blog. I have predicted for a while that Turley will lose the support of his Trumpist followers if and when Trump is prosecuted criminally. Because he believes in the rule of law and eschews the paranoid Trumpist delusion of a “Deep State,” he will accept a final unappealable guilty verdict on Trump. Trumpists will NEVER accept it. NEVER. This then will be the turning point because in the final analysis you are either with Trump or against him- there can be no middle ground- such is the demand of an authoritarian.

                    Up to now, it has not been evident to Trumpists that Turley is not like them. In the fullness of time, however, it will become clear that he is not.

    2. The Jan 6 Commission is a very looooooong and tedious, democrat 2022 campaign advertisement, and an egregious usurpation and abuse of power.

      Most elected officials should be impeached for crimes of high office related to the “fake” Jan 6 Commission, a Soviet-style show trial.

      The Deep Deep State Swamp is terrified of Trump because he can’t be bought.

      1. Mespo,

        First, it’s Silberman, not Silverman. I’ll thank you to remember that. Second, who says I practice law now in California?! I moved here. Third, do you think Turley has a mild case- not a full blown case mind you- just a mild case of Trump Derangement Syndrome? After all, what else could account for his dismissing Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” and calling for a Congressional censure for his “reckless” 1/6 speech?

        Come on, you know Turley. If I said what Turley says, you would say that I have TDS!

  9. I now ask Jonathan Turley Esq. Which court looked at the evidence in order to determine whether it was credible or not. To my uncertain knowledge all cases were dismissed for lack of standing or some other technical or procedural reason not on the evidenceThe people of the media or the Democratic party saying so is self serving. The FBI and the DOJ have been proven to be compromised so their statements are questionable. The evidence presented to the AG of Arizona has not been acted upon. The FBI has used cell phone triangulation evidence to prosecute Jan 6th protesters so why is 2000 mules contemptously dismissed. Also a judge ruling that upholding an election fraud claim would disenfranchise 5 or 10 or 70 million voters of one party ignores the 5 or 10 or 85 million who are disenfranchised by his opinion is mind boggling to me. That means he would hang the accused man because otherwise his ruling would cause the guilty man to hang intead.

    1. Good Points. And.. since when is HEARSAY or OPINION ‘Evidence…?’ Prof. Turley is right about trying to be ‘persuasive,’ i.e., this is a repeat of the Impeachment arguments, all of which were overturned by the Defense…. ………..much of the Hearing Interviews are: ‘I was told that he said….; or I heard that he said…’ or the phone texts must mean that he said or intended ….’ . as infinitum…………………. and how on earth is a boutique tattooed undisciplined group called ‘Proud Boys’ and some other Extremist Left and Right persons, including the window-breaking’ BLM protester arrested by the DOJ, supposed to lead an ‘armed insurrection’ against the country with the greatest military forces on earth…?. ..one of the Leaders.. why hasn’t he been interviewed…???? https://thedcpatriot.com/breaking-doj-charges-blm-supporter-who-allegedly-stormed-capitol-instigated-trump-supporters/:

  11. Wow, I find it just amazing how people so willingly put an insurrection out of mind. I watched this live on TV unfold. Trump told the crowd to go to the capital, he said he’d be there with them. They ransacked the building looking for Pelosi and Pence, They broke windows. Trump lost. He lost by a lot. Just as he came in second in the popular vote in 2016. In 2016, he managed a win in electoral votes. Fine and dandy, that’s how our system works, in 2020 he lost again in the popular vote, and failed to gain enough electoral votes, Find and dandy, that’s how our system works, Except trump didn’t like the outcome, so he tried to stay in power. By yelling fraud at every opportunity, But he never had any evidence, Never. if he has, where is it? To this day he talks fraud but again, no evidence. In fact, several lawsuits are going forward from the voting machine company against many people for saying fraud against the companies but never showing any proof. Time will tell where that ends

    Back to what is happening. The Repo party is no more. It is now the fascist, racist trump party. So be it, free speech and all. Let’s see how this goes in 2022 and 2024.

    Back to the committee, The Repos had a chance to put good people on the committee, they chose to put 2 idiot obstructionist on and Pelosi rightly objected. Give 2 better names and off you go. McCarthy refused. Thus we do have 2 Repos on the committee, you may not like them, Tough Sh–. They are both right wing Repos.

    The SS agents were not under oath when they previously testified. Let’s see where this all leads.

    Jonathan frequently gives us half or 2/3rds of a story. Rarely a full story. I applaud his free speech emphasis. But sometimes free speech isn’t so free. Yell fire in a crowded theater and see if there is a cost. Yell fraud in a courtroom without evidence and see where that leads you.

    Step back and look at the big picture. The repos are loosing their white demographic and are trying to stay in power through any means necessary, including doing anything they can to reject votes they don’t like. This will work for a while, but eventually karma will Cath up with them.

    1. “The SS agents were not under oath when they previously testified.”

      The Committee has sworn all witnesses in prior to testimony. Moreover, it’s illegal to lie to Congress even if you’re not under oath.

      1. “ Moreover, it’s illegal to lie to Congress even if you’re not under oath.”

        No it’s not. It’s only a crime to lie to congress if you’re under oath. If you didn’t give testimony under oath you cannot be charged for lying. It’s not a crime unless you’re under oath.

        1. Yes, it is, if the person knowingly makes a materially false statement. Just like it’s a crime to knowingly make a materially false statement to the FBI. It’s the same law that applies to both:
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
          This is the law that Flynn and Sussmann were charged under.

        2. The “oath” is substantially like this: “I swear (or affirm) under the penalties for perjury, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” If you lie after giving this oath, the “penalties for perjury” are triggered.

    2. When Pelosi puts the likes of Adam Schiff on the J6 committee, she is in no position to complain about who McCarthy proposed to put on. It is hard to determine who wins the prize for most dishonest politician, but Adam Schiff is definitely in the running. There is no good faith on the part of the Democrats about anything, so no reason to pay attention to their bleatings. If anything Professor Turley gives them by far more credit for good faith and intentions than they deserve.

      1. Papper says:

        “If anything Professor Turley gives them by far more credit for good faith and intentions than they deserve.”

        You think Turley has a mild case- not a full blown case- of Trump Derangement Syndrome? That is the Trumpist diagnosis of everyone who questions Trump’s actions and statements.

    3. The ‘BIG PICTURE is that app. 1 million ordinary Americans were there, and heard Trump’s speech closing with the words to ‘march peacefully and patriotically’ as protest marches are common in DC…. and these folks had nothing to do with the crazy extremists who were rioting even before Trump finished speaking.. many of whom were NOT Trump Supporters but just troublemakers from the Left and Right. e.g., https://thedcpatriot.com/breaking-doj-charges-blm-supporter-who-allegedly-stormed-capitol-instigated-trump-supporters/

  12. To my knowledge they haven’t asked the Secret Service agents to testify yet about what Trump did. Why should they allow this gentleman to testify.

    1. The Secret Service agents had already testified prior to last week.

      Why would they not allow Cipollone to testify? That makes no sense. They subpoenaed him to get his testimony.

  15. Karen says:

    “This is why they’ve created this partisan witch hunt to harass Trump.”

    But this is what Turley says:

    “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

    No witch-hunt. No harassment. Rather greater *transparency* and a great deal of *important” information.

    Unlike the lying Trumpist Karen, I’m on the side of NeverTrumper Turley.

    1. SM (and yes the dumb one):

      Karen is many things but assuredly not “stupid.” She’s must reading on this blog and her intellectual integrity is above question. Too bad you don’t recognize that. A person’s judgment says something about their education, upbringing, character, being … yep, about everything.

    2. YNOT, if Karen were my twin I would embrace it.

      Karen is exceptionally bright, but you act dim and dumb. Surely you can do better.

  16. While everyone is being dazzled by all the noise going on in the foreground, the same old oligarchs are moving forward with their agendas in the background…

  17. All of this debate on whether something went wrong on 1/6. It’s all on video. It’s in text and telephone transcript. We have had 46 presidents. Guess how many attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power? You can have three guesses. First two don’t count. In every other country in which this happens we call it a coup attempt. And that’s what it was here also.

    2. Jeff;

      “We have had 46 presidents. Guess how many attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power? ”
      ********************************
      Oh, please,that number would be zero. Which part of protest “patriotically and peacefully” elude you? I’m betting “patriotically.” And based on your other comments, you’re a Republican like Rasputin was a holy man — though you both claim the title.

  18. My view of the 1/6 committee is that if Republicans here on this blog don’t want to believe the views of Republicans on the committee and the testimony of Republican witnesses about 1/6, I can’t help you.

    1. Concerned: Are you concerned that Obama, Biden, CIA, DOJ, FBI attempted a coup agains DT beginning when he be came the Repub candidate in 2015? Those 01-06 committee members are just as you. You and the Drms and the RINOs are just DT haters just as a number of posters who daily post on the Prof JT’s post. I don ‘t need your help, don’t recall making any overtures from a DT hater to help. You dratsabs believe you are so cacroscant and only your opinions and beliefs matter don’t you? Have not seen any of you speaking out against the threats and violence being carried out on the SC Justices either. More disclosures coming.

      1. Obama, Biden, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FBI did not “attempt a coup agains DT beginning when he be came the Repub candidate in 2015.”

  19. “…EVERY LIVING THING IN IT – MEN AND WOMEN, YOUNG AND OLD, CATTLE, SHEEP AND DONKEYS.”
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    If conservatives take the Congress in November, will they respond in kind?

    Will Republicans prosecute a full, terminal, political, thermo-nuclear attack against the direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, America and Americans?

    Or will they let them get away?

    Will they let the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) get away with their crimes of anti-Constitution and anti-American “fundamentally transforming” of free America into communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) America?

    Will conservatives allow the imposition of anti- and unconstitutional central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering?

    Or will they clear the communist slate and implement the full freedom of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as America was established by its Founders?
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Joshua 6 NIV

    6 Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

    2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.”

    8 When Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets before the Lord went forward, blowing their trumpets, and the ark of the Lord’s covenant followed them.

    15 On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times. 16 The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the army, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city!

    20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

    27 So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

    1. You should pay more attention to:

      Thou shalt not lie.
      and
      Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

      1. MONEY FOR NOTHIN’ AND YOUR CHICKS FOR FREE
        ___________________________________________

        “You should pay more attention…”

        – Aninny Mouse
        ____________

        As the ungodly communists (liberals ,progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) lie, cheat and steal other people’s private property and money to lavish it on themselves, their favored beggars, their enabled parasites, their communist unions and their Praetorian Guard?

        An un-bought, independently wealthy, and free Donald Trump was an existential threat to the Deep Deep State Swamp; it was compelled to steal the election to keep the good times rollin’ for the communist parasite class.

        Communist motto:

        “Get your money for nothin’, get your chicks for free”

      2. The Commandment reads “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” which is more narrowly tailored than any blanket proscription against falsehoods.

  20. ” However, the New York Times is reporting that he was not asked about statements that the Committee knew he would contradict.”
    ***************************
    Sounds like the kangaroos are in deliberation again. Like Dersh says, “why watch this farce?”

    1. Mespo says:

      “Sounds like the kangaroos are in deliberation again. Like Dersh says, “why watch this farce?”

      BUT this is what Turley says:

      “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

      No kangaroos. No farce. Unlike the lying Trumpist Mespo, I’m siding with NeverTrumper Turley to watch these hearings to reveal greater *transparency* and learn a great deal of *important” information.

      1. Can the retard learn something new? cut and paste has worn out its welcome. Surely the retard can learn a second rote activity

        1. How many times have you called me a “retard”? Talk about repeating oneself!

          I’m going to cut and paste just like Turley does when he links to the same examples of censorship in every article he writes on the topic. Some things are worth repeating.

      2. No kangaroos. No farce.

        This is what Wiki informs us about kangaroo courts. Jan 6 All Democrat members, with no cross examination of witnesses, checks lots of boxes.

        A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc.[2] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).[3]

        A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants (“repeat players”) have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants (“one-shot players”).[4]

          1. Members all chosen by Democrats. Or, Conversley, Ranking member was refused his choice of members to represent his caucus.

            1. 2 of his 5 nominees were rejected. The other 3 were not. He pulled the other 3 himself.

              And the membership of non-permanent Select Committees has been up to the current Speaker for hundreds of years. Yet you never complain about it when the Speaker is a Republican.

              1. The committee was picked entirely by Pelosi. Their is no adversarial check and balance in the “investigation”. Democrats have admitted, there goal is to create a narrative.

                Not present facts.

                You can spin this, but the fact will be recorded in history. A Demcrat hand picked committee, negates all findings and conclusions.

                1. It’s your opinion, NOT a fact, that that “negates all findings and conclusions.”

                  Why is it hard for you to understand the difference between facts and opinions?

      3. JS:

        “No kangaroos. No farce. Unlike the lying Trumpist Mespo, I’m siding with NeverTrumper Turley to watch these hearings to reveal greater *transparency* and learn a great deal of *important” information.”
        *********************************
        The pre-eminent constitutional scholar of our time, Alan Dershowitz, has proclaimed this a kangaroo court, drivel and a “one-sided basketball game.” I’ll stand with liberal Dersh over … well … whatever you claim to be this week: Turley hater, Turley lover … whatever.

        1. Dershowitz even says, “You can’t cheat the way the Democrats have done.”

          The Dersh has spoken. The Dems can appeal to their base, but Dershowitz has called them cheaters. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is calling them cheaters as well and we have a few other states that have yet to decide on many troubling issues.

          It looks like Jeff and ATS have a hard time sucking in the truth.

          1. S. Meyer:

            “It looks like Jeff and ATS have a hard time sucking in the truth.”
            *************************************
            They recede from the beach like the Red Tide they are.

        2. Mespo,

          Newsmax? Are you serious? Newsmax attacks Fox News for turning its back on Trump and cancelling Lou Dobbs!

          https://youtu.be/GnUW2dtjkts

          When Fox censored Lou Dobbs, what did Turley write? Nada.

          Dershowitz is to Newsmax what Turley is to Fox. Paid mouthpieces.

          Period.

        3. “Supreme Court Overturning Roe Is ‘Judicial Activism’: Alan Dershowitz”

          “Alan Dershowitz confronted Fox News host Sean Hannity Friday over whether the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade constituted ‘judicial activism.’

          “The Supreme Court announced the ruling on the case, which guaranteed abortion-rights for women across the United States, on Friday—ending the right to receive an abortion for millions of women living in conservative-led states. The move immediately sparked a wave of protests and criticism, including from Dershowitz.

          “During an appearance on Fox News, the former Harvard law professor condemned the decision as “judicial activism,” a term often used to describe the Supreme Court making policy decisions.”

          – Newsweek
          __________

          Is there a citation for a constitutional enumeration of a “right” to abortion?

          Is there a constitutional right to abortion by omission?

          It would appear that abortion is a matter left to legislatures.

          Is Alan Dershowitz, dare I say, wrong?

Comments are closed.