....well, the Select Committee is about to step into the batter's box...

[Hutch Starskey]

yes, the committee.

Made up of some of the same people that impeached him, basically on an up/down vote with very little discussion.

There was quite a lot of discussion. You just no doubt failed to tune in as you will again.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Part of the stagecraft of this pending show trial is pretending that the committee is “bi-partisan.” The fuck it is. If it were truly bi-partisan, the former President’s party would be countering the expected onslaught of leftarded Dim propaganda and out of context “facts.” But surely neither nominally “Republican” members will do that. They are anti-Trumpers. So the committee is entirely partisan.

And for whatever their official charter and purpose is supposed to be, we all know ahead of time that this show trial has only one actual purpose: to serve as a government paid-for anti-Trump political advertisement.

Yep. It seems McCarthy missed his opportunity to play along. No doubt so you dopes could cry “foul”. Good job!

 

[Auld Phart]

There was quite a lot of discussion. You just no doubt failed to tune in as you will again.

Second impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A single article of impeachment charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection" against the U.S. government and "lawless action at the Capitol" was introduced to the House of Representatives on January 11, 2021.[5"

"Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, "

quite a lot of discussion?

2 FUCKING DAYS?

piss off

 

[BackAgain]

Yep. It seems McCarthy missed his opportunity to play along. No doubt so you dopes could cry “foul”. Good job!

Calling bullshit on bullshit was a smart move. Pretending that this partisan committee is now “bi-partisan” is what’s dopey. And you can’t refute what I’ve said. Therefore, you didn’t even try.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Second impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A single article of impeachment charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection" against the U.S. government and "lawless action at the Capitol" was introduced to the House of Representatives on January 11, 2021.[5"

"Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, "

quite a lot of discussion?

2 FUCKING DAYS?

piss off

Refutes nothing. Of course.

 

[BackAgain]

Refutes nothing. Of course.

Of course it did. It refutes the moronic and dishonest contention it responded to. As you know. So stop lying.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Calling bullshit on bullshit was a smart move. Pretending that this partisan committee is now “bi-partisan” is what’s dopey. And you can’t refute what I’ve said. Therefore, you didn’t even try.

McCarthy could have named replacements. He did not. He instead cried “ foul” then walked away. Now here you are still crying “foul”.

Rubes are gonna rube.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course it did. It refutes the moronic and dishonest contention it responded to. As you know. So stop lying.

Two days full of discussion that you say never happened.

 

[Meister]

This will show the US (if they watch) what a kangaroo court looks like.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They call it a "select" committee because only certain agendas were selected. The fact that Haliburton just happens to be represented by a republican doesn't really make this "bi-partisan".

A person would have to be pretty damn naive to think the forces behind this are limited to United States politics.

 

[Auld Phart]

Calling bullshit on bullshit was a smart move. Pretending that this partisan committee is now “bi-partisan” is what’s dopey. And you can’t refute what I’ve said. Therefore, you didn’t even try.

a section from one of my favorite movies.

 

[Oddball]

This clown car shit show is going to get lower ratings than Gilligan's Island re-runs.....Anyone watching it should be an object of universal ridicule.

 

[BackAgain]

McCarthy could have named replacements. He did not. He instead cried “ foul” then walked away. Now here you are still crying “foul”.

Rubes are gonna rube.

As I correctly pointed out before: he called bullshit on bullshit. Yeah. When bullshit is being attempted, it is better not to give it the appearance of legitimacy. Out of bounds bullshit is a foul. Get over yourself. You’re a transparent little fraud.

 

[BackAgain]

Two days full of discussion that you say never happened.

I never said that, dope. But you’d admit, if you were honest (a contrary to fact hypothesis, sadly) that two “days” worth of “discussion” isn’t really a discussion. It got hustled through. It was bullshit then, too.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Oh, a televised show trial.

Groomercrats are so invested in this and Americans just don't care.

 

[Auld Phart]

There was quite a lot of discussion. You just no doubt failed to tune in as you will again.

435 congressmen times 5 minutes of time to speechify their case, divided by 60 minutes in an hour.

equals 36.25 hours.

not what I'd call a 'lot of discussion' over an impeachment.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I won't hang on any word. Just the names of the guilty being read aloud will be enough. Again, enough to put a hole in their armor.
Trump will do the rest with his dividing the party.

Other than the establishment RINOs, who are influential but very few in number, the conservatives have not been more united in decades.
I think you're projecting about your own party. The progbots are splintering, questioning & waking up like never before but you keep on hoping it's the opposite & see how that works out.

 

[my2¢]

Concerning anything out of Washington, I immediately lose interest upon seeing the word "committee".

 

[Mac1958]

There was quite a lot of discussion. You just no doubt failed to tune in as you will again.

You can tell by their behavior on this thread alone, that they're concerned. But since most of what has already come out has been kept from them, they'll be able to brush it off as "fake news".

Was there some kind of chance that the Manson girls would change their mind after seeing the evidence? Of course not.

But again, I'd be surprised if anything of substance comes from this. Maybe if the DOJ does something, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't see a Sammy Gravino coming out of nowhere, as we saw with Gotti. They'd be marked for death, too.

 

[Concerned American]

Today's Washington Post has an interesting article about what is intended to be demonstrated when the televised hearings begin this week.
I cannot copy & past the entire long article (I would refer you to your digital subscription of the Post for that). But, I can offer you a taster of the coverage.

I found it particularly relevant following Maggie Halberman's (in Friday's New York Times) reportage....that Pence's staff had grown so alarmed over the safety of Pence following the stoking of animosity and anger towards him by the POTUS-at-the-time that they alerted the Secret Service that protection should be increased. They saw the storm that was coming by Trump's irresponsible rhetoric in front of crowds. (I'd recommend you open your digital subscription to the Times to read Halberman's reportage from Friday.)

Anyway, here is a taster from today's Washington Post:

"Almost a year after the formation of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, lawmakers are set to take their case public.

On Thursday night, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) will launch a series of televised hearings featuring a combination of live witnesses, pretaped interviews with figures that include Trump family members and previously unseen video footage.
The hearings mark the culmination of an inquiry that has involved more than 1,000 interviews and reviews of more than 125,000 records. Taken together, the work represents the most comprehensive record yet of the deadly assault, and which panel members have come to believe stands out as only the most visible evidence of a broader plot to undermine American democracy — one that emanated from the White House.

To tell that story, the committee will draw on testimony from administration insiders, including a previously obscure aide who has given the committee a detailed reconstruction of meetings and movements in the West Wing. The committee also has video recordings of interviews with Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, that some inside the process believe will make for gripping television.

But the end result of the committee’s efforts remains an open question. Public opinions about Jan. 6 and about former president Donald Trump have long since hardened into competing blocs, making it difficult to break through, even with prime-time programming."

(the above underlining is by my avatar.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should be interesting television. Historical television, in my opinion.
Of course, it will be compared to the Watergate Hearings.
We'll see how this committee presents its' findings.

Midterm, political theater for idiot democrats.