Yes, and it is also too bad that those willing-to-say-anything politicians are concentrated in one party and that one party is so tolerant of that.
It is a shame because they are very close to finally killing that Golden Goose and being so discredited that they will not be able to provide any serious opposition to the other party that more honest and less tolerant of dishonesty, however marginally so.
You are "not a Democrat" but a non-partisan who hates the two party system. Putting aside the obvious question of whether "not Democrats" are actually even more dishonest than admitted Democrats, if you hate having only two viable parties, you will really hate having only one.
You should tell Democrats "hey, you're 'not my Party' but if you want to stay viable, you have to develop a passing acquaintance with the difference between telling the truth, and saying whatever is policially expedient at the exact moment.
As to your OP about Markwayne, I withdraw what I said about Republicans calling out dishonesty of their own, at least in this incident. It was nothing like "Media-ite" said was. You were lied to.
Markwayne was questioning a woman who refused to name her own attorneys - attorneys well known for going after Donald Trump, not for defending clients with a claim of wrongful termination - at a Senate hearing. He did not say anything about a tape or a video. He said "it was a recorded meeting," which could mean anything from a television studio with three-camera production to someone taking notes at the meeting.
Luckily, the hearing itself was "caught on tape" so we don't have to debate which of us is right:
My guess is that it was more than one person taking notes, and that Dr. Manarez was being every bit as dishonest as her nervously smiling demeanor suggested.
Senator Cassidy (R) (for RINO) is one of the last of the die-hard Never Trumpers, so of course he supports Dr Monarez' orchastrated efforts to force Kennedy to fire her by telling him to his face that he could not trust her. After hiring at least two anti-Trump lawyers and just before writing an Op-Ed.
Care to predict that a book will not follow soon?
From your link:
Cassidy later addressed the committee on the exchange between Mullin and Monarez.
“While I was at a vote, I understand Senator Mullin implied there was a recording of the meeting or meetings between Dr. Manares and Secretary Kennedy. I will note that if materials have been provided to Senator Mullin and invoked in official committee business, they are committee records and all other senators on the committee have the right to see those records,” Cassidy said, adding:
I noticed during the Patel hearings that Democrats rely heavily on what other people told them, and then are embarassed when it turns out they were told incorrectly. Several times they responded "well, that's what I understand."
Instead of listening to the gossip girls among Senators that he is supposed to be in opposition to, he could have simply asked Markwayne what he said and what he meant. It reminds me of phony tough high school girls telling one of their own "she was talking shit about you."
See more of Dr. Monarez' dishonesty here:
She's testifying in the Sentate, invited by a Republicans Committee Chair to flesh out her accusations against Secretary Kennedy. She refuses to name the lawyers that she brought with her, who are clearly telling her what to testify to.
I've heard of Lawyers representing "John Doe" or "Jane Roe" clients and witnesses. It is relatively rare but certainly not unheard of. I've never heard of a witness with "John Doe" and "Jane Roe" for attorneys.
www.yahoo.com
