ADVERTISEMENT

J6 Hearing

Look man, no one agrees with how far Trump took it and 99% of the GOP base wanted him to concede and walk away..... 0.003% went into the Capitol but it's not like he was the first to cry foul. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that those very public swipes at the electoral process, voting security and overall system didn't help drive doubt into the population. Hillary drove a fake Russia collision scandal for years, his entire presidency was falsely accused of being illegitimate




Both of those links highlight Dems suggesting it's easy to hack dominion voting machines in public hearings, public settings, media distribution etc. I could easily send you a dozen links of dems crying foul. Where are all of the fact checkers?

If there is evidence to show that Trump coordinated a violent mob to storm the Capitol, then let's get it presented in a court of law and prosecute him........I'm all for it. So far, I don't see any evidence and the J6 committee doesn't have the authority to charge him anyway so making this a public TV spectacle rather than just handing over the findings to the DOJ, show what the intention is.
Dude, 76% of Republicans STILL believe he won the election so you've got blinders on if you think 99% of the GOP base wanted him to walk away. And if that many do still believe that bullshit, they are a threat to future elections and the truth needs to be shoved down their throat or they will never accept anyone winning except their own candidates. These hearings will prove that he lost, though right wing media is pulling out all the stops to keep their base from watching. Wonder why?

But here's the thing - even if there was no insurrection, he should still be held accountable for the biggest lie that's ever been told in American politics - and he still repeats it to this day with no evidence to support it. The main is verifiably insane and should be barred from ever holding office again.
 
I'm not trying to fool anyone......just showing you the receipts to remind you that the left is just as responsible as the right for creating doubt in election integrity. You can't continue to point the finger at one side when the left is already starting to try to cast doubt for the midterms.

Another receipt for you

You're absolutely right, no one should be charging it without solid evidence, but what Trump did is in a league of it's own and no amount of whataboutism will make both sides the same. You can't spin the crime of Obama's tan suit as comparable to Jan.6, you just can't.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TigerGrowls
I know far too many good, garden-variety conservatives who have essentially shrugged their shoulders about Trump. You hear the classic, "Well, I think he's a bad person and wish he'd get off Twitter, but I agree with him about bringing jobs back here and keeping the border safe."

I don't think people grasp the danger that he and his open disdain for the rule of law represent. This is somebody that at best watched with indifference as his supporters stormed the Capitol, threatened to hang the Vice President, and to this day refuses to accept the political legitimacy of his successor. He could very well be implicated in the insurrection, which is what it was, more directly.

Until the majority of conservatives stand up and treat these neo-fascists with the unrelenting contempt they deserve, the power creep will continue. The people get the government they deserve. So far we have seen exactly what happens when many people worship a so-called "patriot" who was a draft-dodging coward that then had the audacity to mock a man who was taken prisoner of war and tortured for this country.

And I feel exactly the same way about anyone on the left who consents to authoritarianism.
The threat to Pemce has already been widely debunked for one. I think he should have condemned the protestors earlier than her did, but also remember that the Capital was breached during his speech. Doesn’t change that he should’ve came out sooner and harsher. As the texts show many others agreed, and then there was also the speculation thrown out there that this could be ANTIFA dressed in MAGA gear. Could be he wanted to get the facts first before issuing any statement. Either way, even had it been ANTIFA, statement should have been much earlier.

And there’s a big difference in supporting him and supporting his agenda. I have aligned most of my beliefs behind his agenda: lower taxes, less regulation, less restrictions on the energy sector, secured border, strong military (peace through strength). Also appreciated North Korea not testing missiles, cheaper gas, low unemployment, high returns on my 401(k). Just a few points. I doubt I have said this but I do separate him and his agenda, and I also have actually met him before. I think the majority of Trump supporters would agree that it’s about the agenda, not the man. If it was about the man, then I could have just voted for Kenny Chesney cause he’s my favorite country artist 😂. But I think that’s another problem, out of 330+ million citizens, how did we get where the two candidates in both prior elections have all sorts of issues ? Crazy to think about that
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Dude, 76% of Republicans STILL believe he won the election so you've got blinders on if you think 99% of the GOP base wanted him to walk away. And if that many do still believe that bullshit, they are a threat to future elections and the truth needs to be shoved down their throat or they will never accept anyone winning except their own candidates. These hearings will prove that he lost, though right wing media is pulling out all the stops to keep their base from watching. Wonder why?

But here's the thing - even if there was no insurrection, he should still be held accountable for the biggest lie that's ever been told in American politics - and he still repeats it to this day with no evidence to support it. The main is verifiably insane and should be barred from ever holding office again.
But aren't you one of the folks that continuously say polls aren't accurate when we talk about Biden's approval rating? So that poll is accurate, but the others aren't? Got it

Seriously, where did you go to get radicalized? Is there a sleep-away camp or is it a series of meetings, like a 12 step program?
 
Politics aside -- The thought anyone believes Donald Trump cares about anyone not named Donald Trump -- is remarkable. Guy's been in the public light for 50 years and the next time he gives a rip about someone other than himself will be the first.
No kiddin'!!!! He'd throw anyone under the bus to advance his cause. Hell, he turned on his own daughter last week
 
But aren't you one of the folks that continuously say polls aren't accurate when we talk about Biden's approval rating? So that poll is accurate, but the others aren't? Got it

Seriously, where did you go to get radicalized? Is there a sleep-away camp or is it a series of meetings, like a 12 step program?
No, I'm not

It happened one summer at band camp
 
Last edited:

I don’t have the numbers but this would be it
Besides the fact that there were only two people involved instead of thousands, and a President didn't encourage them, and nobody died, and they didn't roam the halls shouting threats to lawmakers or break into House chambers, and they didn't beat police with flagpoles.... those two events are EXACTLY THE SAME! 😅
 
The threat to Pemce has already been widely debunked for one. I think he should have condemned the protestors earlier than her did, but also remember that the Capital was breached during his speech. Doesn’t change that he should’ve came out sooner and harsher. As the texts show many others agreed, and then there was also the speculation thrown out there that this could be ANTIFA dressed in MAGA gear. Could be he wanted to get the facts first before issuing any statement. Either way, even had it been ANTIFA, statement should have been much earlier.

And there’s a big difference in supporting him and supporting his agenda. I have aligned most of my beliefs behind his agenda: lower taxes, less regulation, less restrictions on the energy sector, secured border, strong military (peace through strength). Also appreciated North Korea not testing missiles, cheaper gas, low unemployment, high returns on my 401(k). Just a few points. I doubt I have said this but I do separate him and his agenda, and I also have actually met him before. I think the majority of Trump supporters would agree that it’s about the agenda, not the man. If it was about the man, then I could have just voted for Kenny Chesney cause he’s my favorite country artist 😂. But I think that’s another problem, out of 330+ million citizens, how did we get where the two candidates in both prior elections have all sorts of issues ? Crazy to think about that

“It’s common sense.” Yep, common sense to call for the hanging of the Vice President on the basis of patently ludicrous claims of voter fraud. It’s Capitol with an o by the way. Sounds like something you’d hear from a war torn state in Africa.

And sure, you can agree with large parts of his policy agenda, like him for whatever about the economy (continuation of Obama era recover, still managed to raise the deficit, but whatever), and not like him as a human being. That’s the entire premise of my post. Too many people like you who don’t realize how dangerous of a person he is and shrug it off. The guy and his shock troops don’t give a rat’s ass about the literal rule of law. Have fun with that in the long run. History will tell you how that’s worked out for the Jews, Soviet dissidents, “desaparecidos” in Latin America, whoever got on Mao’s bad side. All victims of strong men dictators and their goons who always claimed to be doing good, revitalizing the economy, weeding out foreign influence, providing strength and security, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73
Besides the fact that there were only two people involved instead of thousands, and a President didn't encourage them, and nobody died, and they didn't roam the halls shouting threats to lawmakers or break into House chambers, and they didn't beat police with flagpoles.... those two events are EXACTLY THE SAME! 😅
Literally nobody died except Ashlee Babbitt (however you spell her name).


"The Senate had planned to work late into the evening of Monday, November 7, 1983. Deliberations proceeded more smoothly than expected, however, so the body adjourned at 7:02 p.m. A crowded reception, held near the Senate Chamber, broke up two hours later. Consequently, at 10:58 p.m., when a thunderous explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol’s north wing, the adjacent halls were virtually deserted. Many lives had been spared."

Had their timing had been correct as they initially thought, this would have been the real insurrection. Again, nobody died in this planned attack as the same as J6.
 

“It’s common sense.” Yep, common sense to call for the hanging of the Vice President on the basis of patently ludicrous claims of voter fraud. It’s Capitol with an o by the way. Sounds like something you’d hear from a war torn state in Africa.

And sure, you can agree with large parts of his policy agenda, like him for whatever about the economy (continuation of Obama era recover, still managed to raise the deficit, but whatever), and not like him as a human being. That’s the entire premise of my post. Too many people like you who don’t realize how dangerous of a person he is and shrug it off. The guy and his shock troops don’t give a rat’s ass about the literal rule of law. Have fun with that in the long run. History will tell you how that’s worked out for the Jews, Soviet dissidents, “desaparecidos” in Latin America, whoever got on Mao’s bad side. All victims of strong men dictators and their goons who always claimed to be doing good, revitalizing the economy, weeding out foreign influence, providing strength and security, and so on.
Where does he say that he should be hung? For one, hes on the record before that he knew Pence was safe, he (the President) obviously, as anyone with a stable mind, wasn't taking that seriously. This isn't a third world country, and I don't support any far right advocate that would chant such a thing. Yet there is zero evidence of him saying that Pence should be hung. You can spin that entire clip in every which way.

You really have drank the far far left wing juice if you think he's some Hitler or Mao, that's beyond any comprehension. Neither side would ever be able to have ability to ever rise to such a rank in power. That's why we have separate branches and a House and Senate. Focusing solely on the President's power, that is largely limited by these legislative bodies. What part of continuing and speeding up economic success, weeding out foreign influence, peace through strength, cutting down on child trafficking, secure borders is bad to you? I guess you just don't get it.
 
Where does he say that he should be hung? For one, hes on the record before that he knew Pence was safe, he (the President) obviously, as anyone with a stable mind, wasn't taking that seriously. This isn't a third world country, and I don't support any far right advocate that would chant such a thing. Yet there is zero evidence of him saying that Pence should be hung. You can spin that entire clip in every which way.

You really have drank the far far left wing juice if you think he's some Hitler or Mao, that's beyond any comprehension. Neither side would ever be able to have ability to ever rise to such a rank in power. That's why we have separate branches and a House and Senate. Focusing solely on the President's power, that is largely limited by these legislative bodies. What part of continuing and speeding up economic success, weeding out foreign influence, peace through strength, cutting down on child trafficking, secure borders is bad to you? I guess you just don't get it.
I didn't claim that he said it. I said that his supporters did and that he reacted with indifference at best. Do you disagree with that assessment?

On the second point, the separation of powers you describe does indeed limit the executive insofar as the executive actually cares to abide by the rule of law. My claim is that Trump fundamentally does not. His reaction to him losing the election, phrased as it may be about some righteous campaign against "fraud," is evidence enough.

The remainder of what you say is a not particularly impressive attempt at a straw man argument, but I'll address it nonetheless. To what extent is Trump responsible for "continuing and speeding up economic success" when, as you point out, his power is largely limited by legislative bodies? He did indeed push for tariffs, yet the trade deficit with China increased. Big win there for the Donald. He did indeed cut taxes, and the deficit went up (excluding the Covid years to even be generous to him). Big win for fiscal conservatives. Larger macroeconomic trends like GDP growth and unemployment rates were already in a strong position at the end of Obama's term. Raising interest rates (not under his control, but an idea he bristled against) earlier could have very well helped us in the current quagmire. I'm still waiting for him to repeal and replace Obamacare with a Republican-controlled Congress. What exactly you mean by "weed out foreign influence" isn't defined. To be fair, I didn't either; to be explicit I mean a campaign against a fifth column. If by "peace through strength" you mean some sort of quasi-isolationist foreign policy, we'll have to disagree on the merits. It is curious, however, to have the President express admiration for the authoritarian leaders of the usual who's who of geopolitical enemies of the US. No sane, moral individual supports something as insidious as child trafficking, though it begs the question of why Matt Gaetz is still in Congress. I actually liked the remain in Mexico policy; the dog-whistles that underlined much of his campaign I could do without.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: WapPride and dpic73
Morning recap:

Despite numerous members of Trump's inner-circle telling him that there was no rational basis to claim victory on election night 2020, he did just that...as he repeatedly said he would prior to the election.


And then he continued to spew endless lies about alleged fraud while being told that the allegations had been investigated, but were completely unsubstantiated (again, by his own advisors).

Totally the behavior of someone who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

What a piece of human garbage.
 
Morning recap:

Despite numerous members of Trump's inner-circle telling him that there was no rational basis to claim victory on election night 2020, he did just that...as he repeatedly said he would prior to the election.


And then he continued to spew endless lies about alleged fraud while being told that the allegations had been investigated, but were completely unsubstantiated (again, by his own advisors).

Totally the behavior of someone who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

What a piece of human garbage.
"A coup in search of a legal theory" SMFH

It's a shame this hearing wasn't in primetime so that more people would see it, but no way you could hear from all those experts, including the most prominent Republican election attorney and believe there was anything more than an insignificant amount of fraud. They showed that all the scurrilous reports of suitcases under tables, boxes of ballots showing up in the middle of the night(Detroit) and more votes than voters were thoroughly investigated and found to be garbage.

However, Trump grifted a quarter billion dollars to supposedly fight this fraud but surprise!, didn't use the windfall to fight fraud. He should be sued to hell and back for that alone.
 
Literally nobody died except Ashlee Babbitt (however you spell her name).


"The Senate had planned to work late into the evening of Monday, November 7, 1983. Deliberations proceeded more smoothly than expected, however, so the body adjourned at 7:02 p.m. A crowded reception, held near the Senate Chamber, broke up two hours later. Consequently, at 10:58 p.m., when a thunderous explosion tore through the second floor of the Capitol’s north wing, the adjacent halls were virtually deserted. Many lives had been spared."

Had their timing had been correct as they initially thought, this would have been the real insurrection. Again, nobody died in this planned attack as the same as J6.
Is this your prognosis that explains how they are the same? Why are you so desperate to downplay, minimize and provide cover for the most corrupt President in history? This shouldn't be about Dem vs Repub or Trump supporters vs non-Trump supporters. It's about right and wrong and you're clearly taking the side of wrong. Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctcseb
Is this your prognosis that explains how they are the same? Why are you so desperate to downplay, minimize and provide cover for the most corrupt President in history? This shouldn't be about Dem vs Repub or Trump supporters vs non-Trump supporters. It's about right and wrong and you're clearly taking the side of wrong. Why?

Okay, right or wrong, then why aren't we investigating the 574 riots that resulted in billions in damage, numerous police injured, cities set ablaze, Seattle was literally taken over and renamed Chop. Why is there no investigation into that? Literally the most violent period of time our country has ever experienced and yet the sitting VP literally paid to get these criminals out of jail

I've repeatedly stated we have to ensure J6 does not happen again, and I hope the investigation turns up some solutions, whether that is increased security, more security personnel, etc. Whatever it may be. But thus far, I have not seen a single solution presented. Its a show trial against a former President, the majority of which this evidence was litigated as part of impeachment 2, and he was not impeached nor removed. So what exactly is the committee getting at? Waste of time.
 
Okay, right or wrong, then why aren't we investigating the 574 riots that resulted in billions in damage, numerous police injured, cities set ablaze, Seattle was literally taken over and renamed Chop. Why is there no investigation into that? Literally the most violent period of time our country has ever experienced and yet the sitting VP literally paid to get these criminals out of jail

I've repeatedly stated we have to ensure J6 does not happen again, and I hope the investigation turns up some solutions, whether that is increased security, more security personnel, etc. Whatever it may be. But thus far, I have not seen a single solution presented. Its a show trial against a former President, the majority of which this evidence was litigated as part of impeachment 2, and he was not impeached nor removed. So what exactly is the committee getting at? Waste of time.
to be fair, 93% of those riots were peaceful.
"Their report states that more than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” The authors define violent demonstrations as including “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials. In cities where protests did turn violent—these demonstrations are “largely confined to specific blocks,” the report says."
 
not gonna argue about those people needing to be prosecuted and investigated for damaging property. i think the violence and damage was an absolute shame and those responsible should face repercussions
 
Okay, right or wrong, then why aren't we investigating the 574 riots that resulted in billions in damage, numerous police injured, cities set ablaze, Seattle was literally taken over and renamed Chop. Why is there no investigation into that? Literally the most violent period of time our country has ever experienced and yet the sitting VP literally paid to get these criminals out of jail

I've repeatedly stated we have to ensure J6 does not happen again, and I hope the investigation turns up some solutions, whether that is increased security, more security personnel, etc. Whatever it may be. But thus far, I have not seen a single solution presented. Its a show trial against a former President, the majority of which this evidence was litigated as part of impeachment 2, and he was not impeached nor removed. So what exactly is the committee getting at? Waste of time.
A few points
  • Who says they didn't/aren't investigating the 2020 riots? Thousands were arrested so it's not like they all got away with it. The difference here is that we know it was wrong and we don't care if they get thrown under the jail. You won't find Dems on here complaining about their treatment, because we don't condone or try to cover for their wrongdoing. FAIL
  • Why should the focus of the hearings be about how to make the Capitol more secure? I'm sure they've updated their security procedures but just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they haven't been improved. This is a red herring to distract from the real reason for the hearings. FAIL
  • Just because they didn't vote to remove him doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. This was simply Republicans letting him off the hook, even though the case was proven, because they're afraid of him. FAIL
  • They are getting at the 75% of you that have given him a pass because you believe his sinister lie. They are also attempting to show how Trump knew there was no fraud but grifted off of it to the tune of $250,000,000. They are also showing the details of the 7 step plot to illegally overturn the vote. This should get him indicted if the DOJ has the balls to do it and keep his criminal ass from ever stepping foot in that office again. Just because you aren't willing to acknowledge how dangerous he is doesn't mean he should get a pass. If you had a shred of integrity, you would see this clearly.
 
Wow...say it aint so.


Jan. 6 panel gets caught spreading a whopper worthy of Russia collusion, Biden laptop​

Capitol police chief says there is 'no evidence,' as Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney alleged, that a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission for Jan. 6 protesters

By John Solomon
Updated: June 13, 2022 - 11:14pm

The Donald Trump era has brought countless examples in which Democrats, bureaucrats, and the establishment news media wove a sensational tale that turned out to be false.
There's the Russia collusion caper that wasn't, the 51 security experts who wrongly claimed Hunter Biden's laptop was misinformation, the Ukraine quid-pro-quo call that had neither a quid nor a quo, and the Moscow bounties on U.S. troops' heads that never happened.
Now the Jan. 6 panel — led in part by the Russian collusion advocate Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. — has been called on the carpet for falsely suggesting a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission inside the Capitol for Jan. 6 protesters the day before the riot.
Ironically, the man who blew that whistle is the new Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who got his job on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's watch but handed Republicans vindication on an allegation they long claimed was a smear.
Manger wrote in a letter Monday to Congress, which Just the News obtained, that an exhaustive review of security footage found no evidence that Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did anything other than give constituents a tour of some congressional office buildings.
In fact, the chief said, the congressman didn’t even enter the U.S. Capitol with the group.
“There is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with this group on January 5, 2021,” Manger wrote in a letter to Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., the ranking Republican on the House Administration Committee. “We train our officers on being alert for people conducting surveillance or reconnaissance, and we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious.”
File
220807 U. S. Capitol Police Response to RM Davis re Jan 5 2021 Tour.pdf
Republicans weary of being falsely accused and vindicated months later pounced on the revelation.
"All I can think of is this is a Soviet-style propaganda trial, like a show trial," Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., who spent time working in Communist Yugoslavia earlier in her career, told Just the News. "They put this tape together using propaganda, selected words and clauses cut and pasted to smear the people they want to smear and to get the outcome."
Rep, Rodney Davis, the Illinois Republican who pressed Capitol Police to review the evidence and clear Loudermilk, said Democrats who besmirched his colleague's name need to face accountability before the House Ethics Committee.
"The Democrats need to be ashamed of themselves," Davis told the "Just the News, Not Noise" television show Monday night.
Former Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, who played a role unraveling the Russia collusion narrative, said Democrats have reached the political limits of the proverbial boy-cry-wolf tale, and it is time for their enablers in the mainstream media to push back. Some of the biggest names in media reported the Loudermilk allegations when they surfaced last month.
"I'm wondering how many of these political writers — The New York Times Washington Post, all these folks — are actually lining up to give the retractions," Collins told Just the News. "...Let's just be honest. They buy any narrative they can to impugn conservative congressmen, to malign Donald Trump, to make this event that they're trying to pin basically on the conservative movement. And they're willing to destroy lives, you know, really to do it without actually investigating, without reporting."
The Loudermilk tale gives a case study on how an unsubstantiated claim spreads from one congressperson to the next, requiring weeks before officials knock it down with facts and evidence.
Manger’s letter directly undercuts allegations made a month ago by Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the chairman and vice chairwoman of the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee. They sent a letter released to the media in May demanding Loudermilk volunteer testimony and explain why he was giving a tour of the Capitol the day before the riots, suggesting it could be part of an effort to help case the Capitol building before the Jan. 6 protests.
"Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021," Cheney and Thompson wrote. "The foregoing information raises questions to which the Select Committee must seek answers. Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings, in advance of January 6, 2021."
File
2022-5-19.BGT LC Letter to Loudermilk.pdf
The two cited an earlier letter from Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill that alleged some GOP lawmakers gave tours on Jan. 5, 2021, that involved “suspicious behavior and access” and appeared to give defendants who stormed the Capitol the next day "an unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol Complex."
"The presence of these groups within the Capitol Complex was indeed suspicious," Sherrill wrote.
File
2020.01.13_Sherrill Letter to USCP and SAA.pdf
Manger’s letter unequivocally cleared Loudermilk, noting his constituent group of 12 to 15 people never even reached the Capitol and did not even enter the tunnels from the adjacent office buildings. Instead, they visited an exhibit in the Rayburn House Office building.
“At no time did the group appear in any tunnels that would have led them to the U.S. Capitol,” the chief wrote to Davis. “In addition, the tunnels leading to the U.S. Capitol were posted with USCP officers and admittance to the U.S. Capitol without a Member of Congress was not permitted on January 5, 2021.”
Davis lambasted Democrats for using the media to smear a colleague’s name before they had proof of wrongdoing, adding Manger confirmed from video footage what his own investigation had found weeks earlier.
“This is what we knew all along. We knew that there was no Republican who led anybody who breached the Capitol on a reconnaissance tour, leading up to January 6,” he said. “I had my team go through the tapes back in January to verify that because one of my colleagues, Mikie Sherrill, she started this rumor that somehow Republicans were taking people on reconnaissance tours. She said she used her military training to recognize this. Well, you know what, there is no evidence that that's ever happened.”
Davis said those who proffered the allegations should “be held accountable by the House Ethics Committee.”
“That is behavior unbecoming of a member of Congress, and you ought to be held accountable for that,” he said.
Spokespersons for Thompson and Cheney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The unraveling of the Loudermilk allegations is the second major falsehood to blow up on Democrats running the Jan. 6 committee, which has no members selected by GOP leaders.
Last November, Thompson’s team was forced to apologize to former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik for making a false allegation that he attended a Jan. 5 meeting in Washington to plot blocking the certification of the November 2020 elections in Congress. The admission of error came after Just the News obtained toll and phone records showing Kerik was in New York and could not have attended the meeting.
"In advance of our deposition of Mr. Kerik, we wanted to correct an error in the letter accompanying the subpoena that you accepted on his behalf," the committee wrote Kerik’s lawyer.
The Loudermilk allegations, however, got nationwide attention as outlets as diverse as CNN, CBS News, and The Washington Post aired the Thompson-Cheney letter, casting a pall over the Georgia congressman though they offered no direct proof he helped carry out a surveillance operation
As such the allegations are now relegated to a long list of Democrat-contrived, news-media driven falsehoods that include Russia collusion, troop bounties, a Ukraine quid-pro-quo, and the claims by 51 national security officials who claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation operation.
 
Wow...say it aint so.


Jan. 6 panel gets caught spreading a whopper worthy of Russia collusion, Biden laptop​

Capitol police chief says there is 'no evidence,' as Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney alleged, that a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission for Jan. 6 protesters

By John Solomon
Updated: June 13, 2022 - 11:14pm

The Donald Trump era has brought countless examples in which Democrats, bureaucrats, and the establishment news media wove a sensational tale that turned out to be false.
There's the Russia collusion caper that wasn't, the 51 security experts who wrongly claimed Hunter Biden's laptop was misinformation, the Ukraine quid-pro-quo call that had neither a quid nor a quo, and the Moscow bounties on U.S. troops' heads that never happened.
Now the Jan. 6 panel — led in part by the Russian collusion advocate Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. — has been called on the carpet for falsely suggesting a GOP lawmaker ran a reconnaissance mission inside the Capitol for Jan. 6 protesters the day before the riot.
Ironically, the man who blew that whistle is the new Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who got his job on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's watch but handed Republicans vindication on an allegation they long claimed was a smear.
Manger wrote in a letter Monday to Congress, which Just the News obtained, that an exhaustive review of security footage found no evidence that Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did anything other than give constituents a tour of some congressional office buildings.
In fact, the chief said, the congressman didn’t even enter the U.S. Capitol with the group.
“There is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with this group on January 5, 2021,” Manger wrote in a letter to Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., the ranking Republican on the House Administration Committee. “We train our officers on being alert for people conducting surveillance or reconnaissance, and we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious.”
File
220807 U. S. Capitol Police Response to RM Davis re Jan 5 2021 Tour.pdf
Republicans weary of being falsely accused and vindicated months later pounced on the revelation.
"All I can think of is this is a Soviet-style propaganda trial, like a show trial," Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., who spent time working in Communist Yugoslavia earlier in her career, told Just the News. "They put this tape together using propaganda, selected words and clauses cut and pasted to smear the people they want to smear and to get the outcome."
Rep, Rodney Davis, the Illinois Republican who pressed Capitol Police to review the evidence and clear Loudermilk, said Democrats who besmirched his colleague's name need to face accountability before the House Ethics Committee.
"The Democrats need to be ashamed of themselves," Davis told the "Just the News, Not Noise" television show Monday night.
Former Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, who played a role unraveling the Russia collusion narrative, said Democrats have reached the political limits of the proverbial boy-cry-wolf tale, and it is time for their enablers in the mainstream media to push back. Some of the biggest names in media reported the Loudermilk allegations when they surfaced last month.
"I'm wondering how many of these political writers — The New York Times Washington Post, all these folks — are actually lining up to give the retractions," Collins told Just the News. "...Let's just be honest. They buy any narrative they can to impugn conservative congressmen, to malign Donald Trump, to make this event that they're trying to pin basically on the conservative movement. And they're willing to destroy lives, you know, really to do it without actually investigating, without reporting."
The Loudermilk tale gives a case study on how an unsubstantiated claim spreads from one congressperson to the next, requiring weeks before officials knock it down with facts and evidence.
Manger’s letter directly undercuts allegations made a month ago by Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the chairman and vice chairwoman of the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee. They sent a letter released to the media in May demanding Loudermilk volunteer testimony and explain why he was giving a tour of the Capitol the day before the riots, suggesting it could be part of an effort to help case the Capitol building before the Jan. 6 protests.
"Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021," Cheney and Thompson wrote. "The foregoing information raises questions to which the Select Committee must seek answers. Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings, in advance of January 6, 2021."
File
2022-5-19.BGT LC Letter to Loudermilk.pdf
The two cited an earlier letter from Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill that alleged some GOP lawmakers gave tours on Jan. 5, 2021, that involved “suspicious behavior and access” and appeared to give defendants who stormed the Capitol the next day "an unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol Complex."
"The presence of these groups within the Capitol Complex was indeed suspicious," Sherrill wrote.
File
2020.01.13_Sherrill Letter to USCP and SAA.pdf
Manger’s letter unequivocally cleared Loudermilk, noting his constituent group of 12 to 15 people never even reached the Capitol and did not even enter the tunnels from the adjacent office buildings. Instead, they visited an exhibit in the Rayburn House Office building.
“At no time did the group appear in any tunnels that would have led them to the U.S. Capitol,” the chief wrote to Davis. “In addition, the tunnels leading to the U.S. Capitol were posted with USCP officers and admittance to the U.S. Capitol without a Member of Congress was not permitted on January 5, 2021.”
Davis lambasted Democrats for using the media to smear a colleague’s name before they had proof of wrongdoing, adding Manger confirmed from video footage what his own investigation had found weeks earlier.
“This is what we knew all along. We knew that there was no Republican who led anybody who breached the Capitol on a reconnaissance tour, leading up to January 6,” he said. “I had my team go through the tapes back in January to verify that because one of my colleagues, Mikie Sherrill, she started this rumor that somehow Republicans were taking people on reconnaissance tours. She said she used her military training to recognize this. Well, you know what, there is no evidence that that's ever happened.”
Davis said those who proffered the allegations should “be held accountable by the House Ethics Committee.”
“That is behavior unbecoming of a member of Congress, and you ought to be held accountable for that,” he said.
Spokespersons for Thompson and Cheney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The unraveling of the Loudermilk allegations is the second major falsehood to blow up on Democrats running the Jan. 6 committee, which has no members selected by GOP leaders.
Last November, Thompson’s team was forced to apologize to former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik for making a false allegation that he attended a Jan. 5 meeting in Washington to plot blocking the certification of the November 2020 elections in Congress. The admission of error came after Just the News obtained toll and phone records showing Kerik was in New York and could not have attended the meeting.
"In advance of our deposition of Mr. Kerik, we wanted to correct an error in the letter accompanying the subpoena that you accepted on his behalf," the committee wrote Kerik’s lawyer.
The Loudermilk allegations, however, got nationwide attention as outlets as diverse as CNN, CBS News, and The Washington Post aired the Thompson-Cheney letter, casting a pall over the Georgia congressman though they offered no direct proof he helped carry out a surveillance operation
As such the allegations are now relegated to a long list of Democrat-contrived, news-media driven falsehoods that include Russia collusion, troop bounties, a Ukraine quid-pro-quo, and the claims by 51 national security officials who claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation operation.
“There's the Russia collusion caper that wasn't, the 51 security experts who wrongly claimed Hunter Biden's laptop was misinformation, the Ukraine quid-pro-quo call that had neither a quid nor a quo, and the Moscow bounties on U.S. troops' heads that never happened.”

Deranged left wing conspiracy theories
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
You do realize a special counsel has been investigating this for 5.5 straight years. 2 indictments, one was found not guilty by jury trial.

Yes I understand there is some effort to demonize Trump, but all they are doing is using evidence against him to do it. Those people on video are former Trump direct reports and even his own family.

It is also important to make sure that we preserve our democracy. They established these points last night...
- Trump already knew he was going to lose one month before the election.
- Trump was told by NUMEROUS people that worked for him that the election was fair and he lost. He then fired those people and replaced them with people as crazy as him.
- Trump continued to look for any way to overturn the election results.
- Trump still continues today to promote the lie that the election was stolen.

We almost let your demigod destroy our democracy. We cannot let that happen.
Whoo! Lots to process here. I see Trump still has free rent in someone's head. What's the dem version of the Gateway Pundit? Isn't that MSNBC?

Yeah that jury trial in DC was really non-biased. And I don't recall the Nancy and her gang ever doubting that the dossier was real. In fact their friends and Twitter and Facebook had that narrative looked down.
 
Interesting take here ......either this was illegally funded with tax dollars or a third party paid for it, both of which would be bad looks.

I'm sure the Clinton Foundation chipped in for the production out of their discretionary funds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93
I think you’re being dishonest to yourself if you think they’re equally responsibly.

Democrats: Gerrymandering casts doubt on the legitimacy of elections as adequately representing constituents. (They are also guilty of gerrymanding, e.g. Maryland, Illinois.) The Electoral college isn’t democratic (they are correct, they’ve gotten more votes and lost), and this again is perhaps not a glowing mark for the American election system

Trumpers: Voting machines are rigged, Democrats stuffed ballots, we need to threaten election officials and the Vice President with violence if we don’t get our way.

Surely you can see the difference between these two things
Show me where trump said or even hinted that this is what he wanted or told anyone to do. You can't, bc you are blatantly making this crap up. There is not one single piece of information that supports this in any way. Just more dishonesty and lies from dishonest people like yourself who are laughably claiming they are on the side of truth and right, lol.
 
Dude, 76% of Republicans STILL believe he won the election so you've got blinders on if you think 99% of the GOP base wanted him to walk away. And if that many do still believe that bullshit, they are a threat to future elections and the truth needs to be shoved down their throat or they will never accept anyone winning except their own candidates. These hearings will prove that he lost, though right wing media is pulling out all the stops to keep their base from watching. Wonder why?

But here's the thing - even if there was no insurrection, he should still be held accountable for the biggest lie that's ever been told in American politics - and he still repeats it to this day with no evidence to support it. The main is verifiably insane and should be barred from ever holding office again.
If you believe this do you believe the ones who told the similar lie that Trump was colluding with a foreign government to influence an election when, in fact, THEY were the ones telling lies solely for the purpose of damaging a political rival(and influence election results) should be held to the same standard? They told that lie for much longer all the while insisting they had indisputable evidence- which we know was an outright provable lie.
 
A few points
  • Who says they didn't/aren't investigating the 2020 riots? Thousands were arrested so it's not like they all got away with it. The difference here is that we know it was wrong and we don't care if they get thrown under the jail. You won't find Dems on here complaining about their treatment, because we don't condone or try to cover for their wrongdoing. FAIL
  • Why should the focus of the hearings be about how to make the Capitol more secure? I'm sure they've updated their security procedures but just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they haven't been improved. This is a red herring to distract from the real reason for the hearings. FAIL
  • Just because they didn't vote to remove him doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. This was simply Republicans letting him off the hook, even though the case was proven, because they're afraid of him. FAIL
  • They are getting at the 75% of you that have given him a pass because you believe his sinister lie. They are also attempting to show how Trump knew there was no fraud but grifted off of it to the tune of $250,000,000. They are also showing the details of the 7 step plot to illegally overturn the vote. This should get him indicted if the DOJ has the balls to do it and keep his criminal ass from ever stepping foot in that office again. Just because you aren't willing to acknowledge how dangerous he is doesn't mean he should get a pass. If you had a shred of integrity, you would see this clearly.
- Its almost as if the entire thing is swept under the rug, no media coverage whatsoever. I have not been able to find any information on it. I agree both sides agree to denounce it, I just think it was a really bad look that the to-be VP encouraged her supporters to donate to the MFF to pay bonds and bail for these criminals.
- No, the hearing is to try and make it so DJT can't run in 2024. We all know that, and its likely that will not succeed. There is no constitution grounds for such a ruling. Looking at Article III Section 3: "
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Based on what I highlighted here, nothing on J6 would stand as this definition in the Constitution.
- What the fail was is that it was a sham impeachment, the second one being while the President if out of office, which literally makes absolutely zero sense (you can't fire someone when they already quit?) and the first one, well we all know what has come out now about that.
- I never contributed money to any candidate, and I'm largely not permitted to do so due to my line of work, for one. There were plenty of questions that needed (some probably still do) to be answered about the election, things I even saw with my own eyes in person and on the internet, so I don't blame him for wanting to investigate it. However, after the investigations, I do believe he should acknowledge he was wrong and quit pushing the stolen election narrative and focus on the future.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of Trump. It's almost like D's go in the corner crying and sucking their thumb at the thought of him being President. Honestly childish
 
I didn't claim that he said it. I said that his supporters did and that he reacted with indifference at best. Do you disagree with that assessment?

On the second point, the separation of powers you describe does indeed limit the executive insofar as the executive actually cares to abide by the rule of law. My claim is that Trump fundamentally does not. His reaction to him losing the election, phrased as it may be about some righteous campaign against "fraud," is evidence enough.

The remainder of what you say is a not particularly impressive attempt at a straw man argument, but I'll address it nonetheless. To what extent is Trump responsible for "continuing and speeding up economic success" when, as you point out, his power is largely limited by legislative bodies? He did indeed push for tariffs, yet the trade deficit with China increased. Big win there for the Donald. He did indeed cut taxes, and the deficit went up (excluding the Covid years to even be generous to him). Big win for fiscal conservatives. Larger macroeconomic trends like GDP growth and unemployment rates were already in a strong position at the end of Obama's term. Raising interest rates (not under his control, but an idea he bristled against) earlier could have very well helped us in the current quagmire. I'm still waiting for him to repeal and replace Obamacare with a Republican-controlled Congress. What exactly you mean by "weed out foreign influence" isn't defined. To be fair, I didn't either; to be explicit I mean a campaign against a fifth column. If by "peace through strength" you mean some sort of quasi-isolationist foreign policy, we'll have to disagree on the merits. It is curious, however, to have the President express admiration for the authoritarian leaders of the usual who's who of geopolitical enemies of the US. No sane, moral individual supports something as insidious as child trafficking, though it begs the question of why Matt Gaetz is still in Congress. I actually liked the remain in Mexico policy; the dog-whistles that underlined much of his campaign I could do without.
There have been published articles with images of trump effigies hanging rom trees, etc. I have not seen biden come out and say anything to his supporters. Should he be run out of office as well? Is he a traitor?


I really don't remember any comment by Biden even though it was right outside his home? Strange, no? Any comment? Doubt it? Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Whoo! Lots to process here. I see Trump still has free rent in someone's head. What's the dem version of the Gateway Pundit? Isn't that MSNBC?

Yeah that jury trial in DC was really non-biased. And I don't recall the Nancy and her gang ever doubting that the dossier was real. In fact their friends and Twitter and Facebook had that narrative looked down.

This thread is about Trump genius.

FACTS:
5.5 years investigation.
2 minor indictments.
1 exonerated by a jury.

These are facts, and they are indisputable.
 
There have been published articles with images of trump effigies hanging rom trees, etc. I have not seen biden come out and say anything to his supporters. Should he be run out of office as well? Is he a traitor?


I really don't remember any comment by Biden even though it was right outside his home? Strange, no? Any comment? Doubt it? Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
 
This thread is about Trump genius.

FACTS:
5.5 years investigation.
2 minor indictments.
1 exonerated by a jury.

These are facts, and they are indisputable.
7+ yrs of Trump Russia investigation.
still waiting on Schumer to present indisputable proof he claims he has
Same guy who was proven a liar now running another witch hunt

These are facts, and they are indisputable.
 
- Its almost as if the entire thing is swept under the rug, no media coverage whatsoever. I have not been able to find any information on it. I agree both sides agree to denounce it, I just think it was a really bad look that the to-be VP encouraged her supporters to donate to the MFF to pay bonds and bail for these criminals.
- No, the hearing is to try and make it so DJT can't run in 2024. We all know that, and its likely that will not succeed. There is no constitution grounds for such a ruling. Looking at Article III Section 3: "
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Based on what I highlighted here, nothing on J6 would stand as this definition in the Constitution.
- What the fail was is that it was a sham impeachment, the second one being while the President if out of office, which literally makes absolutely zero sense (you can't fire someone when they already quit?) and the first one, well we all know what has come out now about that.
- I never contributed money to any candidate, and I'm largely not permitted to do so due to my line of work, for one. There were plenty of questions that needed (some probably still do) to be answered about the election, things I even saw with my own eyes in person and on the internet, so I don't blame him for wanting to investigate it. However, after the investigations, I do believe he should acknowledge he was wrong and quit pushing the stolen election narrative and focus on the future.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of Trump. It's almost like D's go in the corner crying and sucking their thumb at the thought of him being President. Honestly childish
  • Trump shouldn't be allowed to run so of course they hope he isn't able to. There should be no excusing what he did. You left out "foreign and domestic"
  • The "sham" impeachment would have kept him from running again if the Repubs had a ballsac. It would also send the message that you are not above the law. It was the right thing to do.
  • He was guilty as hell : His LIE, His INVITATION, His INSURRECTION
  • There is a very good reason for not wanting him to run again for anyone with a moral compass. If you can't see what a deranged, irresponsible criminal he's been since the election, it's because you just don't care and that's shameful. Imagine him not getting punished for any of his wrongdoing and not having another election to worry about. He would know he was above the law and it would be four years of revenge, extreme divisiveness and likely Civil War II. Just admit it, you don't care how disturbed and corrupt he is because "owning the libs" is much more important to you.
 
Last edited:
If you believe this do you believe the ones who told the similar lie that Trump was colluding with a foreign government to influence an election when, in fact, THEY were the ones telling lies solely for the purpose of damaging a political rival(and influence election results) should be held to the same standard? They told that lie for much longer all the while insisting they had indisputable evidence- which we know was an outright provable lie.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CUT93
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT