Media Event!! Jan 6th Propaganda!! Tonight!! Official Thread!!

[jerryskids 5,209]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

I did.

 

Sorry, I deleted that response because I missed that you responded twice.

Any you didn't answer my question.  I'm not saying Garland and company aren't investigating things.  I'm asking why a partisan congressional committee is putting on a prosecution to the public in advance of a criminal trial.  I mean, not even you can say that this committee is a "pursuit of truth," it is a "pursuit of prosecution."  As such, what is the value of broadcasting this information to the public?  And might it not put prosecution at risk?  Wouldn't it better serve a prosecution to just provide any new info to Garland?

And so I'm back to my original question, yet unanswered:  what was the purpose of the partisan hack dog and pony show.   

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

21 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, I deleted that response because I missed that you responded twice.

Any you didn't answer my question.  I'm not saying Garland and company aren't investigating things.  I'm asking why a partisan congressional committee is putting on a prosecution to the public in advance of a criminal trial.  I mean, not even you can say that this committee is a "pursuit of truth," it is a "pursuit of prosecution."  As such, what is the value of broadcasting this information to the public?  And might it not put prosecution at risk?  Wouldn't it better serve a prosecution to just provide any new info to Garland?

And so I'm back to my original question, yet unanswered:  what was the purpose of the partisan hack dog and pony show.   

I don't consider it a partisan dog and pony show.  McCarthy had a chance to name legitimate people to investigate it, but instead chose to nominate 3 people who were part of perpetrating the election lies---McCarthy made it partisan with his laughable choices.

But to your question.  I don't know.  There have been many congressional hearings and investigations that came before formal charges, Game show hearings, mafia, Jimmy Hoffa, Iran-Contra,  all occurred before any charges were filed.  At some point Congress gave itself the power to investigate and so they can.  

And as for as it's not the "pursuit of truth", sorry, listen to the hearings, they are presenting the facts to what happened leading up to January 6th, exactly what the committee was charged with doing. If criminal wrong-doing is shown to have occurred, then DOJ should follow up with charges.

The value of broadcasting it to the public, really.  We the people absolutely have a right to know these facts, it our government, remember. And I don't see what harm the facts could have for future prosecutions.

Can you now let me know how much of these hearings you have watched to form your opinions?

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

I don't consider it a partisan dog and pony show. 

Starting off saying that doesn't help you any.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

17 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I don't consider it a partisan dog and pony show.  McCarthy had a chance to name legitimate people to investigate it, but instead chose to nominate 3 people who were part of perpetrating the election lies---McCarthy made it partisan with his laughable choices.

But to your question.  I don't know.  There have been many congressional hearings and investigations that came before formal charges, Game show hearings, mafia, Jimmy Hoffa, Iran-Contra,  all occurred before any charges were filed.  At some point Congress gave itself the power to investigate and so they can.  

And as for as it's not the "pursuit of truth", sorry, listen to the hearings, they are presenting the facts to what happened leading up to January 6th, exactly what the committee was charged with doing. If criminal wrong-doing is shown to have occurred, then DOJ should follow up with charges.

The value of broadcasting it to the public, really.  We the people absolutely have a right to know these facts, it our government, remember. And I don't see what harm the facts could have for future prosecutions.

Can you now let me know how much of these hearings you have watched to form your opinions?

Raskin isn’t laughable? Didn’t he contest the 2016 election? On what grounds? None. But it’s ok for him to head up this investigation? And if Pelosi didn’t want McCarthys picks with a valid reason, she should have said give me three others, not picked them. It’s a sham. And no, everything they bring up isn't without merit. But if there isn’t anyone to make a counter argument then it’s just a witch hunt. If you think it’s not, then you must think we don’t know what the outcome will be. We did before it even started, the very definition of a witch hunt. Tell me something different. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Raskin isn’t laughable? Didn’t he contest the 2016 election? On what grounds? None. But it’s ok for him to head up this investigation? And if Pelosi didn’t want McCarthys picks with a valid reason, she should have said give me three others, not picked them. It’s a sham. And no, everything they bring up isn't without merit. But if there isn’t anyone to make a counter argument then it’s just a witch hunt. If you think it’s not, then you must think we don’t know what the outcome will be. We did before it even started, the very definition of a witch hunt. Tell me something different. 

Nor will she allow questions about capital security from the press. Liberals don't go there.  They don't do accountability. 

[Fnord 1,141]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Raskin isn’t laughable? Didn’t he contest the 2016 election? On what grounds? None. But it’s ok for him to head up this investigation? And if Pelosi didn’t want McCarthys picks with a valid reason, she should have said give me three others, not picked them. It’s a sham. And no, everything they bring up isn't without merit. But if there isn’t anyone to make a counter argument then it’s just a witch hunt. If you think it’s not, then you must think we don’t know what the outcome will be. We did before it even started, the very definition of a witch hunt. Tell me something different. 

Make a counter-argument??? It's an investigation followed by a series of hearings, not a trial. Hopefully several of those will happen later, but this is not the time for a counter-argument. You don't even know what you're talking about. Go back to huffing Tucker's farts, let him do the "thinking" for you. You're bad at it.

The testimonies they've shown have been overwhelmingly from people hired by Trump to work in his administration, that witnessed his ridiculous, childish, traitorous behavior live and in person. Maybe they should pry double-bogey Donnie out of Mar-a-Lago for a couple days of testimony under oath. But that'll never happen, will it? What's he hiding???

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

Alt righties are so stupid.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Make a counter-argument??? It's an investigation followed by a series of hearings, not a trial. Hopefully several of those will happen later, but this is not the time for a counter-argument. You don't even know what you're talking about. Go back to huffing Tucker's farts, let him do the "thinking" for you. You're bad at it.

The testimonies they've shown have been overwhelmingly from people hired by Trump to work in his administration, that witnessed his ridiculous, childish, traitorous behavior live and in person. Maybe they should pry double-bogey Donnie out of Mar-a-Lago for a couple days of testimony under oath. But that'll never happen, will it? What's he hiding???

So, I guess you didn’t watch the Iran- Contra hearings? There were no counter arguments there? Sorry kid, some of us have been around and have paid attention. You just got blowed up. I could name other congressional hearings where both sides were heard. I’ll just go ahead and end you quick. You’re welcome. I’m a good Catholic boy, I show mercy. 

[jerryskids 5,209]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I don't consider it a partisan dog and pony show.  McCarthy had a chance to name legitimate people to investigate it, but instead chose to nominate 3 people who were part of perpetrating the election lies---McCarthy made it partisan with his laughable choices.

But to your question.  I don't know.  There have been many congressional hearings and investigations that came before formal charges, Game show hearings, mafia, Jimmy Hoffa, Iran-Contra,  all occurred before any charges were filed.  At some point Congress gave itself the power to investigate and so they can.  

And as for as it's not the "pursuit of truth", sorry, listen to the hearings, they are presenting the facts to what happened leading up to January 6th, exactly what the committee was charged with doing. If criminal wrong-doing is shown to have occurred, then DOJ should follow up with charges.

The value of broadcasting it to the public, really.  We the people absolutely have a right to know these facts, it our government, remember. And I don't see what harm the facts could have for future prosecutions.

Can you now let me know how much of these hearings you have watched to form your opinions?

You keep using the word "facts," I don't think it means what you think it means.  What we've heard is testimony, not facts.  No defense was presented, and to my knowledge no positive testimony was provided.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

We are to believe that all the people who gave testimony to the committee that not one of them said anything on behalf of Trump? Sure they said things that showed what he did wrong, but nobody said anything that could help his cause? Why haven’t we heard that part of their testimony? All we hear is the parts that confirm the committees charges. Come on man 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You keep using the word "facts," I don't think it means what you think it means.  What we've heard is testimony, not facts.  No defense was presented, and to my knowledge no positive testimony was provided.

Just read this. It’s a one sided presentation of some facts, but it’s impossible that it’s all the facts 

[Reality 2,710]

Jesus, the left sure knows it's audience.

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

43 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You keep using the word "facts," I don't think it means what you think it means.  What we've heard is testimony, not facts.  No defense was presented, and to my knowledge no positive testimony was provided.

Yeah, testimony from conservatives and former Clownzo employees. Coupled with damning video evidence. 

[jerryskids 5,209]

7 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yeah, testimony from conservatives and former Clownzo employees. Coupled with damning video evidence. 

From this response I can only conclude that you don't understand the words that I said.   

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

From this response I can only conclude that you don't understand the words that I said.   

Have you watched any of it? 

[Voltaire 4,564]

[jerryskids 5,209]

5 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Have you watched any of it? 

It's like I'm talking a different language.   

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's like I'm talking a different language.   

Another rusty take down.

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's like I'm talking a different language.   

Pretty direct question. 

[jerryskids 5,209]

3 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Pretty direct question. 

that has nothing to do with what I said.  Address that first before I jump on your goalpost journey.

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

that has nothing to do with what I said.  Address that first before I jump on your goalpost journey.

What is it you said that needs addressing? Fact: One former Clownzo employee after another is throwing him under the bus. His own former AG said he was detached from reality. It's a fact that he said this. There are numerous recordings of Clownzo saying crazy false things. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

4 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Fact: One former Clownzo employee after another is throwing him under the bus. 

what should really scare everyone is the number of people in the current administration and government continuing to defend Biden despite the worst presidency in history.  Worrying about some past administration isnt healthy.

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

10 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

what should really scare everyone is the number of people in the current administration and government continuing to defend Biden despite the worst presidency in history.  Worrying about some past administration isnt healthy.

What's disturbing is crazy rubes like you automatically blaming a president, who is of a party with which you disagree, for economic issues over which he had and has had little control. Sheeple like you do the ol' knee-jerk complaining without factoring in intelligence, basic economics and world affairs. 

You have been and will continue to be wrong about your beloved civil war and nuclear holocaust.

All you've ever been is crazy and wrong.

Go to therapy. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[Utilit99 4,099]

19 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

what should really scare everyone is the number of people in the current administration and government continuing to defend Biden despite the worst presidency in history.  Worrying about some past administration isnt healthy.

pimpledoosh slammed to the pavement  again! 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

21 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

What's disturbing is crazy rubes like you automatically blaming a president, who is of a party with which you disagree, for economic issues over which he had and has had little control. Sheeple like you do the ol' knee-jerk complaining without factoring in intelligence, basic economics and world affairs. 

You have been and will continue to be wrong about your beloved civil war and nuclear holocaust.

All you've ever been is crazy and wrong.

Go to therapy. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

You’re the same jackass who said trump inherited Obamas economy. And guarantee you will be puppeting that in 2024 when we have a republican again and economic recovery 

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

You’re the same jackass who said trump inherited Obamas economy. And guarantee you will be puppeting that in 2024 when we have a republican again and economic recovery 

Dang. pimpledoosh is taking a beating todday. Ouch.

[Pimpadeaux 2,271]

3 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Dang. pimpledoosh is taking a beating todday. Ouch.

"Today" has only one "d," stupid ass. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Pimpadeaux said:

"Today" has only one "d," stupid ass. 

All he's got left is attacking typos. 

What a beating he has been taking. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

what should really scare everyone is the number of people in the current administration and government continuing to defend Biden despite the worst presidency in history.  Worrying about some past administration isnt healthy.

It's their job. They have to stand up for their boss.

It's for everybody else to criticize Biden* not that the media does much of that.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

37 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

It's their job. They have to stand up for their boss.

It's for everybody else to criticize Biden* not that the media does much of that.

not everyone in the government answers to biden.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

The chairman of this witch-hunt, Thompson, says there will be no criminal indictment.  Liz Cheney says there will be. This is going great. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

9 hours ago, jerryskids said:

You keep using the word "facts," I don't think it means what you think it means.  What we've heard is testimony, not facts.  No defense was presented, and to my knowledge no positive testimony was provided.

I don't think you know what quid pro quo means.

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

Were the ratings for this episode lower than CNN’s 2pm hour again?

[jerryskids 5,209]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

I don't think you know what quid pro quo means.

Well, I do, and I don't know what you mean by this.   

[RLLD 3,455]

Hold on, is this still a thing, are they doing this for more than one day?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

So this is just a really long commercial for the DNC paid for by the tax payer. An infomercial if you will. Meant to get idiots to buy something that doesn’t work.  

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Hold on, is this still a thing, are they doing this for more than one day?

I think so. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Hold on, is this still a thing, are they doing this for more than one day?

I guess it's six or seven days and this'd be the turd ... third... third turd.

I'll find something else to do again.

[Voltaire 4,564]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So this is just a really long commercial for the DNC paid for by the tax payer. An infomercial if you will. Meant to get idiots to buy something that doesn’t work.  

It's also paid for by the MSM networks, since they're all willingly losing money by pre-empting whatever else they were going to show for lower ratings.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

It's also paid for by the MSM networks, since they're all willingly losing money by pre-empting whatever else they were going to show for lower ratings.

They’ll get it back somehow. It’s a circular flow of money. Tax breaks , no regulation, access.  Jobs for has been politicians. Lizard Cheney will be the next ugly woman on MSNBC