I like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and watch my local news for sports and weather...oh and ESPNNow post what you DO rely on....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and watch my local news for sports and weather...oh and ESPNNow post what you DO rely on....
hahaha of course it's a legal proceeding, and of course it's legal...geez...it's not an Art 3 Court, but there are plenty that aren't.A) it is not a legal proceeding
B) it is not a jury in any legal sense.
C) The "jury" in each case, willfully ignored the evidence.
Sorry, but I follow up and check what I see on any program before posting.All true. It was nothing but political kabuki theater
You might think about this comment when you blindly trust people like Tucker. His job is not to inform you.
Wrong again.Nothing was proven, that is the point. Tucker did not prove anything as he just showed the edited videos that he wanted you to see. Nothing can be proven till we are allowed to see them all.
Hell, I could edit video to make it look like the the Falcons won Super Bowl 51.
You're lying.I like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and watch my local news for sports and weather...oh and ESPN
Don't define things you don't understand.hahaha of course it's a legal proceeding, and of course it's legal...geez...it's not an Art 3 Court, but there are plenty that aren't.
ah so again, you are denying the jury verdict...hypocritic
Sure do.It was the sworn testimony of the witnesses...
Do you understand?
Witnesses being duly deposed with counsel present.Sure do.
A carefully selected committee of friendly Liberals, asking carefully selected questions, of carefully selected witnesses. You can't seriously believe the choreographed information you were fed. Can you? Seriously?
What did they get wrong?Sure do.
A carefully selected committee of friendly Liberals, asking carefully selected questions, of carefully selected witnesses. You can't seriously believe the choreographed information you were fed. Can you? Seriously?
You were lied to for two years about what was contained in the videos and now you can;t believe that the far left would lie to you. Well, gollllleeee.
Piece of cake! Even you know the answer. You just refuse to accept facts. Why?Name the person denied the opportunity to speak.
That's just goofy, what's the matter with you?A) it is not a legal proceeding
B) it is not a jury in any legal sense.
C) The "jury" in each case, willfully ignored the evidence.
haha i love how you demafasict like to tell people what they like or don’t likeYou're lying.
haha i’m not the one saying impeachment isn’t legalDon't define things you don't understand.
That's old news and doesn't excuse a single insurrectionist.Wrong again.
For one thing, Tucker Carlson proved that an officer, the far left had claimed was killed by being assaulted with a fire extinguisher. He was shown to be alive and well (wearing a helmet) after he was supposedly murdered.
Numerous other things were proven but you don't give a tinker's dam about facts.
That there was an armed insurrection. That there were five killed in the riot. The list goes on but those are two of the most egregious.What did they get wrong?
They weren't witnesses.Piece of cake! Even you know the answer. You just refuse to accept facts. Why?
- Pelosi, who has final approval of the committee’s members, said in a statement Wednesday that she “must reject the recommendations” of Republican Congressmen Jim Banks, of Indiana, and Jim Jordan, of Ohio, to the investigative team.
House committee investigation into Jan. 6 is off to a turbulent start. Hereâs why
Tucker Carlson called a Black Capitol police officer who defended Congress on Jan. 6 an “angry, left-wing political activist.”www.deseret.com
You're lying.haha i love how you demafasict like to tell people what they like or don’t like
It's not a legal process.haha i’m not the one saying impeachment isn’t legal
There were people who were armed. No only did people bring guns, which is proven in several court cases, the rioters were armed with all sorts of other weapons from tasers to spears.That there was an armed insurrection. That there were five killed in the riot. The list goes on but those are two of the most egregious.
As you know, ONE unarmed, innocent civilian was murdered by a cop with a questionable reputation.