To an extent, yes, but I’m more concerned about the galloping bothsidesisms, false equivalencies, badnewsforBidenisms, etc., that’s certain to confound the outcomes no matter how good a job that the January 6th committee does.
I’ve little faith left in our legacy press to deliver a clear and cogent account.
“All of Herschel’s personalities are thoroughly committed to holding Joe Biden accountable (for reasons) and owning the libbies”
Nikki Halley
/s
Saline Dion
Have to agree. Raskin has the look of an 18th Century American statesman. You know, the kind that ends up on our currency.
One personality for every ten concussions is the standard rate.
So Herschel has a couple of dozen at least.
Raskin’s comments follow news of the committee reportedly considering holding its upcoming public hearings during primetime hours
That’d be swell.
You are not supposed to Look Up. In short order the oceans will become desalinated and usable to irrigate those drought stricken areas of the world. What’s wrong with that?
Too close to reality to be satire.
That’s gonna happen - no doubt.
If, for once, our side can be a good bit louder with the hard evidence that this wasn’t just honest political discourse, or whatever the hell she was trying to sell this as, it might just be ok. But we need this to get real, unvarnished, clear-eyed reporting, and not the nonsense that has passed for reporting for the last twenty years.
That’s where it’s gonna get hard. We need to be loud. We need to be consistent. We need to out-shout the both sides nonsense with ‘just when did BLM and ANTIFA ever try to stop an official event?’,
Hell, I’d just like someone, ANYone, to force the Right to show the organizational structure of ANTIFA and put this to rest once and for all.
“Raskin said the reason the public hearings haven’t began yet is mostly because of figures in former President Trump’s inner circle who are stonewalling the committee.” Because the friggin Committee refuses to enforce its subpoenas! I predict the Committee will announce it has all the testimony it needs and forgo public hearings and instead issue a toothless “report” that no one will read. Goddammit we’ve been had.
I hope so, my take is they’re planning to announce they have all the testimony they need and therefore don’t need to hold public hearings.
Immunity is small spuds compared to former FBI Director Comey advising POTUS Biden to pardon the dotard in order to heal the divisions in the country. Good god Gertie I thought he had damaged the country enough and just disappeared for evermore in shame but nope he’s back with more bad ideas.
I saw that same story last week, and I doubt they will grant use immunity unless DOJ indicates Clark is not a suspect/target in any criminal investigation (which he might not be, just because bureaucratic in-fighting is not a crime and he never actually sent his dumb letters to any of the subject states). I also don’t think they really need Clark’s testimony because they have multiple cooperating witnesses with first-hand knowledge of what Clark was up to.
And that brings up one issue that I don’t think many people have recognized so far: When other witnesses publicly testify about what the 5th Amendment/executive privilege refuseniks were up to, that testimony is going to go entirely unrebutted. That puts those witnesses in an awkward place, as it’s not especially tenable to explain in public how they understood things went down while also refusing to testify to those facts under oath.
Is it too soon to suggest that those who refuse to appear have in their stead a rubber chicken throttled in a smartfully knotted noose hanging from a handsomely constructed gallows? I’m pretty sure I could round up some Eagle Scouts with the necessary skills.
Not to be blatantly self-promotional but, as a bonus for primetime viewers, might I also suggest that the end of their guestimony be flourished with their novelty effigy departing via a professionally constructed desktop salesman’s sample of my Trebutine® Junior™?
Not exactly how it works. They’re basically in the deposition stage, collecting the testimony (under oath, and with transcripts) in private. Once you have that, then you bring back the subset of witnesses who you want to give the same answers they did in private, but now in public in front of the “jury” of America.
Wanting to understand your point here in the second paragraph:
Are you saying that by witness A taking the fifth, but witness B talks about witness A’s role in the event, then Witness A has effectively hanged him/herself?
hahahaha That sounds just like the motherfucker. Now I have my fingers crossed that that is what happens.
Yes! I genuinely believe she wants to take down the whole party. I don’t think she really cares about political issues right now and sees saving the country from what has become of the GOP as more important than say abortion or taxes. I’m sure she’d also like to inherit a new version of the GOP, but I’m sure she realizes how unlikely that is and would gladly settle for a six figure salary to sit on some board somewhere.
To me, if this results in Dems holding both chambers of Congress then they more than accomplished the task at hand. Yes, getting to the truth is important and I have enough faith in them that they’ll be able to so, but holding onto the House and Senate is what ultimately saves our democracy.
But if it’s not Bernie I won’t get off my ass and vote. And don’t try to extort my vote with that paranoia about the SCOTUS either. After all both parties are the same right?!?!
