This is just a distraction. It also allows keef and shanked to post without addressing real issues. These people are going to jail. What else do they want? They are getting their pound of flesh. No need for this other than distract and play to their base.

Quote:

---

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

Dr. Ford testified to zero actual evidence. Her "testimony" was so useless that not a single thing she said could remotely substantiate a "boob grab" in maybe 1982. Republican were too afraid of "being mean to a woman" that they didn't seriously question her. They could have absolutely destroyed her claims.

The funniest thing from that whole debacle was the endless pleas for more investigations into her allegations. WTF is to investigate? She didn't know where or when it happened and everyone she said that was supposedly there during the "attack" all say they have no idea what she's talking about, including her friend.

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

To maximize the propaganda, yes.

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

That was a waste of time. Just sitting here I could think of a lot of questions that could have been asked of those witnesses, starting with all of the affidavits that accompanied court filings. Where are the 302s on the interviews with those election workers in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, etc.? Did the FBI even attempt to contact them?

Doubtful.

Why because I think politicians are scum? Blowjob Ford lied to Congress that doesn't take integrity shanked. She is a crazy ***** and luckily everyone except a few crazies saw that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

Pelosi would have rejected anyone who threatened the narrative. It was a foregone conclusion who would represent the Republicans.

Psycho Bunny said:

---

Dow jones down 600 plus points. Gas in Houston is around 5.30 a gallon. But all means let's have a hearing on an event 18 months ago. These clowns have no clue what's happening in the real world.

---

We're witnessing it here on this thread. OP and his buddies avoid policy-related threads like the plague.

They think this will help them. But it underlines just how out of touch with reality the Democrat Party is at this moment.

Look forward to the dissolution of this inquisition in January when the adults are again in charge.

New World Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

---

There was no legitimate reason for Pelosi to nix McCarthy's selections the first time so trying again wouldn't change anything. Pelosi does what she wants and to hell with the rules.

aggiehawg said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

---

There was no legitimate reason for Pelosi to nix McCarthy's selections the first time so trying again wouldn't change anything. Pelosi does what she wants and to hell with the rules.

---

Yet she had no issue with 3 of the 5 names. Why?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

***** Ford made up a story. Even the libs didn't believe her crap.

I wouldn't testify in front of congress. They are all idiots. Both sides.

---

OK, we'll agree that Dr. Ford has more integrity than you do.

---

Congrats, Dumbest thing said on TexAgs today, and before noon.

---

I was trying to figure out what kind of logic that was.

Haven't read any of this thread but just wanted to remind everyone that this committee is a sham

aggiehawg said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

---

There was no legitimate reason for Pelosi to nix McCarthy's selections the first time so trying again wouldn't change anything. Pelosi does what she wants and to hell with the rules.

---

The wanted quislings and they got their two stooges.

The committee lost all credibility at that point, indicating that only one side of the story would ever be heard.

Gas over $5....Dow tanking....supply chain is disrupted.

Carolin....have you guys thought about the possibility of impeaching Trump a third time?

Or would it be the fourth?

I've lost count.

Quote:

---

The wanted quislings and they got their two stooges.

The committee lost all credibility at that point, indicating that only one side of the story would ever be heard.

---

Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan because they were going to present objections on January 6th before the joint session was derailed.

However, she had no issues with putting Schiff, Lofgren and Raskin who were leaders of Trump's snap impeachment over Jan 6th on the committee.

Rules for thee, not for me.

Rockdoc said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

***** Ford made up a story. Even the libs didn't believe her crap.

I wouldn't testify in front of congress. They are all idiots. Both sides.

---

OK, we'll agree that Dr. Ford has more integrity than you do.

---

Congrats, Dumbest thing said on TexAgs today, and before noon.

---

I was trying to figure out what kind of logic that was.

---

Don't try to figure it out. You would be trying to apply logic to an illogical situation.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The wanted quislings and they got their two stooges.

The committee lost all credibility at that point, indicating that only one side of the story would ever be heard.

---

Pelosi rejected Banks and Jordan because they were going to present objections on January 6th before the joint session was derailed.

However, she had no issues with putting Schiff. Lofgren and Raskin who were leaders of Trump's snap impeachment over Jan 6th on the committee.

Rules for thee, not for me.

---

Thinking for yourself is never allowed in a show trial.

If a real hearing were actually taking place, then this would be a part of it...

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/BowserDODLetterJan52021.pdf

But that would implicate Democrats, and we must not implicate Democrats while they are in the process of tarring and feathering Trump for a failure in security they are largely responsible for bringing about.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

---

I should have stated in my original response, that neither the Kavanaugh Assualt or 1/6 warranted a politicized committee used to only to sling mud. It would have been stupid and transparently partisan for Republicans to do it as it is for Democrats to do it now.

That being said, WTF are you talking about? Who is afraid to testify in Congress? Why would any Republican agree to testify in front of a transparently partisan witch hunt, where a bunch of lying dirt bag Democrats and Rhinos are going to twist facts into something that fits their narratives and leaves the public with a grossly distorted view of reality? Which will then be selectively edited and played on repeat eleventy billion times to manipulate the simple minds of low information voters. Maybe Republicans would be more apt to take part in these proceedings if they were treated fairly by the committee members and the media. They would be crucified regardless of their statements or the facts of the events in question. The lack of credibility of this committee is the fault of unbelievably dishonest Democrat/Rhino politicians, DNC propaganda outlets, and the ethically devoid liberals that support them.

Dr. Ford was a lying POS that should be in prison for perjuring herself in front of congress. Can you imagine the consequences if a Conservative supported by Republican senators came out and falsely testified in front of congress that a Democrat appointed nominee had sexually assaulted them in a transparent attempt to prevent a confirmation? There'd be committees, a special prosecutor, IRS audits, and the FBI stuck up their ass so far they'd look like a puppet.

It's (D)ifferent has never been more true. The American left doesn't care one iota about the rule of law and they sure as hell hate every word of our constitution because it is the foundation the most successful example of capitalism and freedom the world has ever seen. The antithesis of the progressive/communist agenda.

It seems after today it's clear that very few members of the Trump campaign and administration actually believed the election was stolen. After learning about Ivanka on Thursday, we learned about Jared, Meadows, Stepien, and the "Team Normal" legal team today.

Anything juicy today revealed?

Dan Scott said:

---

Anything juicy today revealed?

---

Trump's lawyers, inside and outside of the White House generally sucked. Oh and they violated Executive and Attorney Client Privilege.

So not much new.

Stlkofta said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

---

There was no legitimate reason for Pelosi to nix McCarthy's selections the first time so trying again wouldn't change anything. Pelosi does what she wants and to hell with the rules.

---

The wanted quislings and they got their two stooges.

The committee lost all credibility at that point, indicating that only one side of the story would ever be heard.

---

I wonder what happens to this committee when the next congress with a (R) majority is seated in January.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Stlkofta said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bigballin said:

---

Does this really require all the networks to broadcast live?

---

No. And if there had been any Republicans with legal knowledge to cross these witnesses, there would not be hearings at all. Jordan would have ripped Barr to shreds for instance on his prior inconsistent statements and his abuse of Executive Privilege that was Trump's to assert, not Barr's.

---

Why didn't McCarthy just give Pelosi two other Republican names to replace the 2 out of the 5 she rejected? I understand the frustration on McCarthy's part, but wouldn't it have been better to have more GOP reps, which would have included my own rep, Troy Nehls? Just curious.

---

There was no legitimate reason for Pelosi to nix McCarthy's selections the first time so trying again wouldn't change anything. Pelosi does what she wants and to hell with the rules.

---

The wanted quislings and they got their two stooges.

The committee lost all credibility at that point, indicating that only one side of the story would ever be heard.

---

I wonder what happens to this committee when the next congress with a (R) majority is seated in January.

---

They already plan to be done by September. You can preorder their "report" on Amazon for delivery around that time.

Will this committee address the punitive incarceration of charged suspects?
Did these feds go to the McLennan County school of jail filling?
[url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-again-refuses-to-release-pittsburgh-area-ex-army-ranger-charged-with-assaulting-police-at-jan-6-capitol-riot/ar-AAYoVTN?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=44abb2a55d7b4196f7f2279487dbd15f][/url]

Quote:

---

Judge again refuses to release Pittsburgh-area ex-Army Ranger charged with assaulting police at Jan. 6 Capitol riot
Mr. Morss, 29, is charged with 53 counts. Prosecutors said he led the violence and has shown no remorse. The FBI found a speech he wrote on his iCloud account, which they say he intended to deliver to a judge at some point, in which he said he said he has no regrets for his violence and denounces Congress for not doing Mr. Trump's bidding in overturning the election.

---

Had this guy been charged in Harris County for he would have been released on $106 bail, $2 bond on every count.
[url=https://abc13.com/january-6-insurrection-capitol-riot-assault-on-officer-katy-brothers-arrested-in-breach/11938511/][/url]

Quote:

---

2 Katy brothers charged with assaulting officer during Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, records say
Adam and Brian are each charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding an officer, a felony that faces up to eight years in federal prison, along with five other charges.

---

I wonder what would happen if 10,000 Texans would surround the federal lockup with "Fed Up", "Texit" and "Release the 1/6 Prisoners" signs to express their 1st amendment rights to the politically corrupt bureaucRATS in uniform there?

Jan 6th committee has lost Maddow.

Even MSNBC admits President Trump and the rally had nothing to do with the Capitol breach! pic.twitter.com/sMGyHW3KcP

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 10, 2022

Any concerned moderate or leftist shill want to weigh in on a topic that SHOULD be investigated: Who benefited from the slush fund within Congress that allowed multiple sexual harassments/harassments to go undetected for a multitude of years?

This is why this type of hearing doesn't mean **** to the average American. Why are these low-life's questioning or trying to pin something on someone when they won't even police their own damn group members?

Screw. Congress. And Screw these "hearings they live to have that gets nothing done.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on #January6thHearings: "I am watching and I will be watching all of the hearings...and I can assure you that the January 6th prosecutors are watching all the hearings as well." pic.twitter.com/Oi4AhYvrAX

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 13, 2022

So he admits they aren't following the evidence or doing their investigation? They are watching the Show Trial, instead?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

So he admits they aren't following the evidence or doing their investigation? They are watching the Show Trial, instead?

---

Remember when Comey told Jason Chaffetz that the FBI did not watch nor read a transcript of Hilary's sworn testimony before Congress because they had not received a referral from Congress?

Guess those DOJ rules vary a lot depending on who is AG.

I wonder if those same prosecutors were watching the Democrats support BLM and Antifa riots back in 2020?