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.
-
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.
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.
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:
-
2
- Show all
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.
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.
-
6
- Show all
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
. 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.
. 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.
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
-
2
- Show all
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.
"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.
-
2
- Show all
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
"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
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
-
1
-
5
- Show all
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.
“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.
-
3
-
2
- Show all
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?
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?
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....
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:
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.
-
1
- Show all