Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
lol. It cracks me up that Liz Cheney is now the left's paragon of virtue. Funny how that works. While I really don't have a problem with her voting record I'm not blinded to the fact that she and her family are corrupt and a huge part of the problems that we have in our political system. She's a crook, the democrats are pouring money into her campaign, and she's still going to get killed in her primary. The Ds and Rs are just two wings on the same bird. Case in point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/23/liz-cheney-democrat-crossover/
Based on your past posts I’m going to hazard to guess that your fear of Liz Cheney has more to do w her being an intelligent outspoken woman who has accomplished more in life than you rather than her disdain for your would be king (although that probably has a little to do w your opinion of her). I could be wrong and if so I apologize but I’m going to guess that I’m closer to the truth than you would ever admit.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,991
2,590
1,743
It’s really odd that with your constant claims of needing to question all media wherever the spectrum the come it just happens to be Britt Hume you’re defending.

Seem your skepticism goes right out the door when it’s one of your boys.

“I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides," Brit Hume.”

1. The weren’t all chosen by one party.

Three of the five representatives Kevin Mc Carthy selected for the committee were approved by Nancy Pelosi. Kevin McCarthy decided that Republicans not participate and pulled them Liz Cheney and Adam Kizinger volunteered and Nancy Pelosi accepted their participation in the committee.

2. Cross-examination? In an investigative hearing? News flash. That’s not even a thing in congressional investigative hearings. It’s not a trial. No “cross-examination” in Benghazi hearings.

3. Attempt to present both sides? Benghazi Hearing say hi. I could go on here, but he said he’s never seen it so I only need to provide one example to prove him demonstrably false. Also there is this…
C’mon you should be better than that. Are you really splitting hairs with definition of cross-examination? He is stating, and most normal people can understand, that hearings have people from both parties asking questions. This one does not. So what he said was accurate, but you didn’t like what he said. You called him a liar and his statement was factual.

BTW, Brit has bias no doubt. He is the other side of the coin of Jake Tapper. I prefer those two much more than other news anchors. They may spin the news but rarely, although certainly not never, distort it.

1) Yes, they were all chosen by one party.
2) Yes, Benghazi had Democrats asking questions of witnesses
3) Yes, Dems did present other views during Benghazi. Are you really forgetting about Elijah Cummings?

I am unclear why you think what another poster plays into if what Brit Hume said was factually correct. It does not factor at all.

If his tweet was subject to a “fact-check” - it would be fact-check true. With an explanation that Republicans pulled their people from committee and Pelosi rejected them.
 
Last edited:

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,869
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
hearings have people from both parties asking questions. This one does not.
These hearings have had exactly that. In fact, the questions at the last two hearings (minus a few asked by Bennie Thompson, the chair) have ALL been asked by Republicans. And, perhaps more importantly, answered by Trump supporting Republicans.

Folks keep talking about "the other side" of the story that's not being presented. What could that even be? That all these GOP, Trump voting witnesses are lying under oath about what he did and what he asked them to do? That America deserved it?

What his tweet was doing is telling "normal people" exactly what they want to hear.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,991
2,590
1,743
These hearings have had exactly that. In fact, the questions at the last two hearings (minus a few asked by Bennie Thompson, the chair) have ALL been asked by Republicans. And, perhaps more importantly, answered by Trump supporting Republicans.

Folks keep talking about "the other side" of the story that's not being presented. What could that even be? That all these GOP, Trump voting witnesses are lying under oath about what he did and what he asked them to do? That America deserved it?

What his tweet was doing is telling "normal people" exactly what they want to hear.
I am not arguing if his “tweet was telling people exactly what they want to hear”.

His statement was called a lie and him a liar for making it. It was an accurate statement. It was factual. To claim otherwise is incorrect.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
Lol. Dick’s daughter was born halfway between 3rd and home and you’re claiming she hit a home run. She’s as big of a swamp rat as there is in DC. The funny thing is I’m willing to bet you didn’t care for her much until now:closed:. I could be wrong and if so I apologize but I’m going to guess that I’m closer to the truth than you would ever admit.
So here’s the difference between a cult member and myself. I didn’t/don’t always agree w Liz Cheney’s policies but didn’t know enough about her to form an opinion of whether or not I “cared for her”. I don’t “care/not care” for people through a political lens like it appears you do. What I do admire is her courage. She knew there was risk and she still went against Trump unlike McCarthy who in the days immediately after 1/6 was finally standing up to Trump only to become a coward in the days after. There’s a good chance she loses her seat. While you and I might differ on why she should lose it, the fact remains she could have sat quietly by and not pitched a tent in either camp and retained her GOP leadership position and even risen to speaker in the next decade. She didn’t and now she’s at risk of losing her seat.

Also is irony so dead that you can’t even see that while you criticize Liz for being born between 3rd and home w everything handed to her that you can’t even recognize that your hero and cult leader was born and followed the same path? Are you so devoted that you can’t even see that? But then again it goes back to that same point I made earlier. One is an outspoken, intelligent and independent women. The other is a serial adulterous fool.
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
So here’s the difference between a cult member and myself. I didn’t/don’t always agree w Liz Cheney’s policies but didn’t know enough about her to form an opinion of whether or not I “cared for her”. I don’t “care/not care” for people through a political lens like it appears you do. What I do admire is her courage. She knew there was risk and she still went against Trump unlike McCarthy who in the days immediately after 1/6 was finally standing up to Trump only to become a coward in the days after. There’s a good chance she loses her seat. While you and I might differ on why she should lose it, the fact remains she could have sat quietly by and not pitched a tent in either camp and retained her GOP leadership position and even risen to speaker in the next decade. She didn’t and now she’s at risk of losing her seat.

Also is irony so dead that you can’t even see that while you criticize Liz for being born between 3rd and home w everything handed to her that you can’t even recognize that your hero and cult leader was born and followed the same path? Are you so devoted that you can’t even see that? But then again it goes back to that same point I made earlier. One is an outspoken, intelligent and independent women. The other is a serial adulterous fool.
I’m railing against this sham hearing (I have from day one btw) and the fact that Liz Cheney is suddenly the hero of the left. Talk about irony. As for your dishonest assertion that Trump is my hero go ahead and show me one single post where I have even remotely said anything that could be construed as hero worship for Trump. Just one. Are we to the point that anyone that doesn’t buy the constant stream of BS coming from the democrats is a worshipper of Trump and a cult member? Incredibly friggin’ lazy and dishonest take.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,201
21,206
1,743
C’mon you should be better than that. Are you really splitting hairs with definition of cross-examination? He is stating, and most normal people can understand, that hearings have people from both parties asking questions. This one does not. So what he said was accurate, but you didn’t like what he said. You called him a liar and his statement was factual.

BTW, Brit has bias no doubt. He is the other side of the coin of Jake Tapper. I prefer those two much more than other news anchors. They may spin the news but rarely, although certainly not never, distort it.

1) Yes, they were all chosen by one party.
2) Yes, Benghazi had Democrats asking questions of witnesses
3) Yes, Dems did present other views during Benghazi. Are you really forgetting about Elijah Cummings?

I am unclear why you think what another poster plays into if what Brit Hume said was factually correct. It does not factor at all.

If his tweet was subject to a “fact-check” - it would be fact-check true. With an explanation that Republicans pulled their people from committee and Pelosi rejected them.
Lol. You are a real piece of work.
 

Takeout Slide

Hardcore Troubadour
Nov 10, 2009
2,869
4,460
1,743
Rounding third and heading for Omaha
I am not arguing if his “tweet was telling people exactly what they want to hear”.

His statement was called a lie and him a liar for making it. It was an accurate statement. It was factual. To claim otherwise is incorrect.
I don't pretend to have the historical knowledge to know what every single congressional hearing for the last 50 years has looked like (if you do, good on you), so I'm just relying on your summary of the point of what he was saying:

He is stating, and most normal people can understand, that hearings have people from both parties asking questions. This one does not.

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are Republicans, and both have asked questions. In fact, they've both asked many more questions than almost all of the Democrats on the Committee. So, in reality, this one does.

His tweet was misleading at best.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,991
2,590
1,743
I don't pretend to have the historical knowledge to know what every single congressional hearing for the last 50 years has looked like (if you do, good on you), so I'm just relying on your summary of the point of what he was saying:




Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are Republicans, and both have asked questions. In fact, they've both asked many more questions than almost all of the Democrats on the Committee. So, in reality, this one does.

His tweet was misleading at best.
For someone that doesn’t know the entire story, Brit Hume’s quote does not provide additional context, but the statement below appears factually accurate. Like you, I am not a historian on 50 years, but at least with known recent history it is true.

"I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides," Brit Hume

* “I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party” Pelosi rejected McCarthy’s Republican choices for members on the committee. Pelosi selected Cheney. How is Hume’s statement a lie?

* “No cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides
I assume this is were you are getting at misleading. Cross-examination is probably not correct term. But a poster used Benghazi as an example and there were definitely follow-up questions from Democrats.

But I’ve beat this horse enough and no need to further comment. My reply had nothing to do with questioning legitimacy of Jan 6th hearings. I just found it odd that someone called that factual quote a lie and that news person a “liar”person. Especially with all the crazy tweets and news stories that get posted on this forum.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,835
446
1,713
Not sure if anyone here is familiar with Lawfare Blog, but it's a great political site run by a collection of former/current lawyers. So everything is analyzed from a legal perspective. Anyways it appears last week's testimony changed a lot for them in terms of whether Trump should be prosecuted. The whole thing is worth a read but their summary at the very end is great.

"Trump, as he so often does, has left the country facing a painful dilemma. Attorney General Merrick Garland has no good options, only bad ones. But the bad options are not all equally bad. While we certainly don’t envy Garland and the difficult decision he has to make, we think that, after Tuesday’s testimony, letting Trump off the hook poses a greater threat to American democracy than does prosecuting him."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/cassidy...hanged-our-minds-about-indicting-donald-trump
 
May 4, 2011
3,854
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
For someone that doesn’t know the entire story, Brit Hume’s quote does not provide additional context, but the statement below appears factually accurate. Like you, I am not a historian on 50 years, but at least with known recent history it is true.

"I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides," Brit Hume

* “I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party” Pelosi rejected McCarthy’s Republican choices for members on the committee. Pelosi selected Cheney. How is Hume’s statement a lie?

* “No cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides
I assume this is were you are getting at misleading. Cross-examination is probably not correct term. But a poster used Benghazi as an example and there were definitely follow-up questions from Democrats.

But I’ve beat this horse enough and no need to further comment. My reply had nothing to do with questioning legitimacy of Jan 6th hearings. I just found it odd that someone called that factual quote a lie and that news person a “liar”person. Especially with all the crazy tweets and news stories that get posted on this forum.
Pelosi rejected two of five nominees, meaning she also accepted three of five. McCarthy pulled those three. Pelosi then invited/accepted two other Republicans, one of which is quite conservative. The quote was misleading at best and given the intensity with which you criticize media, I would expect you of all people to see that. It's falling into the same trap implied by the tweet that someone has to be a Trump defender to be a republican.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
For someone that doesn’t know the entire story, Brit Hume’s quote does not provide additional context, but the statement below appears factually accurate. Like you, I am not a historian on 50 years, but at least with known recent history it is true.

"I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides," Brit Hume

* “I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party” Pelosi rejected McCarthy’s Republican choices for members on the committee. Pelosi selected Cheney. How is Hume’s statement a lie?

* “No cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides
I assume this is were you are getting at misleading. Cross-examination is probably not correct term. But a poster used Benghazi as an example and there were definitely follow-up questions from Democrats.

But I’ve beat this horse enough and no need to further comment. My reply had nothing to do with questioning legitimacy of Jan 6th hearings. I just found it odd that someone called that factual quote a lie and that news person a “liar”person. Especially with all the crazy tweets and news stories that get posted on this forum.
Brit’s statement is lacking context and absolutely contains lies.

“or not attempt to present both sides.” This is absolute BS. How many have been invited to testify or subpoenaed but have declined. Flynn kept pleading the 5th.

There has absolutely been an attempt to hear both sides.

1) A 9/11 style bipartisan committee was proposed. McCarthy rejected.

2) A select committee comprised of Ds and Rs was proposed. McCarthy put forward 4 names including 2 in bad faith who sought pardons and would likely be witnesses. Those 2 were rightly rejected and instead of nominating 2 more McCarthy quit so your beef is w him.

3) As numerous posters have repeatedly pointed out several close to Trump have been invited to testify or subpoenaed and have either outright declined or plead the 5th numerous times

You have surely read these previous posts so your insistence that Brit was factual is not correct. He knows all of the above yet speaks the opposite. His audience fell for it.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,835
446
1,713
Brit’s statement is lacking context and absolutely contains lies.

“or not attempt to present both sides.” This is absolute BS. How many have been invited to testify or subpoenaed but have declined. Flynn kept pleading the 5th.

There has absolutely been an attempt to hear both sides.

1) A 9/11 style bipartisan committee was proposed. McCarthy rejected.

2) A select committee comprised of Ds and Rs was proposed. McCarthy put forward 4 names including 2 in bad faith who sought pardons and would likely be witnesses. Those 2 were rightly rejected and instead of nominating 2 more McCarthy quit so your beef is w him.

3) As numerous posters have repeatedly pointed out several close to Trump have been invited to testify or subpoenaed and have either outright declined or plead the 5th numerous times

You have surely read these previous posts so your insistence that Brit was factual is not correct. He knows all of the above yet speaks the opposite. His audience fell for it.
Trump lawyer John Eastman was given a chance to tell Trump's side of the story and instead plead the 5th over 100 times.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
Interesting those who no longer are concerned about Democracy.

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has everything to do with fair and balanced investigation.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
Interesting those who no longer are concerned about Democracy.

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has everything to do with fair and balanced investigation.
Let’s start w some basics.

1) Do you believe that Biden is the duly elected POTUS and there was not fraud to the levels claimed by Trump that would have resulted in a different outcome?

2) Do you believe that what occurred in DC on or around Jan 6th was carried out by supporters of former Pres Trump?

3) what would have been/is the appropriate action that Congress should have taken to determine what happened?
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,712
7,038
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Interesting those who no longer are concerned about Democracy.

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has everything to do with fair and balanced investigation.
There's only one side making this thing "not"fair and balanced... And it's not the side that you're pretending it is...
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
Some of you need to be reminded....

Pelosi Rejects 2 GOP Nominees For The Jan. 6 Panel, Citing The Integrity Of The Probe

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018...the-jan-6-panel-citing-integrity-of-the-probe

Again this isn't about guilt or innocence.

It's also interesting that Pelosi talks about "integrity" when a member of the committee as the Chairman that investigated Trump/Russia repeatedly lied to congress....
 
Last edited:

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
There's nothing stopping your guys from coming and telling their side of the story. Trouble is they'll have to do it under oath. ;)

Why do you defend a hearing that's predetermined with a committee stacked against you? If this were switched you would be outraged and rightfully so.

It's disappointing the number of people who pretend to be non partisan and concerned about democracy at the same time defending dangerous partisan politics.