Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

January 6

January 6 Hearings Reveal More Trump Misconduct, but Was It Incitement?

Plus: Facebook censors information on abortion pills, TikTok provokes the ire of the FCC, and more...

Robby Soave | 6.29.2022 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
dpaphotosfive873955 | od Lamkey - CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom
(od Lamkey - CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom)

As a mob of angry supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building, former President Donald Trump demanded that Secret Service agents take him to the riot. He even tried to grab the wheel of the car in which he was riding. That's according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who worked for Mark Meadows, Trump's final chief of staff. Hutchinson made a surprise appearance at the January 6 committee hearings on Tuesday and described the former's president's allegedly agitated and irresponsible behavior before, during, and after the attack on the Capitol.

Hutchinson told the committee that Trump threw his lunch at a wall when he learned that former Attorney General William Barr had publicly declined to endorse any stolen election claims. "There was ketchup dripping down the wall," she said.

"There was ketchup dripping down the wall." Cassidy Hutchinson says then-President Donald Trump threw his lunch against a wall when he learned of an @AP article in which then-Attorney General William Barr said the DOJ had not found evidence of voter fraud. https://t.co/0WDFU8fj8E pic.twitter.com/A7LiiB8NAL

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 28, 2022

Before giving his speech on January 6, Trump told his aides not to bother checking members of the crowd for weapons, saying "they are not here to hurt me," according to Hutchinson.

Meadows and other senior officials were well aware that mayhem could ensue, according to the Associated Press:

In one gripping scene Hutchinson recalled walking Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani out of the White House when he asked if she was "excited about the 6th."

"We're going to the Capitol, it's going to be great, the president's going to be there, he's going to look powerful," she recalled Giuliani saying.

When she returned inside and told Meadows of that conversation, he told her a lot was going on.

"Things might get real, real bad," Meadows told her, she recalled.

Mick Mulvaney, former acting chief of staff for Trump, described the president's awareness that the protesters were armed as "very, very bad," though it was not a crime for the protesters to carry weapons outside the Capitol; protesting while armed is just the First Amendment plus the Second Amendment.

A stunning 2 hours:

1)Trump knew the protesters had guns
2)He assaulted his own security team
3)There may be a line from ProudBoys to the WH
4)Top aides asked for pardons
5)The commission thinks they have evidence of witness tampering.

That is a very, very bad day for Trump.

— Mick Mulvaney (@MickMulvaney) June 28, 2022

The Dispatch's David French thinks Hutchinson's testimony raises the possibility that Trump could actually be prosecuted for incitement:

First, Trump summoned the mob to Washington. While Trump is hardly the only organizer of the January 6 rally, he did explicitly call his supporters to Washington, and he did so in a way that implied mayhem. On December 19, 2020, he tweeted, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild.

Second, he knew the mob was armed and dangerous. This is Hutchinson's key testimony. If her claims are true, he was so confident that the mob intended him no harm that he wanted to remove the "mags," a key element of presidential security. He didn't just know the mob was armed, he wanted it to be armed.

Third, he not only exhorted the mob to "fight like hell" and march on the Capitol, he reportedly attempted to lead it himself.

As French concedes, however, Trump also exhorted his followers to march "peacefully and patriotically." French describes that comment as "pro forma ass-covering," but the "fight like hell" comment did not actually accompany a command to enter the Capitol—Trump merely instructed his followers to march to the Capitol, which was not a crime, even if Trump knew members of his mob were armed.

Other aspects of Trump's behavior are also under scrutiny. When he learned about the attack on the Capitol, he demanded to be driven to the building. Secret Service refused, prompting Trump to reach for the wheel of the vehicle, according to Hutchinson.

Debates broke out on social media as to whether this detail is actually possible, with some Trumpian figures—including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.)—alleging that it isn't. On the other hand, Trump apparently left the January 6 rally in his SUV, rather than the presidential limo, and was plausibly seated within striking distance of the wheel.

Trump left the Jan. 6 rally in the SUV version of the Beast, fwiw, as opposed to the limo.

He appears to be sitting in the rear passenger seat. Hutchinson testified she was told he grabbed at the wheel, then at the "clavicles" of an agent, as he demanded to go to the Capitol. pic.twitter.com/nTZw48ToD9

— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) June 28, 2022

According to NBC News, the Secret Service is prepared to rebut the charge:

???? A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) June 28, 2022

The January 6 hearings do not constitute a trial, of course: Trump will not be made available to argue his side of the story, or to contradict claims made about him. It is easy for witness testimony to seem damning in the absence of cross-examination. In lieu of that, the public must make do with Trump's response on his social media platform Truth Social, where he blasted Hutchinson as "very negative" and also "bad news," while simultaneously asserting that he hardly knew her.

CNN analyst Chris Cillizza described the revelations as "utterly devastating" for Trump. It has, of course, already been well-established that Trump's false statements about the validity of the 2020 election stoked the mob, and his failure to swiftly condemn the violence was inexcusable. It was so bad that many of his most prominent supporters tried desperately to contact him about it while it was happening. His own family members were aghast.

But the reality of the matter is that there's no middle ground when it comes to Trump. His detractors have overwhelming evidence to support the view that he is one of the most irresponsible public figures in the country's history. His supporters, on the other hand, are pleased with his record—social conservatives just scored their biggest victory in half a century, thanks to Trump's Supreme Court appointments—and won't change their minds just because January 6 is being re-litigated yet again.


FREE MINDS

A spokesperson for Facebook said some posts detailing how to obtain abortion pills were incorrectly taken down. An earlier report by Vice had discovered that Facebook would remove posts containing the phrase "abortion pills can be mailed." When the word abortion was swapped for guns or marijuana, the posts survived, according to the Associated Press.

While that may sound suspicious, Facebook has a broad policy against using the platform to sell or send pharmaceuticals.

Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed. Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We've discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.

— Andy Stone (@andymstone) June 27, 2022


FREE MARKETS

Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr called on Apple and Google to ban TikTok from their app stores due to concerns that the Chinese-owned company could be sharing users' information with its authoritarian government. "It is clear that TikTok poses an unacceptable national security risk due to its extensive data harvesting being combined with Beijing's apparently unchecked access to that sensitive data," wrote Carr in an open letter to Google and Apple.

TikTok is not just another video app.
That's the sheep's clothing.

It harvests swaths of sensitive data that new reports show are being accessed in Beijing.

I've called on @Apple & @Google to remove TikTok from their app stores for its pattern of surreptitious data practices. pic.twitter.com/Le01fBpNjn

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) June 28, 2022

Carr is right that TikTok's massive popularity—it is now the world's most visited website—raises some legitimate national security concerns, given the Chinese government's control over it. As Matthew Yglesias wrote for Slow Boring, China's ability to control the political narrative on TikTok is significant: Government censors can prohibit discussions of certain topics and besiege users with pro-Chinese propaganda. There's already evidence that when it came to the COVID-19 pandemic, the platform did just that.

Of course, the U.S. government is not without its hypocrisies. The Biden administration, as well as members of Congress from both parties, have frequently urged social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to make specific content moderation decisions. The White House repeatedly pressed Facebook, for instance, to take down so-called "misinformation" relating to COVID-19 even though many of the government's talking points on the efficacy of masks and the origins of the disease have proven to be untrue, or more complicated than previously admitted.

It's appropriate to warn the public about the unique challenges posed by Chinese control of a major social media company. At the same time, the U.S. has handled its social media companies in increasingly illiberal ways.


QUICK HITS

  • Authorities have charged two Mexican nationals in connection with the deaths of 51 migrants who perished from extreme heat inside a tractor-trailer in San Antonio.
  • Turkey is okay with adding Finland and Sweden to NATO.
  • A judge has sentenced Ghislaine Maxwell to 20 years in prison for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually assault underage women.
  • Some Medieval Times employees want to unionize the company.
  • A Boston Globe article claims that there's an epidemic of "roofied" drinks at Boston bars—which is almost certainly false.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Arizona’s New Law Funds Students, Not Just Government-Run Schools

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

January 6Reason RoundupSocial MediaFacebookCapitol RiotDonald TrumpTrump Administration
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (686)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    He even tried to grab the wheel of the car in which he was riding.

    AFTER HE LUNGED FOR THE NUCLEAR FOOTBALL.

    1. Dennis   3 years ago

      I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
      Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/

    2. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

      There was something extremely wrong going on and he was prevented from going there to fix it. Trump panicked and wanted to go on site, even mildly fighting with his guards because he saw how bad things were getting.

      It wouldn't have worked. Even Dr King was unable to calm the I am a Man riot, but I can say that is a surprisingly humanizing element in this whole situation.

      1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        When he learned about the attack on the Capitol, he demanded to be driven to the building. Secret Service refused, prompting Trump to reach for the wheel of the vehicle, according to Hutchinson.

        Isn't this completely at odds with the idea that he "refused to do anything" to stop the crowd, as well? That was one of the big things they used as damning evidence, the fact that people told him to make a statement and he refused and waited for hours and hours, but now we learn he was trying to get there in person. Was he perhaps trying to get there to calm the crowd? Him physically being present would surely be more effective than sending out a tweet to a crowd that might not be watching twitter at the time.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Consistency in leftist narratives is more of a guideline than rule.

          1. Nachtwaechter Staater   3 years ago

            Word.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Contradictions are more entertaining, and daring, for the propaganda squad.

              1. waxliberty   3 years ago

                It is not remotely contradictory. (Nor a "leftist narrative", eyeroll.)

                Trump literally promised in his speech he would be there to lead the mob and "confront the assault on democracy" (meaning of course, lead the assault on democracy). See verbatim below. He wanted a show of force and support to help provide cover for the pushes on Justice and a new slate of electors. 'The people were demanding it' etc., per his statement just this week.

                The secret service told him the situation was unsafe and volatile. No one is saying Trump's urgency to be there came from him wanting to stop the crowd(!) What an amazing interpretation.

                1. dekolaf877   3 years ago

                  I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (vsg-06) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line

                  visiting this site.

                  >>>>>>>>>> https://usa-income-withus.blogspot.com

          2. Will Sowell   3 years ago

            Honest for rules for the radicals insurrection admin ;particularly Bitem, sniffem and grabem, Pelousi, Schmitt, linkcheney, schooner, et all is no considered. Baal runs them all, rules are made to be trashed when they realize they are sinking into their own shithole. Good riddance, finally!

        2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          "Was he perhaps trying to get there to calm the crowd?"

          What evidence is there that that was his intent?

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            What evidence is there of any intent?

            1. waxliberty   3 years ago

              See above and below.

          2. DesigNate   3 years ago

            About the same amount you have that he meant to overthrow the government and was commanding those morons to do so.

            1. waxliberty   3 years ago

              I see we're pretending they didn't actually write down their intent to do exactly that. How servile.

        3. Overt   3 years ago

          The evidence right now is that this didn't happen. The witness claiming this happen was speaking hearsay- saying she was told this is what happened. The Secret Service Officer in Charge and the person who allegedly told her this have both said they will testify under oath that this didn't happen.

          There is no need to analyze Trump here. It didn't happen and everyone who continues to repeat this shit (including detractors and the Reason staff) is letting a propaganda effort drive their worldview.

          1. Brett Bellmore   3 years ago

            Exactly. Not that Reason will care.

          2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            But it's just that there's competing narratives anyway. He wasn't doing anything. Actually, he was doing something, but he was rabidly trying to get there. He attacked the Secret Service. Next we're going to learn that he went to the Dark Web and put a bouncy on Mike Pence's scalp.

          3. waxliberty   3 years ago

            The 'lunge for the wheel' part. They are reportedly likely to confirm Trump's urgency to go to the Capitol. (Not obvious either of these are particularly critical.)

            1. Gary Triest   3 years ago

              Ya.
              Lunged for the wheel, while set back in the vehicle and separated from the driver's area by plexiglas barrier.

              1. waxliberty   3 years ago

                That's incorrect. Per video they were in the SUV not the beast, seats are closer together.

                Still, if the secret service agents testify there was no 'lunge', the story is probably an exaggeration of Trump's agitation about wanting to be with his mob.

        4. waxliberty   3 years ago

          "Was he perhaps trying to get there to calm the crowd?"

          Just want to marvel at what an amazing alternative universe you must live in to ask this doe-eyed question.

          Through your sympathy I can feel the weight of the event on Trump's shoulders – can't we all just get along, celebrate the peaceful transfer of power in this great nation together? I have a dream...

          "Him physically being present would surely be more effective than sending out a tweet to a crowd that might not be watching twitter at the time"

          That makes so much sense. And quite thoughtful of Trump – many of the rioters were live-streaming as they dragged cops out into the crowd so they wouldn't have been able to check twitter at all. Tweeting to calm things could have made things worse so it was rather noble of him to not do so.

          1. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

            What other thing could it be? Trump wasn't going to go there and personally lead a revolution. That wasn't necessary in his mind because he thought he had legitimately won.

            If he wanted to go (which I find likely, though I find the fighting with people absurd, especially given the contrary first-hand statements) it would be a "stop this, you are hurting our side". Everyone who was in charge knew just how bad it looked. No one except Pelosi wanted that riot

            1. waxliberty   3 years ago

              >> What other thing could it be? Trump wasn't going to go there and personally lead a revolution."

              Thanks for sharing thoughts, but wow such amazing takes here. He projected the 'stolen election' play months in advance, told supporters to come because "it's going to be wild", and *literally in his own speech* said:

              "Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated"

              "I'll be there with you". Of course he wanted to be there, he promised he would be! The core reason would be clear– this was his crowd, he wants to be there, be in the center of it. We know he's obsessed with size of crowds and the cult of personality around him. That will be the core of it – his people are there, they want to see him, he needs to be there to inspire them and to gather/attract as much strength as possible to provide the pressure he thought he needed as air cover for the important thrusts of the coup attempt (the dual initiatives around Justice Dept and new slates of electors, wanting Congress alternately paralyzed or energized to act for him).

              Even today he writes "The truth is that Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. in massive numbers (but seldom revealed by the press), on January 6th, 2021, to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the Election".

              >> That wasn't necessary in his mind because he thought he had legitimately won.

              Respect you really believe this but again just seems amazingly naive. The lining of truth maybe is that we know Trump is prone to *both* promote *and* easily believe conspiracy claptrap going back to birther stuff, so maybe his famous pre-election predictions of fraud against him were not just manipulation (maintaining the illusion that he is an eternal winner to his followers) but also ego protection (deep issues with being a 'killer' in father's eyes etc.)

              Though he does slip sometimes, because he can't help but want to take credit with his skill with manipulation (e.g. "that beautiful word disinformation").

              >>I find the fighting with people absurd

              Why? He's famously prone to tantrums of various sorts. This one may be misinterpreted but likely he had many throughout this day.

              "Everyone who was in charge knew just how bad it looked. No one except Pelosi wanted that riot"

              Clearly wrong. There are multiple accounts from people close to Trump that he wanted the pressure to play out, he thought Pence deserved the threats etc. He craves above all else a show of his popularity and power, and wanted support to buttress claims that not re-electing him will be something wrong that requires action.

              And why is it bad for him? The MSM will say mean things? That's been continual fodder for the martyr posturing and grievance signaling fueling the movement. In practice Jan 6 helped cement the Big Lie in the GOP – *successfully*. Sure, supporters here floated a dozen trial balloons just to cover bases (it's antifa, it's an MSM hoax, it's a peaceful tour, it's the FBI and Epps) just to cover bases but at the end of the day *if* the Big Lie is true then of course you need an insurrection.

              While some of the GOP politicians like McCarthy wobbled, what ultimately landed and solidified is that the American right decided to go all in on Big Lie (with leaders though leaders across the party know it is a lie.

          2. Gary Triest   3 years ago

            NOW you are beginning to understand.
            See, there is a cure for TDS afterall.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        What evidence is there that Trump wanted to go there "to fix it"?

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          What evidence is there he didn't?

          1. waxliberty   3 years ago

            Your web feeds likely aren't covering the Jan 6 hearings, but pretty easy to find summaries online.

            Mostly, the evidence at this point is that Richard Epps coordinated the whole thing, as you know well. MSM isn't commenting on it much, but Epps was there in the beast for the ride with Trump back to the west wing *and* has been standing directly behind most of the 'witnesses' throughout the hearing proceedings. So it's pretty cut and dry.

            1. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

              Considering that they are allowing flat-out hearsay as testimony (including extremely dubious statements that first-hand accounts contradict), and there is no cross-examination of witness or a defense, I find the entire hearing untrustworthy to the point of propaganda.

              1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                Hearsay that nobody claims is anything more than hearsay.

        2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

          How do we even know this story is true?

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Everyone she's claiming to cite is calling her a liar and saying they never said anything of the sort.

            She's going to be set for life though for doing this.

            1. Jerryskids   3 years ago

              She's as big a hero as Micheal Avenatti.

              1. BigT   3 years ago

                Another Christine Blasey Ford!

                How soon they forget.

            2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Until she crosses the Clintons. And then, well, you know.

          2. waxliberty   3 years ago

            Which story, the coup attempt overall? Read the Eastman memo, find a source online offering a summary of the Jan 6 hearings to date.

    3. damikesc   3 years ago

      Lots of writing about the claims...then a quick addition of "Well, the Secret Service is offering to rebut her testimony under oath".

      Not sure the benefit of pure, 100% hearsay evidence from a witness, but it worked for some.

      And I love that SHE had to clean up the mess. Because the WH, as is known, is lacking in staff who do that.

      1. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

        The hearings are essentially a prosecutorial brief submitted to the court of public opinion without a defense response. You can judge how worthwhile such an exercise is yourself.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          True. It's a Democratic show. But also keep in mind that key Republican leaders declined an invitation to participate, because they wanted to be able to say that it is just a Democratic show.

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            No they didn't. Pelosi rejected the members they selected dummy.

            Stop lying.

            1. SRG   3 years ago

              After McCarthy offered a GOP slate in bad faith, partly consisting as it did of representatives who would be of interest to the investigation, like Gym Jordan.

              Stop misleading.

              1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                How does a minority party responsible for picking their own committee members present their choices in bad faith? Lol.

                What an idiotic take.

                Any member of congress there that day is a potential witness you fucking idiot. Stop being leftist excuses.

                1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                  I see you’re it’s not just abortion threads SRG is a raging douche canoe in.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                And the fact that the committee is going after people not even in d.c. that day, everyone was a potential witness.

                Lol. Leftist gullibility is hilarious.

                1. Joe Brandon Tea-Dee-ess   3 years ago

                  DAMN! J destroying you shills today! Boom!

              3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

                Gym Jordan

                Truly, he is the boss of this gym.

              4. damikesc   3 years ago

                I love the whole "It's the Republicans fault that the Democrats have run a God awful committee to date".

                If the committee appeared to be competent and not a witch hunt, then the GOP involvement would have been immaterial.

                But they could not do that.

          2. damikesc   3 years ago

            "True. It's a Democratic show. But also keep in mind that key Republican leaders declined an invitation to participate, because they wanted to be able to say that it is just a Democratic show."

            No, they refused because it was a Democrat show where the Democrats decided what members of the other party could participate.

            1. DesigNate   3 years ago

              I don’t understand why Mike keeps pushing this lie that is easily refutable. But he’s totes a libertarian.

        2. damikesc   3 years ago

          What is irritating is that the press KEEPS GIVING THEM BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. They disbelieve Trump because he "lies", but his critics have lied more than he did and every fucking time, they take it seriously.

          It makes the press look like fucking morons.

      2. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Jeff seems to have bought it.

      3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Lots of writing about the claims...then a quick addition of "Well, the Secret Service is offering to rebut her testimony under oath".

        This is straight from the DNC's Kavanagh playbook. It doesn't actually matter that the wild claims were immediately rebutted. The important part is that they got them in the headlines and the public's heads.

        1. BigT   3 years ago

          Christine Blasey Ford rises again.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            Believe her! Any her!

      4. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

        I am honestly convinced that if someone testified under oath that Trump gave the Japanese critical intelligence that lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor, there would be morons who believed it!

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          How is that different from when a liberal has "feelz"?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Lol, wow. You really are this dumb.

          2. DesigNate   3 years ago

            Hahahahahahahaha holy shit man

        2. Nardz   3 years ago

          See: the "gorilla channel" prank

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Dee hasn’t seen a signed affidavit that that story wasn’t true so she still believes it.

          2. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

            I'd forgotten about that.

      5. damikesc   3 years ago

        UPDATE: Secret Service indicates the Committee did not invite them to rebut her testimony.

        Yup, not a fucking clown show.

    4. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      He was just trying to grab him by the pussy.

    5. Nardz   3 years ago

      Robby is a boot licking little bitch

      1. Yatusabes   3 years ago

        He is all of 34 years of age.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          He's lived too long

        2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          So, almost grown up (in liberal years).

      2. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

        Watch his "Rising" videos for The Hill on Youtube. At Reason I think only Tuccille might be less left wing.

        1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          Yeah, I think that Soave seems to have a conservative streak in him.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Not in the slightest.
            He occasionally admits the reality of some story contra the uniform leftist lies, while lying along with them on others, precisely so people will give him undue credit for not being a leftist, as you do here.
            It's a transparent con.
            Now posters here bend over backwards to defend his "credibility" so he can continue lying about the important things.

          2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

            What about Goth Emo Fonzi?

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              He’s a hipster contrarian.

            2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

              No, he is really, really not conservative in any way.

    6. CE   3 years ago

      He attempted to drive his own car.
      This time they've got him.

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Serious question (and, admittedly not that relevant): Does Trump know how to drive a car?

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Ah, found the answer: He does, although he hasn't practiced in quite a while.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Seek help.

    7. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

      "AFTER HE LUNGED FOR THE NUCLEAR FOOTBALL"
      That's nothing. I heard Joe Biden tried to 'sack' Rachel Levine.

      1. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

        Then he got a whiff of Old Spice.

      2. American Mongrel   3 years ago

        I heard it the other way.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Hutchinson told the committee that Trump threw his lunch at a wall when he learned that former Attorney General William Barr had publicly declined to endorse any stolen election claims.

    As long as he didn't have to eat his salad with a comb.

    1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

      Maybe the fries were cold.

  3. mad.casual   3 years ago

    underage women

    Earth: Watch this! I'm going to call men women and see if I can get away with it.
    Robby: Hold my cosmo.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      Woman: adult female human. So underage women are still adults, but somehow, at the same time, not adults?

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        Robby is greasing the wheels for Reason to go full pedo promoting

        1. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

          Hey, how else are they gonna get that check from NAMBLA?

      2. Zeb   3 years ago

        There are different definitions for adult. The legal one is pretty arbitrary. Reproductive maturity, which generally happens before age 18 is probably a better dividing line between childhood and womanhood.

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          Zeb, take a step back man, I get and agree with your assertion,but are you really trying to soften the definition of 'minor', 'woman', 'ability to consent' in the context of Epstein Island? Are you really firing a shot from a hill you're willing to die on?

          1. Zeb   3 years ago

            Hey, sometimes I don't want to get into culture war battles and just want to be pedantic on the internet.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              Pick your spots better.
              Here you appear to suggest 12 year old girls should be legally considered adults.
              I doubt that's what you're going for, but it's what your pedantic statement implies in this instance.

              1. mad.casual   3 years ago

                Here you appear to suggest 12 year old girls should be legally considered adults.

                And very distinctly to the tune of "Aqualung" rather than "Jack And Diane".

        2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          I think this is just attempting to split his words too much. The daily links are not edited much and are thrown together quickly.

        3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          Though, I am fine with laws being arbitrary for the sake of being clear. That's more a prudential thing in my book. Is that line 18, 17, 16, 19, 20, 21? I don't know. I'm fine with 18 but if California sets it at 19 I don't give a shit. There's a range here reasonable people can argue over.

          But having clear definitions that can be understood easily is a huge virtue and in law that often includes arbitrary definitions.

          Though, I am a big fan of the idea of a single age of majority after which you have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. None of this, 18 for voting, military, sex, but 21 for drinking. If we want to make adulthood 21, fine, but I think we need to not be so wishy-washy towards adulthood.

      3. mad.casual   3 years ago

        I kinda wanna see Robby ask post-partum ENB if underage women can make sandwiches.

        1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          Good God I would PPV $50 for that.

        2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          "Rob-bay!?! WTF?"

        3. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          How much would her placenta auction for among the commentariat?

  4. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    1) Trump knew the protestors had guns

    Except...they didn't. If a single firearm had been found on January 6th, that would have been the sole headline for the last year and a half.

    But no one was armed with more than flags and ridiculous costumes.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Before giving his speech on January 6, Trump told his aides not to bother checking members of the crowd for weapons, saying "they are not here to hurt me," according to Hutchinson.

      though it was not a crime for the protesters to carry weapons outside the Capitol;

      So...not he "knew," simply he didn't care one way or the other because it wasn't illegal.

      That's a huge fucking difference, you lying hack.

      1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        Yup. And him not wanting to search the crowd for weapons is a stance you take when you're backed by a pro 2A crowd that might get offended at being searched. In fact, someone might ask if other Trump rallies and protests have involved similar instructions about not screening for weapons because it might have been completely standard.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          It's a good question. Unfortunately, any search I have managed to concoct in Google for whether MAGA rallies screen for weapons ends up just bringing up hit after hit talking about yesterday's testimony.

          1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

            Hey, I wonder if there might be something wrong with the Google search algorithm? Doesn't seem possible though.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              If you’re implying that there’s something fishy about Google’s algorithms Dee’s gonna need a cite.

          2. DeAnnP   3 years ago

            During the testimony yesterday they played police radio transmission that talked about spotting people with weapons.

            1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              To be more clear, I’m curious whether it is standard practice at _other_ MAGA rallies to check for weapons.

              1. R Mac   3 years ago

                Nobody cares.

            2. DesigNate   3 years ago

              Weapons that disappeared into the wind and were, for some unknown reason, not used at the Capitol riot.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        The woman's entire "testimony" was lies, but Robby's here to spread regime agitprop.
        May he receive the consequences he deserves, and cease to be.

      3. Ronbback   3 years ago

        though it was not a crime for the protesters to carry weapons outside the Capitol;"
        thats Bs its illegal to have guns in DC not just the capitol. I fhtye had had guns thy would have been arrested, where is teh crime

        1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          That's the thing. There were no guns. There is literally no evidence of guns, only hearsay about rumors of guns. If a single firearm was ID'ed on January 6th (other than the cop who shot an unarmed woman), its owner would be tracked to the ends of the earth and frogmarched down Constitution Avenue. It would be the only thing we'd hear about for months or longer.

          There were no guns.

          1. Cronut   3 years ago

            Even the guys who are currently charged with sedition keep their guns out of DC. There's zero evidence that anyone brought guns.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      It is so bad white Mike has to link to an instance 6 hours after the riot by a Maryland resident.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        That was funny.

        "B-b-but he had a couple properly stored in his truck in a parking lot miles away, it DOES count! (technically)"

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          He has a second one now, that occurred after Bowser implemented curfew. Guy wasn't even at the riot, but was interested in looking at things after it died down. Had a weapon on him. But again, hours after the riot.

    3. mpercy   3 years ago

      And the occasional fire extinguisher.

    4. SRG   3 years ago

      But no one was armed with more than flags and ridiculous costumes.

      Liar

      https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        The fact this is interjected shows the bias

        An additional suspect also allegedly planted pipe bombs by the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties the night before the riot and remains at large.

        The fact everyone now ignores that story is telling.

        Likewise for an entire summer the left defended bats, shields, fireworks, lasts, smoke bombs, ice water bottles, etc as not weapons. Weird how your definitions changed.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          TDS is a terrible disease. Apparently not fatal, but it destroys the ability to reason and any sense of objectivity.

    5. IceTrey   3 years ago

      There were guns but they were possessed by leftists who were let go.

  5. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

    How bummed do you suppose Lizzie is about the conviction of her hero, role model, and soul sister Ghislaine Maxwell?

    My guess is she couldn't do the morning links today because she's probably too distraught to even get out of bed.

    1. Super Scary   3 years ago

      She may be pre-writing the article about her "committing suicide" à la Epstein.

  6. mad.casual   3 years ago

    Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr called on Apple and Google to ban TikTok from their app stores due to concerns that the Chinese-owned company could be sharing users' information with its authoritarian government.

    I blame Trump.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Tic toc was created for the same reason Google was created, so respective governments can have an easier job spying on people. The only difference is the chinks flat out say they are totalitarian, while the CIA says the care about freedom and democracy

  7. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Wow. Reason actually put the accusations at the forefront and not the fact it unraveled almost immediately.

    First her testimony was hearsay with parts of it being hearsay if hearsay. Then she said trump grabbed the wheel of The Beast. Which the driver is separated from the president, she did not say a suburban. Then she lied about writing a note, trumps lawyer wrote it. Then she talked about AR-15s with protestors despite thousands of photos and no weapons found.

    Her story and testimony was less credible than Balsey Ford.

    And the first half of the roundup uncritically cites the testimony. Lol.

    Wow reason. Way to throw the last inkling of principles away.

    Every principle actor involved in what she testified about denies it. This is the Trump veterans statement all over again. Way to fall for lies Reason.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      See you admit she is as credible of the super brave blasy Ford!

      1. mpercy   3 years ago

        Watched a few minutes of this yesterday, felt the same way: this is someone who allowed herself to be manipulated into "testifying" for the show of it. Perhaps she had a grudge that made it easier.

        But believable? Not at all. Hearsay of hearsay and wholly improbable situations, not to mention immediate contradictory statements by first-hand accounts.

        Same as Ms Ford.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          I loved the part where she said trump tried to kill her with his optical blasts

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            "Mom! He's looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!"

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Looks like pretty much her entire testimony is nothing but bald faced lies. But Robbie is right on board. The stench of desperation is palpable but Robbie is as excited as a schoolgirl. Pathetic.

    3. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      I think she also said bigfoot was in the crowd somewhere while the lock Ness monster was stalking the reflecting pool waiting for his moment to pounce.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        Pence wouldn't get in the SUV because he knew chupacabra was in there.

    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      How dare Reason simply state what Hutchinson claimed. Why, Reason is supposed to deflect on behalf of Team Red if it means destroying Team Blue. Every issue that has the potential of making Republicans look bad should be framed in the best possible light. Every issue that has the potential of making Democrats look bad should be framed in the worst possible light. Reason's job is to be a loyal footsoldier in the Team Red coalition and not engage in these silly anachronisms like simply telling its readers what Hutchinson said.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        And Jeff rushes to the defense ignoring all the extra information denying these claims or not thinking critically about why the committee chose hearsay instead of direct testimony from those there.

        Keep defending this shit sea lion.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          We have sworn testimony under oath depicting Hutchinson's claims.
          Where are your citations that disprove her claims?

          Oh wait you don't have any.

          Because it doesn't matter if she is right or wrong. What matters more is to smear her as a liar, because that deflects on behalf of Team Red and pushes the pro-Team Red narrative, whether or not she really is a liar.

          Now I fully acknowledge the possibility that she may have lied. But I would like some tangible evidence for this claim, because I am not a Team Red shill like you are.

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            We have sworn testimony under oath depicting Hutchinson's claims.

            Lol cite? We have testimony of her hearsay of those claims.

            These agents have ready testified under oath and were continuing to assist. The committee did not use any of their testimony or ask then to speak despite them using clips of other depositions during the hearing. Ask yourself why jeff. Ask yourself why they immediately came out willing to dispute this in testimony.

            You read have capability for critical thought jeff. Just whatever the left tells you to believe.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Hutchinson made her claims under oath, before Congress.
              All the people who are now claiming that she is wrong, have not (yet) provided testimony under oath and have offered no tangible evidence that her claims are false.

              And let's see: you believe the people claiming she is a liar over her sworn testimony. Got it. Because you shill for Team Red.

              1. JimboJr   3 years ago

                "you believe the people claiming she is a liar over her sworn testimony"

                Blasey Ford put out sworn testimony too. It turns out, when the entire govt apparatus and media conglomerate are backing you and will call you a brave truth teller (despite evidence to the contrary) lying under oath is much lower stakes.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  Right. So because one person may have lied under oath at some point, then everyone who says something under oath that we don't like must be lying. That is solid logic there.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Jeff, you continue to ignore the agents already have testified under oath and were assisting the committee. Why?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Where is the agents' testimony? I'd like to read that.

                      It could be, that the agents were interviewed already but were never asked about a so-called "lunge". So it is entirely possible that both the agents and Hutchinson are telling the truth based on their statements and the questions that they were asked.

                      I don't know what the actual truth is, but I'd like to have more information before declaring anyone to be a LIAR.

                      Unlike you, who doesn't need more information to form a rational judgment, all he needs is whatever the pro-Team-Red narrative is for the day.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      So when the Secret Service testifies under oath to the contrary as they have offered, will you ask your boss for a transfer to fifty-cent elsewhere?

                      Video in the link:

                      ABC's @PierreTABC
                      : "A source close to the Secret Service just told me to expect that the secret service will push back against any allegation of an assault against an agent or President Trump reaching for the steering wheel."

                      https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1541921846119079936

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff. You are literally using the J6 commottee not releasing evidence for proof they didn't testify?

                      Lol.

                      Only one side is asking for full testimony to be released. It isnt your side.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      I would like the full testimony released. I would like all of the information released.

                    5. R Mac   3 years ago

                      And who is refusing to release it all Lefty Jeffy?

                    6. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      But until all evidence is released youre taking the side of the leftists it appears. Defendonf them here ardently for hearsay that has known incorrect facts in the testimony.

                  2. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                    It's hearsay, Jeff.

                    When is hearsay admissible as evidence? Here are the 23 Federal exceptions. I don't see her testimony in any of them.

                    https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/

                    But it's a nice addition to the show. Perry Mason would be proud.

              2. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

                All the people who are now claiming that she is wrong, have not (yet) provided testimony under oath

                And they won't be called, because the committee knows they'll undermine the narrative.

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Jeff is just a fucking partisan idiot.

                  1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                    He makes up for it by being a retarded fat sack of shit though.

                    Also, I would really appreciate it if you guys would not call cytotoxic by his sock name. Whenever you reply to him, just refer to him as cytotoxic. It's a good reminder of his meltdown 6 years ago.

                    1. R Mac   3 years ago

                      Lying cytotoxic just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

                    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                      How's it goin', Tulpa.

                    3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      No, I'm Tulpa, sarcasmic.

                    4. Super Scary   3 years ago

                      No, I'm Spartacus!

                2. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                  Gee, almost like this isn't a trial, court proceeding, or hearing, and being "under oath" means as much as telling Santa you were a good boy this year.

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  Perhaps they won't be called. But let's at least hear their evidence in some form before declaring she's a LIAR, wouldn't you say?

                  1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                    We should believe her hearsay uncritically and just accept that everything she said was the truth unless and until every single person on staff in the Trump white house provides hard copies of oral conversations. That about right, fat fuck?

                    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                      There's this thing called "reserving judgement". Non-partisans that aren't on Team Red or Team Blue can simply reserve judgement and be OK with it being uncertain what really happened.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff and you have already made your judgements.

                      The rest of us see hearsay being chosen by the committee over direct testimony. Non idiots can figure out why.

                      You two idiots seem to be defending the J6 committee selective releases. The other side is demanding dull releases of all evidence. Non idiots can figure out why.

                    3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      ""Non-partisans that aren't on Team Red or Team Blue can simply reserve judgement and be OK with it being uncertain what really happened.""

                      Which is why non-partisans don't give a crap about these hearings.

                    4. Nardz   3 years ago

                      There's nothing surprising about lying totalitarian leftists collectivistjeff and Mike laursen defending a stalinist show trial.
                      Truly evil, literally cancer.

                  2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    I already gave you evidence regarding the note. Look at the image, it is more likely male handwriting and the lawyer in question already testified under oath he wrote the note.

                    Now we go back to the other evidence you continue to ignore. The driver and SS agents have already testified under oath in depositions. None of them confirmed Hutchinsons secondary claims. All of them are willing to go publicly under oath to do so. The person who Hutchinson claims told her has denied it and is willing to say so under oath.

                    But keep pretending hearsay under oath is more credible than the above.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Look at the image, it is more likely male handwriting

                      From your "expert handwriting analysis", is that so?

                      and the lawyer in question already testified under oath he wrote the note.

                      How do we know he is correct but she is lying? Maybe she is correct and he is lying.

                      The driver and SS agents have already testified under oath in depositions. None of them confirmed Hutchinsons secondary claims.

                      Do we know for a fact they were interviewed?
                      If so, do we know what's in their depositions?
                      Do we know for a fact that they were even asked about a so-called "lunge"? They can't confirm something they were never asked about in the first place.

                      All of them are willing to go publicly under oath to do so.

                      They haven't yet done so, have they? So how do we know right now what their objections are going to be, in the future? Can you read their minds?

                      The person who Hutchinson claims told her has denied it and is willing to say so under oath.

                      Okay, so let's hear what this person has to say and evaluate the evidence before declaring anyone to be a LIAR. THAT is my point.

                      That is not you, however, who does not care about the facts, only about deflecting for Team Red.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Well, she said under oath that Trump was in the Beast, but the Jan 6 Committee Video Shows President Trump was in an SUV after the rally, not the Beast.

                      https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1541880997364568064

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff, you are defending a really stupid stance.

                      When everyone involved with direct evidence comes out to publicly refute hearsay and say they will do so under oath, it generally means the hearsay is wrong.

                      You saying "wait and see" is just a means to keep a false story in the news for a cycle so you can get your lefty win.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      When everyone involved with direct evidence comes out to publicly refute hearsay and say they will do so under oath, it generally means the hearsay is wrong.

                      It could mean that. Or it could mean that both parties are correct, from their own point of view.

                      You saying "wait and see" is just a means to keep a false story in the news for a cycle so you can get your lefty win.

                      And this is where Jesse admits, in his own way, that he has no response to the arguments that I presented.

                      The fact of the matter is, you don't really know who is lying and who is telling the truth, but you don't care, the goal here for you is not to discover the truth, the goal is to push the Team Red narrative.

                    5. rswallen   3 years ago

                      > It could mean that. Or it could mean that both parties are correct, from their own point of view.

                      If jesse is saying "jeff told me X" and jeff says "no, I didn't tell Jesse that", they cannot both be correct

              3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Jeff. You really are retarded aren't you?

                Her claims were to hearsay. The people directly involved have already testified under path in depositions. The committee chose to use her hearsay.

                Can you think about this for a second and ask yourself why?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  The people directly involved have already testified under path in depositions.

                  They did? Herschmann testified under oath? The SS agents testified under oath? Where are their depositions?

                  1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                    Yeah, fat fuck, they did. Find them yourself, sealion. Or you could just keep copy-pasting from the ActBlue PDF and insist that hearsay that confirms your biases is true while hearsay that contradicts your biases must be rigorously studied for accuracy and veracity. I bet I know which one you'll do, you fat fucking lardass piece of shit.

                    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                      So, you've got nuthin' and you attempt to use personal insult as a smokescreen to cover that you've got nuthin'.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Hey Laursen, you want to double down on that?

                      With your winning track record I'm sure you do.

                  2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Yes. Stop arguing from ignorance. They have all testified in depositions dummy.

                    Ask yourself why the J6 committee chose to not use their depositions dummy. Maybe think critically. You're almost there.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Okay, so if the agents did give depositions, what's in the depositions? Let's figure out what they said.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Tony Ornato is denying that he told Cassidy Hutchinson Trump grabbed the steering wheel in presidential vehicle on 1/6 or lunged at a fellow agent, a USSS official tells @joshscampbell

                      CNN confirms that Ornato & Enger are prepared to testify that neither incident occurred.

                      CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz:

                      Shimon Prokupecz @ShimonPro
                      UPDATE: A Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Tony Ornato denies telling Cassidy Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.
                      https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1541938642918178819

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff, you're so close to being a grade school critical thinker.

                      Why did the J6 committee choose hearsay over direct witness testimony. Mouth it out buddy.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      A Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Tony Ornato denies telling Cassidy Hutchinson that the former president grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.

                      Oh. Well, so Tony Ornato denies TELLING her that Trump tried to grab the wheel. He's not denying that Trump tried to grab the wheel, he's denying that he told Hutchinson that Trump tried to grab the wheel. Got it.

                    5. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      "'Oh. Well, so Tony Ornato denies TELLING her that Trump tried to grab the wheel. He's not denying that Trump tried to grab the wheel, he's denying that he told Hutchinson that Trump tried to grab the wheel. Got it."

                      Wow.

                      Is rehetorical word games with how I constructed a sentence really all you have left?

                      You're amazingly pathetic.

                  3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

                    A”witness” is someone who personally saw something, you dimwitted clown. Not someone who hears from someone who heard from their boyfriends cousin about Ferris at 31 Flavors

              4. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                All the people who are now claiming that she is wrong, have not (yet) provided testimony under oath

                Because they haven't been called to testify, and won't be called to testify, because this is not a trial, nor is it a hearing, it's a press conference where there is no defense, no counter-party, and no ability for anyone besides Nancy Pelosi's handpicked panel with not a single member proposed by the Republican party seated.

                And let's see: you believe provable lies because they were given "under oath" even though this is not a court proceeding, trial, or hearing. Got it. Because you shill for Team Blue. And also are a fat retarded piece of shit.

                She still lost, cytotoxic. Eat that L like a box of Twinkies you obese lardass tub of shit.

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  They actually all have already testified under oath in depositions. Schiff was even asked why the depositions weren't used on CNN after the hearing yesterday.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                    Wait, you watch CNN?

                    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff, I don't argue from ignorance. I tend to watch clips of things from both sides all the time. That is why i always know what stupid argument you're going to use. Only one of us outright dismisses all information from the other side. I find both arguments useful to know, but then parse for what is probably true. I'm not a partisan like you buddy.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      I do, and I read DNC organs like Salon, Slate and the New York Times. I just don't rely on them for my beliefs like you do.

                  2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                    Wasn't parody enough for Schiff.

                2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                  Let's not forget that Republican congressional leaders decline to participate in the hearings because they wanted to be able to point to them and tell their base that it is simply a Democratic show. They could have chosen to be there, asking questions.

                  1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    The Democrats refused the Republican Party's selection and picked their own.
                    Stop lying about what happened.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      The Republicans refused the Democrats' initial offer to have a bipartisan commission in which Republicans would have had substantially more power to call witnesses and issue subpoenas than they could have had with this committee.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Still lying about what happened. The Republicans presented picks for a bipartisan commission. The Democrats turned them down.

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      It is amazing watching Jeff and White Mike continue to lie about this.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      No, ML, there were two types of investigations under consideration.

                      The first was a bipartisan 9/11-style commission. In this commission, membership would have been equally split with each party choosing its own members. Democrats proposed that, but Republicans turned it down.

                      The next was the current committee that we see. This committee gave Nancy Pelosi veto power over all the picks. Democrats then proposed that, Republicans initially offered their picks for the committee, but Pelosi turned *some* of them down.

                      Then Republicans, who had turned down an offer where they wouldn't have had to have their picks approved by Pelosi, whined and complained that their picks were turned down by Pelosi.

                    5. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      No Jeff, we have the current kangaroo court because the Democrats refused the Republicans nominees for the bipartisan 9/11-style commission.

                    6. R Mac   3 years ago

                      The Republicans could have been involved. As long as they did what Pelosi told them to.

                  2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                    Too bad TDS is not fatal.

                  3. DesigNate   3 years ago

                    if I had the time, I’d go back to when they first started talking about forming a committee to prove your lying ass wrong. Go fuck yourself.

              5. Seamus   3 years ago

                True, she made her hearsay claims under oath, before Congress (well, actually just before a select committee of the House of Representatives, but I get your point). What we don't have is sworn testimony by anyone who saw Trump try to grab the wheel.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Ask yourself why they immediately came out willing to dispute this in testimony.

              Does this automatically mean that the agents are correct and Hutchinson is a liar?

              Here is another possibility, Jesse: both the agents, AND Hutchinson, are correct from their own perspectives.

              A dispute over an event does not necessarily mean that one side is a liar. It may simply be a disagreement over its interpretation. Did that occur to you?

              No no, it did not, because your object here is to push the Team Red narrative that she is not merely mistaken, but a LIAR with zero credibility who should not be believed at all because it makes Team Red look bad.

              1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

                She wasn't there to witness the event, so her offering statements about the truthfulness of it happening are worthless. She can testify that she definitely heard this thing happening, but telling Congress that it happened when she can't possibly know it, and there's actual witnesses who can rebut it, makes her full of shit.

                I'm sorry that you think third-hand hearsay is valuable. It isn't. It's only being presented because she said something the committee really wanted on the record.

                1. HorseConch   3 years ago

                  It's only valuable to him when it benefits the lefties.

                  1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    Yup, Jeff would be squealing pretty loudly otherwise.

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Remember. Jeff has outright dismissed the first hand documented evidence found in Hunters laptop.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Yes. The agents have direct testimony. There are multiple direct witnesses for said testimony. They didn't lie about writing a note during testimony. They already freely provided their testimony in depositions.

              3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                Nuance is certainly important, cytotoxic. Like when you demanded evidence before believing literally every single partisan lie and smear against the Trump administration, and then when you got it in the form of the Mueller report exonerating Trump entirely and still lie about said report on a daily basis and claim that it proved conclusively that Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election.

                She still lost, fat boy. Your salty ham tears are delicious.

              4. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                Here is another possibility, Jesse: both the agents, AND Hutchinson, are correct from their own perspectives.

                Hearsay isn't a perspective, you fat piece of shit.

                1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

                  Brutal

          2. mad.casual   3 years ago

            We have sworn testimony under oath depicting Hutchinson's claims.

            It's funny to hear people who would otherwise criticize swearing an oath on The Bible cite testimony under oath with zero threat of being charged with perjury as anything other than a pastor preaching to the quire.

            Clapper demonstrably lied under oath. Fauci demonstrably lied under oath. Zuckerberg lied under oath. This is a kangaroo court being conducted by Congress. 'Under oath' carries about as much weight as testifying in front of your local city planning commission or at a 4-H meeting... if you're the right people and/or providing the right testimony.

            1. mad.casual   3 years ago

              quire

              Wow. Thanks, autocorrect.

            2. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

              Yeah, but cytotoxic is an incredibly stupid, ugly, obese piece of shit with a set of cognitive abilities that nature typically reserves for amphibians and fish.

            3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              As I say above:

              So because one person may have lied under oath at some point, then everyone who says something under oath that we don't like must be lying. That is solid logic there.

              1. mad.casual   3 years ago

                As I say above:

                It's not one person lying under oath. Many, many people have lied. Moreover, the 'hearing' isn't being conducted by the Judicial Branch in any observance of due process or jurisprudence. There will be no presumption of innocence, no due process, no jury deliberations, no investigations in the perjury on Hutchinson's behalf. It's literally like swearing an oath to tell the truth to a local bridge club.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  Right. Some have lied, therefore everything is a lie. That is your logic.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Hearsay is the truth even when direct witness testimony exists but not chosen for presentation says Jeff.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      even when direct witness testimony exists but not chosen for presentation

                      How do you know this testimony would contradict Hutchinson's claims? Have you seen it? No.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Great. So let's hear what Bobby Engel as to say.

                    3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      You'd hate that.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Maybe. But I'm all in favor of discovering what actually happened.

                      I am in favor of fully investigating Jan. 6 and everything surrounding it, so that it doesn't happen again.

                      Unlike you and your team, who wants to ignore it and sweep it under the rug because it makes your team look bad.

                    5. R Mac   3 years ago

                      Lefty Jeffy is for political show trials.

                  2. mad.casual   3 years ago

                    Me give too many words. Be shorter: not real trial. No jury. No innocence. Only accusations and guilt. No real trial mean no testimony. You telling friend a story and swearing true not testimony just because you swear. Even if story actually true.

      2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        When you uncritically repeat things that are obvious lies, you're not being honest. If the story is about a liar who gave false testimony, you lead with the fact that the story is completely incomprehensible and thoroughly contradicted.

        Look at every story where they've talked about the "claims" of election fraud. They're up front with saying they're false claims, or weak, or tenuous, or outright bullshit. That stuff usually is in the headline. But this liar, they just calmly repeat what she said despite the fact that it's untrue.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          that are obvious lies

          Are they? How do we know?

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            Because the agents came out immediately and said they would dispute it under oath you retarded fuck. Those with first hand testimony.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              We haven't heard their testimony yet, have we? They SAID they would dispute it but we don't know what the precise substance of their claims are.

              And yet to you it does not matter, just the fact that some SS guy said it was wrong, without any other details, is PROOF POSITIVE to you that Hutchinson is a liar.

              1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

                SHE WASN'T THERE! Why do you need to give her even an ounce of credibility? She was not a witness to things she said happened! "I heard thirdhand from someone else who also didn't witness it that this thing happened."

                That's not very compelling. You know what kind of things I've heard from people who heard about something someone ELSE witnessed?

                1. JimboJr   3 years ago

                  anonymous sources (3rd party) that confirm his narrative are more credible than first hand sources with direct accounts that refute his narrative

                  surprised? Im not

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                    I agree that first-hand sources are more reliable than third-party sources. But in this case, we don't even know, under oath, what the first-hand sources have to say. All I see around here, is that a conclusion that BECAUSE Hutchinson's claims are not first-hand knowledge, and BECAUSE those with first-hand knowledge are GOING to say something under oath, that is PROOF that she's a liar.

                    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      The committee already has their testimony. They chose not to use it.

                      What the fuck is wrong with you?

                      Keep defending hearsay as the truth retard.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      I don't defend hearsay as the truth. She made a claim, so let's see the evidence against that claim before declaring her to be a LIAR.

                      What you do is to declare her to be a LIAR before seeing any evidence because the evidence to you doesn't matter.

                    3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                      What the fuck is wrong with you?

                      He's a fat, stupid piece of shit. There's a lot else too, but that's a start.

                    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                      I don't defend hearsay as the truth.

                      Just because hearsay is given under oath doesn't make it truth, either, you fat sack of shit.

                    5. R Mac   3 years ago

                      Lefty Jeffy is pretending this committee isn’t a show trial.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Just because hearsay is given under oath doesn't make it truth

                      I didn't say it did. I said it gives evidence, which IMO carries more weight than evidence that is not given under oath.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      I'm not saying she is necessarily correct.
                      I am saying that there is not enough evidence to declare she is a LIAR.
                      See the difference?

                    8. R Mac   3 years ago

                      In a real trial her testimony wouldn’t even be allowed by the judge.

                    9. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff, you have defended her testimony for going on for 20 posts.

                      Just take the L moron.

                    10. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      What do you call people that make unsubstantiated claims without evidence?

                      Well, it depends on the claim, and it also depends on the mindset of the person making the claim.

                2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                  Why does Jeffy believe her? Maybe because it supports his narrative?

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                The committee has heard their testimony you retarded fuck. They already provided testimony under depositions.

                What the fuck is wrong with you?

                1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                  Long TDS?

              3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Hu4chinsok

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Damnit.

                  Hutchinson was not a direct witness you retarded fuck.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              In Jesse world:

              "Hutchinson made claims under oath. Some Secret Service guy is GOING to say something, but has not yet done so, that claims that Hutchinson's claims are false. That alone is PROOF SHE'S A LIAR. I don't even have to know what the SS guy is going to say. The fact that he said he was GOING to say something is enough proof that I need!"

              1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

                You're ignoring that this is a partisan hearing where they're under no obligation to call witnesses that contradict the message they're presenting, and they also have no desire to. So the fact that they haven't testified and may never testify isn't really meaningful because the committee isn't interested in contradicting itself.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  So let's see the evidence that does emerge after this testimony. Maybe there is tangible empirical evidence which contradicts Hutchinson's claims. At a MINIMUM it is way too premature to denounce her as a LIAR, wouldn't you say?

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    She lied already regarding the note lol.

                    Jeff today is proving how much of a partisan leftist he is.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      She lied already regarding the note lol.

                      Why do you think Hutchinson is lying and Herschmann is correct?

                      Maybe Herschmann is the one lying.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Because he already testified prior in his deposition to writing the note. Above you are claiming testimony under oath is the truth right? He has remained consistent about writing the note through the entire charade. A simple handwriting analysis would support him.

                    3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                      Why do you think Hutchinson is telling the truth despite there being glaring errors of fact and provable lies in her testimony?

                      Because you're a stupid fat piece of shit DNC shill who thinks rank question begging and sophistry still work just as well in the grownup world as they did that one time when you finally outsmarted the Down's syndrome kid in your 4th grade special ed debate club.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Because he already testified prior in his deposition to writing the note.

                      Okay? Maybe he lied when he gave the deposition in the past.

                      Above you are claiming testimony under oath is the truth right?

                      No, I am claiming that all else equal, testimony under oath carries more weight than testimony not under oath.

                      He has remained consistent about writing the note through the entire charade.

                      And, so far, so has she.

                      A simple handwriting analysis would support him.

                      So where is this analysis? That would seem to be a straightforward way to settle this dispute.

                      But, you don't wait for that analysis, you automatically believe him and declare her to be a liar. Why is that, Jesse? Is it because in so doing it advances the pro-Team-Red narrative?

                    5. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Jeff, I said would. The J6 committee has no reason to disprove the lie Hutchingson made. But two other people did go public and said the handwriting on the note was the lawyers'.

                  2. MK Ultra   3 years ago

                    If the committee wasn't such a star chamber farce, there would be at least a little bit of adversarial cross examination of her claims, you retarted fuck. This is a bullshit pokitical disinfomercial, and should be viewed as such.

                2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                  "" a partisan hearing where they're under no obligation to call witnesses that contradict the message they're presenting, and they also have no desire to.""

                  Yep.

                  This is why the DOJ will not engage the way the dems want them to. The DOJ would have to prove the case in a court of law which is very different than spouting hearsay and shaking your fist in the court of public opinion.

                  1. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

                    It would be a DC court, so not much different.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                The agents have already testified in depositions you retarded fuck.

                1. Seamus   3 years ago

                  And they didn't give the testimony that the committee wanted, so they'll never be given the chance to repeat their testimony in front of the committee's TV cameras.

          2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            Because the BEST she has is third-hand hearsay. As in, she overheard it from someone else who overheard it from someone else talking about it. And there's people willing to contradict it, and there's actual video of Trump physically in the backseat of a vehicle where it's ridiculously implausible for him to be lunging for the steering wheel.

            If you view Trump as a rabid maniac literally foaming at the mouth, you might picture this thing happening, but that's really not how Trump acts. He might yell and pout and stomp his foot but he's simply not getting into a wrestling match with the Secret Service.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Because the BEST she has is third-hand hearsay.

              I agree that her claims are not first-hand knowledge, yes.

              As in, she overheard it from someone else who overheard it from someone else talking about it. And there's people willing to contradict it,

              We don't know the substance of their contradiction, under oath, do we?

              How can we conclude that Hutchinson's claims *under oath* are LIES when we don't even know what the rebuttal is?

              That is my point. The rush to jump on her for LYING is nothing more than pushing a right-wing narrative. It is deflecting on behalf of Team Red because Jan. 6 makes Team Red look bad, and so it is more important to discredit the people making them look bad than to uncover the truth. To them it literally does not matter if Hutchinson's claims are true or false, what matters is to convince people not to believe them.

              and there's actual video of Trump physically in the backseat of a vehicle where it's ridiculously implausible for him to be lunging for the steering wheel.

              1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                It is amazing watching you dig.

                They have already interviewed both the driver and the SS agents.

                The committee decided to use hearsay testimony. Ask yourself why dummy.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  They have already interviewed both the driver and the SS agents.

                  You keep claiming this. Where are their interviews?

                  1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                    At the bottom of the sea along with Trump's secret pee pee tape. Dive down there and see if you can find them both, sealion.

                    See, it's a double entendre. Because cytotoxic engages in the practice of "sealioning" and he's also covered in a thick layer of fat just like a real sealion.

                  2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Ask the J6 committee dummy. Every news article on the story is reporting they have assisted the committee and provided depositions.

                  3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    U.S. Secret Service officials have provided dozens of hours of testimony to the January 6 committee thus far, according to a source close to the agency, CBS reported.

                    https://www.khou.com/article/news/national/former-white-house-staff-prepared-to-testify-against-claims-by-former-aide-jan-6-hearing/285-30cee1c6-242e-4bf3-a43a-e5221ad37335

                    I can literally provide dozens more citations. It isn't hard to find this sea lion. Schiff was asked about it on CNN.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      Oh so you DO know how to provide citations to prove a claim. So you DO know how burden of proof is supposed to work.

                      So all of those times that you made a claim, and then refused to substantiate it and demand that everyone else provide citations to disprove your claim, those were examples of you knowingly acting in bad faith because you knew your claim wouldn't stand up to serious scrutiny. Got it.

                      But let's get back to your citation. Your citation does not actually claim that the limo/SUV driver was already interviewed. YOu know, the alleged victim of the "lunge".

                      CBS said both Tony Ornato, former White House deputy chief of staff and Bobby Engle, the former U.S. Secret Service special agent in charge, have previously appeared before the Jan. 6 committee, on the record.

                      But, maybe the driver was interviewed. If so, perhaps we ought to see what the driver's testimony is before declaring Hutchinson to be a liar, don't you think?

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Citation on me doing that sea lion? I always provide evidence, I have dozens of links a day on here.

                      Are you trying to push false narratives here Jeff? because you've been so utterly exposed defending the J6 committee this morning?

                      LOL.

                    3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      "Oh so you DO know how to provide citations to prove a claim. So you DO know how burden of proof is supposed to work."

                      A day or two ago you swore you'd never look at a link provided by Jesse and today you're sealioning again.
                      You can't even keep track of your own bullshit.

                      If I were your boss at the fifty-cent factory I'd have fired your ass ages ago.

                    4. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      He did indeed ML. And above he is shocked i know CNNs viewpoint.

                      Jeff argues from ignorance. That's all he has.

                    5. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

                      ML he's doing his job remarkably well, look at how long he's kept you all engaging with him as he lies repeatedly.

              2. Seamus   3 years ago

                We don't know the substance of their contradiction, under oath, do we?

                And we'll never see their testimony under oath unless the committee wants to present it, and the committee is never going to want to present it if it doesn't support their narrative, are they?

              3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                ""How can we conclude that Hutchinson's claims *under oath* are LIES when we don't even know what the rebuttal is?""

                The lie is that she claims she "knows" when it's really 3rd hand information. If a friend tells me a friend of theirs heard something, I would not testify that I know what the deal was. I would testify that I don't really know, and I heard it from someone else. But that wouldn't play well on TV.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  The lie is that she claims she "knows" when it's really 3rd hand information.

                  But she didn't say that she "KNOWS" what happened. She made her claims about what others told her.

                  1. Seamus   3 years ago

                    So she said that someone told her he'd seen a smoking gun. And yet that testimony is being taken as the smoking gun that disqualifies Trump for ever holding public office again and probably compels his prosecution and conviction for sedition, insurrection, and mean tweeting.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              and there's actual video of Trump physically in the backseat of a vehicle where it's ridiculously implausible for him to be lunging for the steering wheel.

              I agree! And so, what was described as a "lunge" was perhaps a difference in interpretation only. Not proof positive that SHE'S A LYING LIAR.

              1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

                What about all the people, who testified UNDER OATH, to observing election fraud, ballot stuffing, etc.? By your standard, election fraud happened.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  A claim made under oath that election fraud occurs, ought to carry more weight than the same claim made not under oath. It doesn't mean the claim is right, only that it deserves more attention. And I never begrudged Trump's right to pursue every legal remedy in court to pursue these claims, some of which were made under oath as you note.

                  1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

                    And how many of those people were called to testify before this comittee?

                  2. DesigNate   3 years ago

                    You 100% begrudged him for it and that’s fine because you’re allowed your opinion, just don’t try to gaslight us like we haven’t read your breathless posts about how he tried to foment an overthrow of the government.

              2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

                She misinterpreted the thing that she didn't see as a lunge when she really didn't see him do something else.

          3. Nardz   3 years ago

            You want to bet your life on their veracity, you fat clump of cancer?

      3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        How dare Reason simply state what Hutchinson claimed. Why, Reason is supposed to deflect on behalf of Team Red if it means destroying Team Blue.

        Actually, yes. How dare a magazine that pretends to employ journalists uncritically print the testimony of someone who provably lied without even doing a cursory Twitter check to see if the narrative had already imploded or not. Remember how Reason would print transcripts of Trump's press conferences without examining anything he said to see if it were true or not? Yeah, me neither you fat fucking homunculus.

      4. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Here, here! How dare Reason!

    5. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      Reason should declare Hutchinson to be a lying liar, even if no one is truly sure if she really did lie, because it is more important to create a narrative that she lied rather than to be correct.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        No. We have direct evidence she lied with the help of Cheney.

        Simple handwriting analysis will tell us that.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house-lawyer-hutchinson-note-jan-6

        Likewise the SS agent she claimed told her this story has already denied it.

        But here you have jeff defending hearsay as evidence. Because democrats told him to. No critical thought at all.

        Lol. Jeff the ignorant leftist shit can't help himself.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Jeff. Did you miss this comment? Is it because it is evidence?

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          No. We have direct evidence she lied with the help of Cheney.

          Simple handwriting analysis will tell us that.

          So let's take this one very simple example here.

          On the one hand, we have Hutchinson's sworn testimony under oath, before Congress, that she wrote this note.

          On the other hand, we have some Trump lawyer, Herschmann, not under oath, giving a statement to the press, claiming that he wrote it.

          Was there handwriting analysis conducted on it? Perhaps. Where is the result of that analysis? I don't see it anywhere, not in the Congressional record nor in Herschmann's statement. Don't you think that would be useful information to have if one were to know definitively who wrote the note?

          But the point, for the purposes of this little discussion, is that you automatically assume that the person who gave testimony under oath is a liar, and you assume that the person not under oath, who merely spoke to the press, who cited unnamed sources, who did not deliver any handwriting analysis, is telling the truth. Because you WANT to believe Herschmann over Hutchinson.

          1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

            you automatically assume that the person who gave testimony under oath is a liar, and you assume that the person not under oath, who merely spoke to the press, who cited unnamed sources, who did not deliver any handwriting analysis, is telling the truth.

            So kinda like you did for 5 years when you swallowed hook, line and sinker every single THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN! IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE END! breathless headline about Trump, including the discredited fake pee pee tape oppo dossier used by the entire federal government to spy on Trump, his campaign, and his presidency. Or kinda like how right now, in this very post, you are defending someone who unambiguously and provably lied under oath in a fake congressional "trial" where the Republicans were denied even the ability to seat their committee members and where there is no defense and no opportunity for any counterparty to present evidence or call witnesses. Because you're a stupid, fat, ugly, deranged, obese, oily, greasy, disgusting, lardass, smelly pile of shit. She still lost, cytotoxic. It's been 6 years. Cry more, you fat fucking pig.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Hi Tulpa!

              1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                Hi cytotoxic! How many calories you had so far today? Into the thousands yet or still warming up?

          2. JesseAz   3 years ago

            On the other hand, we have some Trump lawyer, Herschmann, not under oath, giving a statement to the press, claiming that he wrote it.

            Jeff. Why do you continue to argue from ignorance? In his deposition under oath he already admitted to writing it. This is in multiple news articles.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              In the article you cited, Herschmann just made a statement to the press, not a sworn deposition under oath.

              1. Cronut   3 years ago

                Herschmann made a statement to the press ABOUT his deposition under oath, knucklehead. Everything he said in his statement is easily verifiable. So they should verify it.

                They have an incentive to do that. Of it turns out that a Trump lawyer lied under oath, it only strengthens their case.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  Yes, I see that now. So let's do a handwriting analysis, or come up with some other more objective test to decide who is telling the truth here.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    But until then believe this woman!

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      But until then, refrain from calling anyone a LIAR. This isn't "automatically believe the woman". This is "let's try to discover the truth".

                      It is noteworthy that you automatically believe the pro-Team-Red perspective here.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      She is a liar Jeff. Her statements were full of holes and contradictory to direct witnesses. Other witnesses have stated she is lying.

                      Keep pushing your theory of hearsay as truth though. Makes you look intelligent.

                    3. DesigNate   3 years ago

                      Not really. It makes logical sense to believe the people that were a party to an event and not the person saying she heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.

                      Just like it’s not really that noteworthy that you are, yet again, giving the benefit of the doubt to your preferred narrative.

                  2. Cronut   3 years ago

                    They're not going to do that, because either way, it damages their case. One of them is not telling the truth, and they've used both testimonies in key portions of the hearings.

                    If Herschmann made false statements in his deposition, his entire testimony is now suspect. What else did he lie about? And what parts of his false testimony did they use in their case?

                    It makes them look careless and stupid if they didn't verify his statements before using them, or it means they knowingly used false statements to build a case.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                He has already been under deposition and provided he wrote the note during that. This again is in many news articles.

                You are arguing from ignorance as usual.

          3. JesseAz   3 years ago

            Also you keep ignoring everyone involved has already testified under oath in depositions because you are a partisan ignorant fuck. Lol.

          4. Cronut   3 years ago

            Goddam, you are retarded. Read the story at the link. Then read the ABC News story that's linked in the Washington Examiner story.

            Herschmann has already testified before the committee and his spokesman says he told the committee that he wrote the note. That's easily verifiable because we have his testimony . Or, rather, the committee has his testimony and we have nothing. They could just as easily release the relevant portion of his testimony to demonstrate that he's lying.

            But they didn't. What they said was,

            "The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson's account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building."

            So, they're not claiming Herschmann lied. They're claiming "differing recollections," which is bullshit, since only one recollection can be true. They're also claiming that what's REALLY important isn't who wrote the note, but what the note SAYS, which is also bullshit.

            As the story notes, Herschmann's testimony has also been heavily relied on by the comittee. So one of their super star blockbuster witnesses is lying. If Herschmann is lying, than the rest of his testimony is also suspect. If Hutchinson is lying, than her testimony her credibility is suspect.

            Since they're not producing any testimony that Herschmann lied, my money is on Hutchinson's "recollection" being untrue.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Herschmann has already testified before the committee and his spokesman says he told the committee that he wrote the note.

              Yes, that is what he said. So we are unsure who actually wrote the note since both parties claim to have written it. Jesse mentioned a handwriting analysis. Where is this handwriting analysis? It would be nice to have this, don't you think, before declaring her to be a liar?

              1. Cronut   3 years ago

                It really doesn't matter. Either which way, someone's not telling the truth. At best, one of them is an unreliable witness. At worst, one of them purjured him or herself under oath. The committee has used both testimonies heavily in the hearings, so both testimonies are suspect until the truth is revealed.

                Once the truth is revealed, the credibility of the person who lied is now destroyed.

                It also displays carelessness and sloppiness of the comittee in presenting evidence. If two of their key witnesses are now highly questionable, what other witnesses are highly questionable?

                1. Cronut   3 years ago

                  And I say "carelessness and sloppiness," assuming that the committee didn't know someone was full of shit here. That's a very generous assumption.

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Multiple witnesses have already coming out saying the J6 Committee is selectively editing and lying about their testimony, asking for the full depositions and statements to be released.

                  1. Cronut   3 years ago

                    Yup. That's why my money is on Herschmann being true. They're keeping the actual testimony transcripts secret. Those should be public so all this he said/she said can be verified.

                    At least, it should be if this were an honest proceding designed to get the truth.

              2. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                It would be nice to have this, don't you think, before declaring her to be a liar?

                It would also be nice to have this, don't you think, before spending 400 posts defending everything she said as having descended straight from the mouth of god almighty?

                1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                  Something chemjeff hasn’t done. He explicitly stated that he doesn’t claim to know the truth about what happened in the Presidential SUV.

                  1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    Oh fuck off. Four hundred posts vociferously defending her legitimacy aren't nullified by one or two weasely asides that "but I don't actually know".

                    That's the same rhetorical game that you often play though, so I understand why you're defending it.

              3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                The J6 committee won't do one Jeff. Ask yourself why. It is not in their best interest to have one of their key witnesses be seen as a liar.

                Are you understanding the problems yet?

          5. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

            Depositions are also sworn testimony under oath, you retarded clownshow

      2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        Absolutely. Every single sentence in this blog post should go something along the lines of Hutchinson claimed, without evidence, that...

      3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        Reason should declare Hutchinson to be a lying liar

        Or they could just say "Her testimony cannot be proven and is disputed by others with first hand knowledge of the events." That's what journalists do when they present a controversy. They do a little cursory research and then present the facts so that readers can understand the nature of the controversy and then decide what they believe.

        Simply repeating disputed testimony is lazy journalism. Not surprising you support that since you're a lazy piece of shit. Easy for you to identify with being a semi-sentient ActBlue PDF.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Or … sometimes journalists assume their readers are smart enough to know that without their having to explicitly say it.

        2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          “Simply repeating disputed testimony is lazy journalism.”

          Huh? It’s just the freegin’ morning links blog post.

    6. JesseAz   3 years ago

      I will even add this. Everyone who was actually involved has already provided testimony and was continuing to do so. But the committee went with hearsay easily verified by asking those who were there.

      And Robbie is barely critical of this sham. Lol.

    7. JimboJr   3 years ago

      Ya the wall to wall coverage and articles are pretty universally "OK, we got the goods now! This is devastating for Trump!" and I really thought I was going to see something based on the sheer volume of these pieces keep coming out.

      But this looks like a nothingburger with hearsay for buns and an impossible (that is, invisible) meat patty made of straight up lies. Are they this desperate to hyperventilate about something?

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        You should know better by now. Frantic wall to wall coverage means they're covering up a hole with a poster.

    8. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      I also like characterizing her testimony as making a surprise appearance. Were there gasps in Congress when her name was called? Did the camera pan around to the shocked faces? Was it so quiet you could hear a pin drop?

      This is a very produced and scripted hearing, there's no surprise witnesses being called. As much as they're trying to dramatize it, this ain't an episode of Matlock.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        It isn't about truth. It's about stoking the #resist crowd. The normies aren't watching because they have bigger problems to worry about, and the J6 hearings aren't moving the needle on the impending midterm slaughter. It doesn't matter if they lie, because the progs will eat up whatever they're serving.

      2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        It's (literally) literally political theater.

    9. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      JesseAZ, it sounded completely farcical when I read it. Lunged at the USSS....I read that and thought, "Bullshit".

      Same old, same old....the MSM is completely full of shit.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Lol. And she said it about the beast. An 18 foot long secured limo with partition behind the driver. People called bullshit immediately.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          He wasn't even in the limo. He was in an SUV, and that was demonstrated pretty quickly.

          So why would the SS agent claim he was in "The Beast," if he wasn't in the Beast? Seems like a pretty glaring error there.

    10. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

      Significant portion of the testimony were first person accounts. There was in fact ketchup on the walls. This is an investigation, so the hearsay does not apply. What it does is build a narrative and that what the committee is doing. And doing well.

      As for "Every principle actor involved in what she testified about denies it. ", let them do that under oath. What we have seen is testimony usually from Republicans. What we have not seen is anyone willing to deny that testimony while under oath.

      1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        Significant portion of the testimony were first person accounts.

        First of all you're wrong. Second of all it doesn't matter if some of her testimony was first-hand when the testimony in question was not. You're not good at this, shreek. About on the same level as cytotoxic. Maybe a baby step above Tony and sarcasmic. I know you spend the majority of your time around frightened prepubescent children, but this the grown up world, shreek. You aren't luring a 7 year old boy into your Suburu.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Okayyyy, time to mute your latest incarnation, Tulpa. Bye bye…

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            Run away from any contradictory statements to the left Mikey. LOL.

      2. Cronut   3 years ago

        They've already testified under oath. They're also all willing to be sworn again and testify.

        1. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

          Great I am waiting to hear the testimony of Meadows, Jordon, Eastman and Guiliani.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Shorter M4E: "Fuck!... Then what about these guys, huh?"

    11. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      And just to point out the Overton Window for this entire discussion above.

      When it came to the SUV "lunge", the range of discussion was between "I don't know if he really did lunge for the steering wheel, it's worth looking into" and "He definitely did not and Hutchinson is a liar". No one was arguing the side of "He definitely did and we should believe every word Hutchinson said".

      When it came to the handwritten note, the range of discussion was between "I don't know who is the liar here, Hutchinson or Herschmann, so let's have some independent analysis to determine who is telling the truth", all the way to "Herschmann is definitely telling the truth and Hutchinson is the liar". No one was arguing the side of "Hutchinson is definitely telling the truth and Herschmann is the liar".

      And yet, the positions that expressed even a little bit of skepticism in the right-wing narrative of "Hutchinson is a LIAR!" was treated as "lefty" and "shilling for Democrats". Not of course the ACTUAL position which would be "shilling for Democrats", which is to accept as truth every word Hutchinson said.

      It just goes to show how far to the right the Overton Window is around here. The range of acceptable discourse is between "Team Red is Correct" and "I am skeptical that Team Red is Correct". Very little of it is "Team Blue is Correct". And yet everything that is not labeled as "helping Team Red" is labeled as "lefty" and no different than the actual Team Blue position.

      It is just a sick and poisoned discussion environment.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Jeff. You know people can read the thread and see you trying to justify your prior bullshit under "I don't know claims" despite everyone else having far more information than you when you entered the argument in defense of J6 committee and Hutchinson.

        Again. You are one of the dumbest people on this site. You aren't fooling anybody.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Not true. Dee and sarc believe everything he says.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Things might get real, real bad...

    This is the true story...of uncouth strangers...elected to work in a house...and have their lives investigated...to find out what happened...when people stop being polite...and start getting real...The Real Bad.

  9. Rich   3 years ago

    exhorted the mob to "fight like hell"

    But enough about almost any Democrat politician.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Reason Guide to Insurrection

      Not incitement:
      "there will be blood in the streets” - Loretta Lynch
      “Who says protests have to be peaceful“ - Cuomo
      “There needs to be unrest in the streets” - Ayanna Pressley
      “Protesters should not give up” - Kamala Harris
      “I just don’t know why they aren’t uprising all over this country“ - Nancy Pelosi
      “You get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, tell them they are not welcome“ - Maxine Waters
      “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!” - Chuck Schumer
      "(the Supreme Court is) Illegitimate! Illegitimate! Into the streets! Into the streets! - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

      Deadly incitement:
      “Go home with love and peace, remember this day forever“ - Donald J Trump

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Shorter version: if Democrats burn shit and assault people it is Resist! (TM); if Republicans just show up it is sedition.

  10. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    There was ketchup dripping down the wall.

    I hope the steak was okay.

    1. Ska   3 years ago

      The true criminal act. Bet it was butterflied and well done, too.

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      There was ketchup dripping down the wall...and as she watched it, she felt a foreboding sense of the blood she knew was about to be spilled. If nobody stopped it, she knew the entire Capitol would be soon dripping red.

      1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

        The eloquent fiction of insurrection...

  11. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    As French concedes, however, Trump also exhorted his followers to march "peacefully and patriotically."

    Which is obviously a dog whistle to make AOC piss herself like a Russian whore on the Trump payroll.

    1. mpercy   3 years ago

      In her office in another building.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Perhaps a rape fantasy variation.

  12. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    ...prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.

    Page 18 retraction incoming.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Abc and NBC both put the contesting statements out quickly.

  13. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

    "But the reality of the matter is that there's no middle ground when it comes to Trump"

    Robby if you read the comments you will realize there is in fact a middle ground.
    Trump is a loud obnoxious blowhard, the wuflu bailouts sucked, yet in spite of that he has been the best president from a freedom/federalism in at least the last 30 years. (cases could be made for carter's deregulation, and regains continuance of that).

    You were right when you said it isn't a trial and there is a predetermined conclusion that has been written.

    1. Union of Concerned Socks   3 years ago

      Yeah, I'm on the middle ground as well. Good points, bad points.

      Mostly just investing in popcorn futures.

      Mmmm, buttery.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Be fair. Robby, like many others, lost part of his brain to TDS and will never recover. And that makes it impossible for him to even imagine a middle ground around Trump.

    2. nobody 2   3 years ago

      Agreed. I actually expected him to be worse then he was considering that he ordered the murder of a teenage American girl on his first day in office, following in the footsteps of Obama, but he actually turned out to be significantly less awful than those who came before and after him.

      You also don't have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that the election was rigged when it was obvious that it was going to be rigged a couple months ahead of time when the Democrats unilaterally changed the rules of the election, and when Time Magazine ran an article by a Democratic Party propagandist bragging about how the election had been rigged.

      1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        I actually expected him to be worse then he was considering that he ordered the murder of a teenage American girl on his first day in office

        It was actually an 8 year old American girl, and she was killed during a SEAL team raid in Yemen 10 days after Trump took office. Pretty impressive that he personally planned, orchestrated, and then ordered a top secret military operation with the express objective of murdering an 8 year old girl in only 10 days. He must have really been busy.

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        I started believing the election was fully rigged when the dnc kicked the green party off of the ballot in 4 out of 5 swing states. That alone shows a rigged election

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Super delegates and the shenanigans around Bernie Sanders were warning signs too.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      yet in spite of that he has been the best president from a freedom/federalism in at least the last 30 years.

      Eh, I wouldn't go that far. If nothing else, Trump's presidency proves what john posited here way back when Trump was elected--that the elites' biggest fear was not that Trump was some kind of tyrant, but that his time in office would show that you could pretty much stick anyone in the seat and the way the government actually operates won't really change all that much. Because it's ultimately this huge bureaucracy that actually runs the country, not the President, and he's just there to provide a general sense of direction on how to go about doing that.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        I still argue that for progressives, elites, and DC establishment types, the most heinous crimes that Trump committed all revolve around upsetting their plans for expanded authoritarianism.

  14. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    ...plausibly seated within striking distance of the wheel.

    The athlete that he is.

  15. Minadin   3 years ago

    Never heard of Medieval Times. May be too local?

    1. mad.casual   3 years ago

      It's been featured in a couple of movies, The Cable Guy with Jim Carrey springs to mind. Huge hit with the kids, especially if they like horses, sword fighting, or eating with their hands. Plus, at least locally, they serve beer.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Of it was in the cable guy then nobody saw it

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          Yeah, also, 'featured' is the wrong word. It's been the backdrop of a few scenes in a couple of B-list movies, is probably a better description.

      2. Ska   3 years ago

        But are there pasty girls with their tits on a shelf? I mean wearing ill-fitting corsets.

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          IDK, I've never been there with your mom.

          But seriously, of course not, what do you think this is? A Disney production?

          OK, OK, more actually, uh, seriously, if drinking and ample cleavage (and even some maybe not-for-kiddies stuff) is what you're really after, the RenFaire is in Bristol, is about an hour north every weekend July 1 to Labor Day. You know you're in Wisconsin when, in addition to the usual "We reserve the right to refuse alcohol service to persons we believe are intoxicated." disclaimers they throw the "We do not encourage excessive drinking." *and* "We do not encourage or permit alcohol consumption contests on our premises." riders on as well.

    2. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

      To paraphrase Richard II:

      They are all villeins, and villeins they shall remain.

    3. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

      It's what the Green New Deal hopes to return us to.

  16. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    CNN analyst Chris Cillizza described the revelations as "utterly devastating" for Trump.

    The walls. They close in.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Is this the same CNN who's program manager said they spent all of the trump presidency making up stories?

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Chris is the paragon of neutrality.

    3. Cronut   3 years ago

      The pee tape was devastating too. And the Ukraine phone call.

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        he is the king of "if true..." journalism.

    4. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      I have to ask, why is it relevant to THIS story that Robby writing what a CNN analyst said about the testimony? Why include that unless you want to tell us, yourself, that this is devastating for Trump?

      If you think it's devastating for Trump, Robby, just own the opinion, don't put the opinion in someone else's mouth and pretend it's not yours.

      1. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

        I mean CNN is so incompetent or corrupt (take you pick) that they had no problem with Chris Cuomo interviewing his brother Andrew.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Let’s see. Let’s find some of Soave’s own words: “The January 6 hearings do not constitute a trial, of course: Trump will not be made available to argue his side of the story, or to contradict claims made about him. It is easy for witness testimony to seem damning in the absence of cross-examination.”

        Almost like he was giving examples of leftist opinion or spin, not meant to be taken as his own views.

        1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

          Did you read what he wrote right after saying it was devastating?

          CNN analyst Chris Cillizza described the revelations as "utterly devastating" for Trump. It has, of course, already been well-established that Trump's false statements about the validity of the 2020 election stoked the mob, and his failure to swiftly condemn the violence was inexcusable. It was so bad that many of his most prominent supporters tried desperately to contact him about it while it was happening. His own family members were aghast.

          Seems like he's not trying to point out the biased responses of each side, but to set up a truth claim. "This was utterly devastating. Look at this other stuff we already definitely know is true."

          1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            All quite plain truth.

    5. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

      CNN analyst Chris Cillizza described the revelations as "utterly devastating" for Trump.

      But was he under oath at the time?

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        He did say the walls are closing in.

    6. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

      Can I find his commentary on CNN+?

  17. Think It Through   3 years ago

    "Someone told me that's what happened".....really? How did that make it to Congressional testimony? How did it make it into Reason?

    Someone used to tell me it was the Easter Bunny putting eggs around our yard, and Santa leaving presents under the tree. In fact, these were people I trusted more than anyone else in the world.

    SOMEONE TOLD ME.

    LMFAO

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Some of it was even someone told me that someone told them. It was stunning.

    2. ThomasD   3 years ago

      Reason doesn't even bother to note that nobody was ever asked to identify those "someones" or call those sources to testify.

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Yet somehow you were able to figure it out without a Reason writer having to interpret what you were reading for you. Give other readers the benefit of the doubt for being as smart as you are.

    3. Nardz   3 years ago

      Remember this any time Reason whines about "justice reform" in the future

      1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        True justice is the NSA, FBI, DOJ, CIA, DOD, State Department, and white house all colluding together, using all of the resources of the federal government to present a fake oppo dossier to a secret FISA court as a pretext to spy on dozens of private citizens, including a winning presidential candidate before, during, and after he took and left office.

  18. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    New abortion bill from South Carolina.

    https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/south-carolina-introduces-new-bill-fully-outlaw-abortions-allow-civil-penalties/CVQ3IGSFWJHVJHYI2BMFNYOGHM/

    So in this bill, in South Carolina, all abortion would be illegal, with the single exception of saving the physical health of the mother.

    According to this bill, the people who are subject to either civil or criminal penalties related to abortion, are:
    - the doctor
    - anyone who "knowingly or intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person" to help procure an abortion - this includes giving pregnant women advice on how to get an abortion even if the abortion wouldn't take place in the state
    - anyone who "knowingly possess for sale or distribution, distribute, offer for sale, sell, or advertise the sale or distribution of an abortifacient"
    - anyone who helps a pregnant minor cross state lines to get an abortion

    So, everyone at all that may be involved in the abortion, either directly or indirectly - EXCEPT the pregnant woman. Literally everyone else is liable.

    This is getting a bit comical at this point.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      They are willing to punish the woman's friends if they suggest to her to get an abortion.
      They are willing to punish some random website operator who has a list of abortion clinics in New York.
      But they are not willing to punish the woman herself.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Do you have a citation on who they are willing to go after? Or is that just presupposition?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          https://reason.com/2022/06/29/january-6-hearings-reveal-more-trump-misconduct-but-was-it-incitement/?comments=true#comment-9571350

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            You said who they are willing to go after. Your first post doesn't say that. It says what the proposed law is. Youre creating a list of victims based on presuppositions. You are truly an idiot jeff.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Pretend to be ignorant, Jesse, go ahead
              Follow the links, the answer is there

              1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                I won't believe it until every single member of the South Carolina legislature testifies UNDER OATH that what you've said is true.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Jeff, please cite your evidence. You claim to know how to do so above.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  So, it's you who refuses to read the links that I provide to you. Got it.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    I asked you for proof of who they are willing to go after, not slippery close imaginations of who could fall under the law. The two arguments are different. You claimed the prior.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      ...and?

      In the end, it would not be the woman performing the act.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

        The lady on the phone who told her to go to New York to get an abortion wouldn't be performing the act either.

        They are willing to punish individuals who are much further removed from the abortion, than the woman herself. Doesn't that strike you as odd? What is the point of punishing everyone else except her?

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          To do away with the act.

          They should not punish the woman who helped her leave. That would be a stupid idea.

          But I'm not feeling terribly interested in compromise on this issue any longer.

        2. creech   3 years ago

          "What is the point of punishing everyone else except her?"
          Probably because, deep down, every pol knows it might be his daughter or family member who gets an abortion??

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            Yeah I think there is something to that.

            1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

              Nobody cares what you think though because you're a stupid fat fuck and a compulsive liar, cytotoxic.

          2. Cronut   3 years ago

            Probably more along the lines of, "Deep down, every pol knows it's a bad look to throw women in jail."

        3. JesseAz   3 years ago

          They are willing to punish individuals who are much further removed from the abortion

          You still haven't shown evidence of this claim.

  19. damikesc   3 years ago

    "Mick Mulvaney, former acting chief of staff for Trump, described the president's awareness that the protesters were armed as "very, very bad," though it was not a crime for the protesters to carry weapons outside the Capitol; protesting while armed is just the First Amendment plus the Second Amendment."

    Is he unaware that claim #1 was false.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      funny, despite all those "armed" protestors, the only shots fired were against an unarmed protestor, with no shots fired by the protestors

      Did they forget how to coup or something?!

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Are we counting a few people with bear spray and shields as "armed?" A few people might have had makeshift clubs as well. It's tenuous but maybe I'll let them have it.

      1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

        They can have that as soon as they retract their hagiography of Garrett Foster the pathetic LARPing stump-fucker who got the feces where a brain should have been blown out of his skull after running a motorist off the road and then aiming an AK-47 at the driver. Or when they stop referring to a year and a half of riots that directly caused 3 dozen deaths, thousands of injuries and 3 billion dollars worth of property damage "peaceful protests". In other words, they can take their hypocritical ActBlue talking points, print them out on 96 brightness card stock, roll it up real tight, and shove it up their asshole until it starts coming out their nose.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        I'll let them have that after they cease breathing and are no longer a threat to free peoples

    3. Ronbback   3 years ago

      though it was not a crime for the protesters to carry weapons outside the Capitol;"
      thats Bs its illegal to have guns in DC not just the capitol. If they had had guns they would have been arrested, where is the arrest record. I call BS on all fronts

  20. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Carr is right that TikTok's massive popularity—it is now the world's most visited website—raises some legitimate national security concerns, given the Chinese government's control over it.

    Could Trump end up more often being right than even Alex Jones?

  21. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Gun permit holder personal information released im California.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-gun-owners-data-breached-after-state-unveils-firearms-portal

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      That's why you don't register your guns. I lost all of mine in a tragic ice fishing fire

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      Reason would have gotten around to that.

      Eventually.

      I think.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        The new editorial line is that guns are icky.

        1. Zeb   3 years ago

          Really? I haven't seen anything like that. They've been consistently decent on guns as far as I've seen.

          1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

            Maybe I'm just putting words into Boehm's mouth. It seems like something he would have said.

          2. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

            Tuccille is about the only writer here who even covers the gun beat. Bailey has republished at least half a dozen CDC press releases about scawwy guns. Cato, who shares their sole benefactor with Reason, began supporting gun control and distancing itself from pro-2A starting just before the 2016 election.

            1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

              And since i know you're going to sealion just like your butt buddy sarcasmic, here's your fucking examples:

              Gun Policy Is Hard

              1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

                Further Thoughts on Sensible Gun Legislation

            2. Zeb   3 years ago

              Sullum writes on gun issues as well.
              Who the fuck is talking about Cato? Reason has gotten pretty weak on a lot of things, but (as far as I have seen) has been consistently pretty good on guns.

    3. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

      How can you be focused on the government deliberately releasing the personal information of every gun permit holder in the state of California when wamyn are literally having to throw their iPhones in the garbage lest the government find out that they're having their period?

    4. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      I sure hope they keep their out-of-state-abortion list more secure than this.

  22. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Turkey is okay with adding Finland and Sweden to NATO.

    No one should be okay with Turkey being in NATO.

    1. mad.casual   3 years ago

      Turkey in NATO makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.

    2. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      Good point. Turkey produced opium in competition with British India and the Balkan States before China overthrew the Quing, went Republican and enforced opium prohibition like Wesley Livsey Jones, Herbert Clark Hoover and Harry Anslinger would later on. The resulting glut caused WW1. (No, there was no shortage of befeathered Poobahs or young communist assassins as pretexts). The USA was never at war against the Turkey that shot the flower of Australian youth at Gallipoli in Alliance with the Accursed Hun.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Honestly, the Turkish empire would have collapsed long before World War I had they not been bailed out by other European nations at critical moments, due to continental rivalries.

        In an alternate world, Russia would be running Constantinople right now, and the Hagia Sofia wouldn't be a mosque.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Why is NATO even still a thing?

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Grift.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Like the IOC?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Only with bombs.

    4. CE   3 years ago

      It is rather far from the north Atlantic.

  23. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    A judge has sentenced Ghislaine Maxwell to 20 years in prison for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually assault underage women.

    AND THAT'S THE END OF THAT STORY

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Until she hangs herself with contraband pantyhose.

    2. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      But... was Jeffrey at the FLDS Zion ranch in Texas on a recruiting mission in 2008?

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        What’s up with the sock Hank?

        1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

          Hanks references usually go back to 1908, at least.

    3. Sevo   3 years ago

      Ya gotta wonder how Clinton has skated under the radar on this.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Willing media cunts hoping to suck some Clinton dick someday? His or hers.

  24. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    A Boston Globe article claims that there's an epidemic of "roofied" drinks at Boston bars—which is almost certainly false.

    Well, I certainly ain't clicking on no article about ladies simply overdoing it at a hen party.

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      The Globe article is likely false...but the testimony being utterly false was not nearly as quickly mentioned.

      Weird.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Probably just some future conservative SCOTUS nominee.

  25. Union of Concerned Socks   3 years ago

    Fuck Joe Biden.

    132 days.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Fuck Joe Biden

      1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        Let's Go, Brandon.

        1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

          Let's Go Fuck Joe Biden

          1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

            Let's not and say we did.

  26. mad.casual   3 years ago

    Before giving his speech on January 6, Trump told his aides not to bother checking members of the crowd for weapons, saying "they are not here to hurt me," according to Hutchinson.

    Talk about an own goal. After a summer of riots and FBI-orchestrated kidnapping plots, the most hated man in America, the unequivocal king of personal death threats, says this before taking the podium.

    I have an anonymous source that's willing to testify that a member of Trump's security detail lopped off a protester's ear and Trump shouted "No more of this!" before healing the man's ear and being quietly led away to his crucifixion.

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      "Before giving his speech on January 6, Trump told his aides not to bother checking members of the crowd for weapons, saying "they are not here to hurt me," according to Hutchinson."

      We should also ignore that she had zero direct knowledge. She claimed she HEARD it from others. If she was under oath, I assume perjury charges will soon be filed.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        The only likely perjury charge would be her false claims of writing the note. Hard to prove perjury with hearsay. But we know the doj won't go after a Democrat star witness for lying.

      2. Super Scary   3 years ago

        " She claimed she HEARD it from others."

        And for some people, that's enough. Third Trump impeachment when?

    2. Yatusabes   3 years ago

      Blessed Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
      https://opusdei.org/en/article/solemnity-of-saints-peter-and-paul-apostles/

      The testimony given by the two great Apostles Peter and Paul today comes to life once more in the Church’s liturgy. Peter, imprisoned by King Herod, is told by an angel of the Lord: “Get up quickly” (Acts 12:7), while Paul, looking back on his entire life and apostolate says: “I have fought the good fight” (2 Tim 4:7).

  27. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

    Fuck you you lying sack of shit Robby. You could find the same actions as the J6 accusations in anything the marxist Democrats have done in the last 30 years and much worse but you don't because you're a partisan leftist hack out to defend Democrats at all costs rather than report honestly about reality.

  28. Yatusabes   3 years ago

    Meanwhile Obama, Biden, Hillary, DOJ, FBI, CIA, ABA, the Legacy Media, Big Tech, and a list of university tenured faculty working with the aforementioned, all get a pass yesterday, today and tomorrow in how they actively, purposefully, calculatingly, undermined a duly elected US President. When this happens in Latin America or 3rd world countries in Africa, American elites call it a "coup". Yet, we are encouraged (bludgeoned) to hang on every word today uttered by Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al, because "democracy is threatened".

    I hated Trump the candidate, and did not vote for him. However he was clearly sabotaged even prior to the 2016 election, by the aforementioned rogue agents, and Americans like me feel nothing but rage at these unAmerican activities.

    Bring back Trump and let it all fly. America deserves nothing less.

    1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      I still hate Trump and would not vote for him. I just dislike the mendacious assholes who villify him even more.

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        "...would not vote for him..."

        You should focus on what he accomplished rather than mean tweets.

  29. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Some Medieval Times employees want to unionize the company.

    I believe it's called "forming a guild"

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      They got the idea from their friends that used to work for hostest

    2. CE   3 years ago

      as long as any disputes are settled with a jousting match

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        We can only hope they work their labor disputes into the next season's storyline.

    3. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

      Nice. 🙂

  30. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

    I was shocked to hear for the thousandth time that TikTok is a communist app. Any day now Robbie ought to reveal that Pravda was "leftist" and Voelkischer Beobachter a National Socialist paper. Robbie has found his niche as a talking head. Nobody blames a talking head for droll utterances. People imagine it's in the script. Signed articles, not so much.

    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      A communist spy app where the communists spy on teenagers posting silly videos. Yawn.

  31. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    Secret Service lead and presidential driver are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did NOT grab steering wheel or lunge at agents to drive himself to Capitol on January 6

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10963183/Secret-Service-prepared-testify-oath-Trump-did-NOT-grab-steering-wheel.html

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Weird Lying Jeffy ignored this post.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Breakups are always hard.

  32. Naime Bond   3 years ago

    You know your are a redneck if you let your twelve-year-old daughter smoke at the dinner table in front of her kids. You know you are a libertarian if you let your 45 year old daughter debate whether misconduct is the legal equivalent of incitement to riot and base 99% of it on hearsay.

  33. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

    January 6 Hearings Reveal More Trump Misconduct

    Actually they didn't. Like, at all. In any way, shape or form.

    1. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

      Meanwhile, we now have incontrovertible evidence in the form of a voicemail left by The Big Guy on his bag man kid's phone that he lied when he said he never discussed Hunter's business dealings.

      BuT wAS iT inCiTEmEnT?!?!

      1. ThomasD   3 years ago

        Which is more than enough conflict of interest to warrant the appointment of a special counsel.

        There is simply no way the DOJ, fully under the authority of POTUS, can conduct a fair and impartial investigation of Hunter Biden.

        So while Reason gives us paragraphs on beyond common sense obvious falsehoods aimed at Trump they are radio silence on the Biden crime family.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          I’m old enough to remember when the justification for going after all things Trump was because he was in office, and it’s more important to focus on people in power.

        2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Why would Reason talk about Hunter Biden now? There haven’t been any new developments in the story for a while.

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            There was one literally this week dumbass.

          2. damikesc   3 years ago

            No bubble here.

            Unlike with this hearing, something LEGITIMATELY happened in regards to the Biden corruption problem.

          3. R Mac   3 years ago

            CNN isn’t covering the voicemail I see.

  34. Cronut   3 years ago

    Given their record of being loose with facts and creative with interpretations and presentations, you'll pardon me if I am skeptical of this testimony.

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/exclusive-former-white-house-staffer-confirms-jan-6-committee-lied-about-doj-attorney/

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Anyone continuing to call the committee credible at this point are retards or don't give a fuck about honesty.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        They literally hired a writer, editor, and producer. At this point the people who think the j6 committee is ligitamit will never be convinced

        1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

          This is the War of the Worlds crowd. Orson Wells and RKO radio would be proud.

  35. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    Re: Sweden, Finland joining NATO

    This has great danger of embroiling NATO into a border conflict with Russia. On the plus side, there is now way too much border for Russia to defend...in a conventional wartime scenario, Russia is toast. There are no less than a dozen potential invasion routes into Russia from Sweden all the way down to Bulgaria.

    What I have not seen or heard much about....Ukraine special operations inside Russia.

    1. Nardz   3 years ago

      Or the fact that NATO has pumped around $100b into Ukraine in 4 months, and they're still getting their asses kicked.
      Russia's yearly defense budget is around $66b

      1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        Nardz, it could be that we (US) are returning the favor to Russia. During the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, the Russians gave plenty of material aid to their allies that resulted in a very large number of US military deaths. Russian casualties in Ukraine are far greater than they planned for. I don't have a problem twisting Soviet Russia's tail.

        The invasion force has been degraded sufficiently that any thought of continuing westward by Russia is off the table. They just don't have the force projection capability, and would be obliterated by a NATO counterattack.

        I remain very skeptical of our policy. We should not get ourselves entrenched in this European problem.

        1. NOYB2   3 years ago

          Nardz, it could be that we (US) are returning the favor to Russia.

          Well, that sure is worth $100 billion in wasted tax dollars, plus the potential for a nuclear war! I'm convinced! /sarc

          Never mind that Vietnam was a war far away from the US, while Ukraine is a direct threat to Russian security.

          The invasion force has been degraded sufficiently that any thought of continuing westward by Russia is off the table.

          If you're saying that Russia isn't going any further westward in Ukraine, you're probably right. But they have accomplished their goals already: destruction of Ukraine as a competitor in the fossil fuel market.

          They just don't have the force projection capability, and would be obliterated by a NATO counterattack.

          I expect any conflict with NATO might start by Russia dropping a few nuclear bombs in unpopulated areas of Finland. You know, to get NATO's attention.

        2. Nardz   3 years ago

          You apparently who believe the spin of people who write things like:
          "NEW: Ukrainian forces are likely conducting a fighting withdrawal that may include pulling back from #Lysychansk and #Luhansk Oblast in the near future, and which probably aims to force the Russian offensive to culminate prematurely."
          https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1541945675067363328?t=m9qlXQ5wIan_19Mr8UvtTw&s=19

        3. Nardz   3 years ago

          https://news.antiwar.com/2022/06/28/cnn-biden-officials-privately-doubt-ukraine-can-take-back-all-of-its-territory/

          According to a report from CNN, White House officials are "losing confidence" that Ukraine will be able to retake all the territory Russia has captured since it invaded on February 24 as Russian forces continue to make gains in the eastern Donbas region.

          Unnamed US officials told CNN that President Biden’s advisors have started debating if and how the US should start convincing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should change his definition of what "victory" will look like.

          1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

            Nardz, one of the less desirable aspects of American culture is impatience for instant results. Instead of 20 days, policymakers should be thinking in terms of 20 months, and then 20 years.

            At the core to all of this: Is Ukraine a vital US national interest? I maintain that Ukraine is not.

            For now, continued degradation of Russian military capacity may be the only realistic US policy goal that is achievable without a wider European war. That would be a multi-year effort. I just don't see American policymakers being that patient.

    2. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Yeah, I agree. This is reckless and profoundly dangerous.

      I would call it stupid, but you can be certain that this is a deliberate provocation of Russia. It is stupid only in the sense that the people doing it actually delude themselves into thinking that they can replace Putin with a Western puppet who will "democratize" Russia, that the Russian people will be grateful, and that they can accomplish all of that with no serious direct military conflict.

      It's the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts on steroids, but this time with nuclear weapons.

      1. Seamus   3 years ago

        It is stupid only in the sense that the people doing it actually delude themselves into thinking that they can replace Putin with a Western puppet who will "democratize" Russia, that the Russian people will be grateful, and that they can accomplish all of that with no serious direct military conflict.

        We had that puppet in the person of Boris Yeltsin, the drunken buffoon who gave away the Russian government's wealth to the oligarchs, who won reelection as a result of U.S. meddling in the Russian presidential election, who left office widely despised by his people, and whose awful record was responsible for the rise of Vladimir Putin. Way to go, Slick Willie and Dubya!

        1. NOYB2   3 years ago

          We had that puppet in the person of Boris Yeltsin, the drunken buffoon who gave away the Russian government's wealth to the oligarchs,

          And you can bet that the Russians remember and still blame the West for it. And that's why Putin remains popular.

    3. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Or they can get help from China brail and South africa. This is the same type of complex treaty expansion that precluded ww1.

    4. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      I don't think this changes the strategic calculus. Both Finland and Sweden have been de facto on NATO's side for the last several decades so it's more in the vein of France's on-again off-again relationship with NATO, and Russia can't do anything about it right now (short of firing all their nukes, I suppose) because they're tied up in Ukraine. So Russia forced the issue in Ukraine and will probably get its way and in the process burned the influence it never really had in Finland and Sweden.

    5. Sevo   3 years ago

      "Re: Sweden, Finland joining NATO
      This has great danger of embroiling NATO into a border conflict with Russia..."

      There is no reason for the US to be part of NATO whatsoever; we need to get out.
      Aside from that, those remaining in NATO get to do what they see best for THEIR country; Russia is not the dictator of their foreign policy, regardless of what nardz finds on twitter.

    6. damikesc   3 years ago

      I am still impressed that it is no biggie that Biden's son was closely tied to Ukraine who we have given hundreds of billions of dollars.

      1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        If it was Donald Trump Jr or Eric Trump or Ivanka Trump....there would be a complete and utter MSM feeding frenzy.

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          Absolutely. We were not giving Russia money under Trump and Trump was still "bought".

          We're SHOVELLING cash to Ukraine and....hey, no big deal. Biden is not compromised or anything.

  36. NOYB2   3 years ago

    That's according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson

    How f*cking stupid and gullible can you be? Do the claims not strike you as preposterous? Do you still believe that peegate is true as well? Do you just mainline Democrat propaganda and show trials? Have you followed up on the reports claiming to debunk her statements? Is there absolutely no critical thinking at the Reason offices?

    And even if true, how is this in any way related to a "conspiracy"? Does someone who "lunges at the steering wheel" to be taken to a protest strike you as someone who had concocted a long-range conspiracy to topple the next US government (a kind of pre-crime, I suppose)?

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      He had his elaborate master-plan coup completely in place with every detail covered...but he forgot that he wasn't supposed to get in the SUV.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        I suppose no coup attempt is complete without a cue card: "YOU do NOT get into YOUR limousine." That's why they call it a "cue attempt" after all.

    2. ThomasD   3 years ago

      When the usual suspects focus on exactly the same elements of an event, using inordinately similar language, you simply must assume that they are all working from a pre-planned script.

      Robbie thinks nobody notices.

      Because Robby is an airhead.

      1. Super Scary   3 years ago

        " using inordinately similar language"

        I'm reminded of the "peaceful transition of power" phrase that was used a million times across various left-wing new sites. It was never enough to just say what it was, they always had to add that descriptor.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Where did Robbie/Robby ever claim they aren’t all working from a common script? All he did was quote people in the morning links.

    3. Seamus   3 years ago

      Do you still believe that peegate is true as well?

      C'mon, man. He must have done something. We'll find something that sticks sooner or later.

  37. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/Rothbard1776/status/1536902987989323776?t=CTKP7Qws_JZ2i1aI2XzY_w&s=19

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the January 6th committee it’s that the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, DNC, FISA Court, Clinton campaign, mainstream media, etc. can conspire to steal an election, frame the President, claim he was a Russian agent and impeach him [twice], but … [1/8]

    If anyone else so much as questions the 2020 results when every swing state inexplicably stopped counting votes on election night while Trump was decisively ahead, Governors and Secretaries of State illegally changed election laws in the days and weeks before the election, [2/8]

    Fake stories of “pipe breaks” flooding voting facilities in GA, DNC members counting votes after they sent Republicans and media members home, evidence of ballot mules illegally dumping votes in election bins, unsolicited mail-in ballots, refusing to conduct full audits, [3/8]

    Illegally updating software in voting machines the before day the election and Joe Biden waking up with a record shattering 81M votes, while winning the fewest # of counties in US history without being able to fill a parking lot on the trail, when the incumbent garnered 12M [4/8]

    More votes than he did in the previous election and won 18/19 bellwether counties … then you’re a traitor to America who should be locked in a cage without due process, declared a domestic terrorist or prevented from ever running for political office for even suggesting [5/8]

    That contested elections could be sent back to the states, for which there is a constitutional process to review and resolve.

    Also, January 6th protest: Bad. BLM riots all over the US and outside of the WH injuring hundreds of Capitol Police and Secret Service Members: Good

    1. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Regardless of any procedural irregularities and statistical abnormalities, several facts are beyond any doubt:

      (1) In many states, the executive and judicial branches unconstitutionally modified election procedures in ways that likely affected the outcome.

      (2) Democrats abused the legislature and law enforcement to manipulate public opinion with false accusations.

      (3) Large donors manipulated the election process and destroyed fairness by preferentially supporting elections in Democrat-leaning areas.

      (4) Big tech and media colluded with Democrats to spread misinformation about Trump.

      (1) is clearly illegal. (2-4) may or may not be technically illegal, but they clearly have precluded "free and fair elections".

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

        (1) In many states, the executive and judicial branches unconstitutionally modified election procedures in ways that likely affected the outcome.

        These were all litigated at the state level and Trump's team lost. It is up to states to best enforce its own election law.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          Lie

        2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          False. It was dismissed for lack of standing before the election and dismissed on the ground of laches following the election. In other words, they weren't allowed to challenge it before, and they weren't allowed to challenge it after. All of the dismissals on that point were procedural, and dubiously so, at that.

        3. R Mac   3 years ago

          I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing:

          https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/judge-rules-michigan-secretary-of-state-violated-state-law-with-absentee-ballot-order/

        4. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Umm... so completely wrong. Almost 2 dozen cases that were adjudicated found illegal election rule changes.

          Examples:

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-virginia-election-law-changes-illegal

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot

          2. JesseAz   3 years ago

            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-court-secretary-of-state-changed-deadline

          3. JesseAz   3 years ago

            https://www.sarahpalin.com/2022/648975/wisconsin-judge-rules-2020-election-officials-broke-the-law/

            And Jeff, I could do this for a while.

            Your argumentation from ignorance and the consistency of it is stunning.

    2. SRG   3 years ago

      You are aware that some states, in particular Pennsylvania, passed laws requiring in-person ballots to be counted before mail-in ballots pretty much so that a late move to the Democratic nominee would appear questionable, right?

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Seriously? Is that the latest Democratic talking point?

      2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        So, lefties have their own conspiracy theories. Tell us, oh wise one, how could it be known that mailed ballots favor one party in the midst of a pandemic?

  38. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/greta/status/1542124333912424449?t=v7zxKzWPfgv1rJx5Zya0CQ&s=19

    If questioner (Cheney) wants to appear fair to jury (American people), it probably is not a good idea to get caught on camera hugging the witness…see below from @Politico;already people have very strong feelings - both ways - about this hearing and pics like this don’t help;

    [Pic]

    1. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Cheney cares no more about how she appears to the American people than Brian Stelter. All of this is about (1) revenge against Trump and Republicans for her failed and disgraced father, and (2) a lucrative future.

      She just wants to be the highly paid token "Republican" on some left wing news show. Maybe she'll get a fake faculty position out of it as well in some department that wants nominal political diversity without having an actual Republican.

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        Exactly. She wants to get that SE Cupp, Ana Navarro, kind of role where she is the "good" republican bitch on the liberal network. Also will probably be on the board at Raytheon or Lockheed. She will be set

  39. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!
    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!
    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!
    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!
    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!
    Trump attacked the Secret Service driver and lunged for the wheel!

    According to NBC News, the Secret Service is prepared to rebut the charge:

    Ok, maybe he didn't.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      .....BUT IF HE DID LUNGE FOR THE WHEEL.....

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

        Who are you going to believe, the Secret Service agents who were actually there, or the hearsay that supports the narrative?

        I can't believe Robby is taking the word of someone with such dull, flat hair.

        1. NOYB2   3 years ago

          She needs more Finesse. Sometimes you need a little, sometimes you need a lot. She needs a lot.

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Repeat the lie often enough...

    3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Isn't this one of the songs in Chicago?

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

        Is that the musical where all the dances are done with a Light foot?

    4. Super Scary   3 years ago

      Republicans lunge!

  40. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    My god. Imagine taking Jan 6 seriously, and even worse the joke hearings?

    It boggles the mind.

    1. Dillinger   3 years ago

      if I could post vid of my office you'd think it was an Oscars party or something.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Bad analogy. Have you been to any Oscars parties in the last few years?

  41. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr called on Apple and Google to ban TikTok from their app stores due to concerns that the Chinese-owned company could be sharing users' information with its authoritarian government.

    I'm old enough to remember when going after TikTok was a Very Racist Thing.

  42. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Turkey is okay with adding Finland and Sweden to NATO.

    Expanding NATO is a grave error.

  43. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    A judge has sentenced Ghislaine Maxwell to 20 years in prison for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually assault underage women.

    who paid for these services?

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Didn't they offer her immunity for testifying against epstien and giving the clients list?
      Did they see the client list and retract the deal?

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      We'll never know because Ms. Maxwell will have tragically taken her own life in about a month.

  44. Jerry B.   3 years ago

    We seem to be getting a lot of "I heard" and "I was told" from Ms. Hutchenson. Isn't that called hearsay?

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Good enough for me!

      — Lying Jeffy

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Its her being accurate, not misrepresenting anything she heard second-hand as being something she personally witnessed.

  45. Sevo   3 years ago

    "January 6 Hearings Reveal More Trump Misconduct, but Was It Incitement?"

    To TDS-addled shit-piles, Trump breathing is incitement.

    1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Another time where people attempt to ascribe a specific legal term, Incitement, and this leads to arguing over THAT definition and draws focus away from everything else.
      There's an overplaying of their hand for the people who are pushing really hard to find some actual criminal act that can be charged to Trump.

  46. Sevo   3 years ago

    "CNN analyst Chris Cillizza described the revelations as "utterly devastating" for Trump."

    Of the three people watching, two were aghast, the other was checking her boarding time.

  47. Dillinger   3 years ago

    >>Cassidy Hutchinson

    sweats like a terrible poker player.

  48. Dillinger   3 years ago

    >>It is easy for witness testimony to seem damning in the absence of cross-examination.

    witness testimony in absence of cross-examination is antithetical.

    1. creech   3 years ago

      I've gotten several progs to agree; however, their comeback is "the Republicans refused to participate in the hearings so this is on them." Am I correct that (District Attorney) Pelosi told the GOP that, in effect, they couldn't have a defense lawyer of their own choosing, that Pelosi would pick them? Why would anyone alleged to have committed a crime agree to that?

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        I'm unclear on this. There was some call for an independent investigation akin to the 9/11 investigation. I have no idea what happened with that.
        As much as these trials are big political kibble, I chose not to follow them. I just don't have much of a heart for day-to-day politicking.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        In this case, the prog comeback is correct.

  49. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Federal Communications Commission head Brendan Carr called on Apple and Google to ban TikTok from their app stores due to concerns that the Chinese-owned company could be sharing users' information with its authoritarian government.

    Trump still pulling the levers at the FCC, I see.

  50. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Fyi I read something somewhere that the Democrats are panicking over Jan 6 because what polls are finding is that whenever they open their yaps up about Jan 6, support for Republicans goes up.

    1. Michael Ejercito   3 years ago

      A huge chunk of the public recall that the Democrats were pro-riot in 2020.

    2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Do you have a link to that data?

  51. Nardz   3 years ago

    Reason supported FBI

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-raids-home-retired-texas-couple-who-attended-jan-6-capitol-rally

    A retired Texas couple said FBI agents busted through the gate of their rural home, threw flashbangs, handcuffed them, and trained lasers on them before searching their home for evidence connected to the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol.

    Lora DeWolfe and Darrel Kennemer, who live on seven acres near San Marcos, Texas, told The Epoch Times they attended the Jan. 6 rally at the Capitol but did nothing wrong. They believe the FBI mistakenly identified Kennemer as someone else.

    The FBI didn’t arrest them, they said. Agents eventually produced a search warrant saying Kennemer was suspected of “assaulting, resisting or impeding” officers and “entering restricted building or grounds.”

    Both said they went no further than the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 and did not harm anyone or damage anything. They said the allegation of assault was false, and the FBI kept showing Kennemer a blurry photo of a man who looked similar but wasn’t Kennemer.

    1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      The raid is really the big issue here. Even if it was a mistaken arrest, it's not clear to me why either case would require a raid.

      1. Seamus   3 years ago

        Because the process is the punishment. They need to learn that there are consequences to being Trumpsters.

      2. Dillinger   3 years ago

        power optics.

        1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          I am not quite convinced on that one. Putting them through the court system is the process that is often unfair and brutal.
          I do think the raid thing is slightly different. But, power optics is probably close. I guess I think it's both a show of force and also a smoke 'em if you got 'em mentality in policing. They got the raid teams, what are they supposed to do? Not raid?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            This whole situation is using the the state to intimidate political opponents.

  52. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    Thanks Clarence Thomas! Re-criminalizing sodomy is now back in consideration in Texas. Because the law that Lawrence v. Texas declared to be unconstitutional was never actually repealed.

    https://www.9news.com.au/world/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-gay-sex-sodomy-ban-crime-criminalised-supreme-court-us-politics-news/c788aeee-7c8c-493d-a2cb-7863c7469a6b

    1. Nardz   3 years ago

      https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1541586785087766528?t=tc4ClyScbRyUtEb1KJWJlQ&s=19

      With Roe gone, it’s more important than ever to crack down on so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care. My bill with @SenatorMenendez would stop these harmful practices.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        They're tricking people into....not killing babies? Receiving much needed material support? Considering adoption? I'm really not following this one....

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Wow.
        See, it was never actually about "choice" for those ghouls.

    2. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

      Yeah. It's his fault they didn't repeal a law ruled unenforceable.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Notice how he's parroting the same lefty Goldsteining of Thomas as their, heh, bete noire.

      2. Trollificus   3 years ago

        "unenforceable"? You obviously haven't been following the latest developments in "dick cam" technology.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Commie left BTFO by the basest black man in history.

    4. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Few problems.
      Lawrence v. Texas isn't overruled, so first there's that. Second, it's not obvious it would be overruled, and in fact that Thomas was alone in his concurrence means almost certainly it would not be.
      So, maybe if it did, and it went up, and the court did not re-uphold the ruling based on the immunities and privileges clauses (rather than Substantive Due Process which is what the Thomas concurrence was explicitly about but people keep ignoring) then it would become a legislative issue again, and would most likely be revoked in the current environment.

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        Finally, a philosophical point. Thomas is a very, very consistent thinker. He has one of the most clearly spoken and extensively written judicial philosophies of any jurist ever. He is known for applying it quite clearly, and I find his arguments usually very convincing (modulo some stuff where I'm a Gorsuch man). Take some time to read about it.
        I have a hard time being consequentialist when it comes to the upper courts. I've written this a few times the last few days. I think as a libertarian it is worth looking at his judicial philosophy and wrestling with it, as I think there is a strong claim that it leads to much more libertarian politic then an "by any means necessary" outcome based judicial philosophy.

        I understand your concerns though, Jeff.

        1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          The "by any means necessary" consequentialist approach to jurisprudence inevitably leads to arbitrary judicial rulemaking because there is no guiding principle or limitation. Thomas's approach (shared by Gorsuch and Scalia) is the only way to keep things reasonably predictable and not subject to the whims of five geriatric elitists.

          Regarding Lawrence v. Texas and the other cases, Thomas has been pretty vocal for a long time that he thinks the Supreme Court is fundamentally wrong on the concept of "substantive due process" (itself an inherently contradictory phrase) and that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is not some magical repository of unenumerated rights. He's maintained that rights recognized in the substantive due process cases could potentially still be protected by other parts of the Constitution (including the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which would be more consistent with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment) but others matters simply don't fall under the domain of the Constitution.

        2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          Also, it bears mentioning - just because an outcome is bad (from whatever viewpoint) does not mean it is unconstitutional, and just because an outcome is desirable does not mean it is protected by the Constitution. Some of this falls to the democratic process, either at the state or federal level.

    5. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      These leftist fever dreams about the country descending into religious authoritarian patriarchy are a little creepy and frankly come across as a bit fetishist.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        Their fixation on sexual slavery is pretty creepy.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        The iron law of leftists: confession via projection

    6. Cronut   3 years ago

      Lol. That's not what happened. He was asked if he would defend the law in court and he said yes, because that's his job as state AG. He also said he's not prepared to defend it because he's not even sure if it's constitutional.

      He did not say, "Welp, team, saddle up, we're going after butt sex at dawn!"

      You're such an idiot.

    7. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Re-criminalizing sodomy is now back in consideration in Texas. Because the law that Lawrence v. Texas declared to be unconstitutional was never actually repealed.

      Oh, please, stop lying. It's Paxton's job to defend Texas law, and he affirmed that.

      Why didn't Democrats introduce legislation repealing that law? Why aren't they doing so now? They would likely get a majority for that.

      But, oh no, Democrats want to keep this issue alive so that they can demonize Republicans and conservative judges.

      And if Texas foolishly tries to prosecute sodomy again, let them, and let them deal with the political and economic consequences.

  53. SRG   3 years ago

    Did anyone catch the clip of the criminal Gen. Flynn taking the 5th yesterday? What a POS.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      god , seriously, no one fucking cares except journalists and team blue fanatics who see this all as a sport.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        With the current kangaroo court you'd be insane not to plead the fifth.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Also, he'd have to be a goddamn fool NOT to take the 5th and keep his mouth shut.

      he is literally a victim of talking to the feds while thinking he was innocent and then getting targeted for "lying to the police" instead of any actual crime they were asking him about.

      He's like the poster boy for taking the 5th.

      1. Seamus   3 years ago

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

        1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

          exactly.

        2. Super Scary   3 years ago

          Time to watch this again, great stuff.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        Not just thinking he was innocent.
        He was innocent.

    3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      What's wrong with pleading the 5th?

      1. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

        Former President Trump says that only the mafia use the 5th.

        1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

          And you believe whatever Trump says am i right?

          1. Super Scary   3 years ago

            If he heard someone say it, it must be true.

        2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          Well, then he's wrong.

      2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        That proves he's guilty.

    4. Sevo   3 years ago

      Did anyone else catch SRG making an ass of himself? What a POS.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        I did! It was amusing.

  54. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

    From the Daily Fail:

    Please say a prayer': Travis Barker's 16-year-old daughter Alabama shares photo of the Blink-182 drummer in LA hospital with 'mystery illness' and wife Kourtney Kardashian by his side

    Usually when this sort of thing happens, it's due to a drug overdose.

    1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Yeah, though he's had a long history of medical stuff after that thing where he survived a plane crash a decade or so ago.
      Pretty horrific, his entire body was on fire at one point. Since then he's been sort of fucked up. So, could be drugs, but could be related to that. Might be drugs emanating from that incident.
      I'll pray for him either way.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        I honestly do hope he gets better, because I don't know if he's ever fully recovered physically or emotionally from the crash. Something like that would fuck me up pretty bad, much less someone who was already fully immersed in Hollywood's libertine culture.

        It would be pretty fucked up if the Kardashian Kurse ended up with an actual body count, as opposed to just going cuckoo or getting chewed up and spit out like what normally happens.

        1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          I don't like to condition my hopes for other people based on my feelings for them. We're all sinners and we pray to "lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy."
          But, I'm biased. I loved Blink-182 as a kid, they were one of my first bands along with a lot of kids my age. Travis Barker seems like a good enough guy. He was also in the Aquabats. And so, I am hoping for him.

        2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          My friend's wife and his daughter survived a harrowing plane crash without the survivor's guilt.

          Scary shit

    2. Nardz   3 years ago

      Blink 182 was the worst.

      1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

        Ninja, please.

  55. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Authorities have charged two Mexican nationals in connection with the deaths of 51 migrants who perished from extreme heat inside a tractor-trailer in San Antonio.</I.

    At this point in the decline, I wouldn't even be that shocked to find out this whole thing was an FBI op.

  56. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

    The new Beavis and Butthead movie is really good, btw. Just wanted to make people aware.

    1. Dillinger   3 years ago

      how could it not be?

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        Because almost every other revival isn't good. We just have the good fortune that Mike Judge is the most consistently talented comedic voice in 50 years. We are blessed to have him.

        1. Dillinger   3 years ago

          word.

        2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          What about Emo Phillips?

          1. Trollificus   3 years ago

            I was surprised to learn he's still alive and still doing stand up. My son saw him a couple of weeks ago, opening for someone we'd never heard of.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      I watched "Beavis and Butthead Do America" the other day, and it's pretty fucking surreal to watch--not just because it's very much a movie of the time period it was released, but in comparison to Hollywood's current adherence to the woke religion.

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        There's a pretty great Woke set-piece in the new movie that had me laughing.

        1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

          "Butthead, that lady has a penis! Woh"

          "Damnit Beavis, how many times do I have to tell you; stop looking up dude's skirts!"

  57. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

    This is the most damning testimony since the video showing Corey Lewandowski breaking Michelle Fields's (girl reporterette) arm.

    1. Trollificus   3 years ago

      Or the time Jim Acosta ripped that staffer's finger off trying to hold onto the mic.

  58. Dillinger   3 years ago

    >>It's appropriate to warn the public about the unique challenges posed by Chinese control of a major social media company.

    2022 is cool to bring this up but not while T was president

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      The funny thing is that, even prior to 2020, the general consensus in the tech community was, "be careful if you get on TikTok, because it's a CCP front and they'll fucking spy on you." After it became the platform of choice that year for celebrities, Zoomer idiots, and various cluster B personality disorders, suddenly we weren't supposed to talk about that anymore.

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        To be fair, every other major social media network is a front for the US government and also fucking spies on you. And they probably sell their data to the CCP anyway.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Well, sure, that's how those companies were allowed to get as big as they are--they have the ultimate sugar daddy backing them up.

      2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

        He's right. TikTok is far more nefarious than eventual data flowing to the CCP. It is projection of force by a bad player

  59. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

    Trump could have won if he hadn't changed his story: "I am very Pro-Choice." -- Trump, 1999. He lost the popular vote in 2016 because Gary Johnson flipped from girl-bullying to individual rights for women and this have him a pro-choice dividend of 3,213,098 votes. Trump let mystical rednecks with Greene teeth talk him into anointing nazi judges and alienating women voters. As a result he lost in BOTH the popular and electoral college votes. Comstockism worked BEFORE the 19th Amendment.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      The ghost of Hank was summoned.
      (I know he's not dead yet but he's old enough to be)

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      It is kind of an interesting conjecture: if Trump had decided to pretend to be the most liberal President ever, instead of pretending to be the most conservative, could he have pulled it off? It might even have alighted better with his true beliefs about many political issues.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        No dummy. That's why the liberals had to go with Biden, because they could market him as a moderate.

  60. ragebot   3 years ago

    I have limited google kung fu skills but have not been able to find any confirmation of Hutchinson's claim that there was catsup dripping on the wall. Is anyone claiming this and does anyone have links to those claims.

    1. Cronut   3 years ago

      Who cares? I'm sure that's not the first time a pissed off president has thrown something.

    2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      The important thing is that she said it!

    3. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      I don’t think there is any confirmation.

  61. Marshal   3 years ago

    It must be sad when your star witness is proven a liar before your article even hits the web. At least in the old days the time to print the paper gave you an excuse.

    "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild.

    This is the "Trump incited a riot" claim? You've got to be fucking kidding me. I can't people pretend to believe this shit.

    1. Cronut   3 years ago

      Someone needs to put together a compilation of everyone calling for pro-abortion supporters to "fight" for reproductive rights.

    2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

      I bet she had red lace bikini thong underwear on

  62. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

    Judging from the comments Ms. Hutchinson hit a nerve and I am guessing that is what the Committee was looking to do.

    1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

      Have her disrobe if they have a pulse

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Isn’t it amazing that for a comment section that is presumably full of libertarians, there are so many commenters who are hyper-concerned about any slight against Trump and the Republican Party.

      1. Marshal   3 years ago

        there are so many commenters who are hyper-concerned about any slight against Trump and the Republican Party.

        Why would a libertarian claim standing up for right or wrong independently of who they benefit is "hyper-concern" over "any slight"? Apparently in this worldview right and wrong don't exist independently, they are only relevant as they show support for Team Blue or Red. This worldview is one method to distinguish between libertarians and leftists posing as libertarians.

        1. Cyto   3 years ago

          This has been so frustrating. For the first year of Trump I prefaced all my comments with "please stop making me defend this guy". I don't know he manages to do it. Somehow he inspires his opponents to keep doubling down on the most ludicrous things.

          I don't think he would have gotten elected in the first place if his opposition was not so completely unhinged.

          He calls out a reporter for repeating a lie... "you're fake news". Suddenly the claim is that he is a dictator who threatens the very lives of the free press. It was stupid. Indefensibly stupid.

          And if you were sentient at the time, pointing that out was kind of an imperative. Even though in the minds of binary partisans this puts you on the side of Trump.

          1. Marshal   3 years ago

            Every comment the left makes reinforces that their lying is far more impactful than his pettiness.

          2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            "you're fake news"

            Do people even remember that the narrative at the time was that Fake News (literally the words used constantly for months) was responsible for Hillary's loss?

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              Hell, he wasn't even the one who coined it--that was WaPo, Trump just appropriated the phrase.

      2. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

        The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

        The part in bold, from a libertarian perspective, is what is upsetting.
        Having a show trial to gaslight the rights of a large portion of the political population is very upsetting.
        Making the protestors the criminals is very upsetting.

    3. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      And, apparently, one commenter focused on wanting to have sex with Ms. Hutchinson.

  63. Dillinger   3 years ago

    in my experience chicks from Massachusetts never required roofie-ing

    1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

      Do you think she is hot in the sack?

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        was doing the Boston roofy story, not Cassidy ... but probably yes

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      sarcasmic disagrees

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        That's more of a preference thing.

  64. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Just for the record, the research staff missed this little detail:

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/29/new-j6-narrative-about-trump-and-secret-service-collapses-hours-after-tuesday-hearing/

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      They didn't "miss" it.
      They ran past it with their fingers in their ears shouting "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      “research staff”? It’s the friggin’ morning links blog post…

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        https://people.com/politics/rep-lauren-boebert-denounces-separation-of-church-state/

        "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. This is not in the Constitution…”

    3. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

      Just for the record Newsweek says Bobby Engel's testimony legally agrees with Ms Hutchinson.

      https://www.newsweek.com/cassidy-hutchinson-testimony-bobby-engel-trump-steering-wheel-1720148

      1. Marshal   3 years ago

        When Engel informed Trump that they were going back to the White House and not the Capitol where the insurrection was unfolding,

        Included phrase demonstrating the Newsweek article does not reflect reality.

      2. Cronut   3 years ago

        Newsweek does not say that. Newsweek says parts of the story align with Engle's testimony. Those aren't the parts that are being disputed. The part that's being disputed is the grabbing of the steering wheel and the lunging parts.

        You're very stupid.

  65. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

    I would really like one night with Cassidy Hutchinson.
    Right in the squish mitten

    1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

      And no wedding ring????

      1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

        ENB wishes she is as hot as Cassidy. My Lord

  66. Sevo   3 years ago

    "January 6 Hearings Reveal More Trump Misconduct,..."

    To be honest, the hearings reveal *hearsay* regarding Trump.

  67. Cyto   3 years ago

    If you did not immediately know that her story about about fighting with secret service agents for control of the limousine was b*******, you should forever refrain from talking about any issue related to Donald Trump, and perhaps national politics.

    It is not an internally consistent story.

    As soon as I heard them talking about it on CNN, I knew this story wasn't true.It isn't that I have special knowledge orAny marriage to one particular version of events. It is that this doesn't make sense.

    1st, the commander in chief does not have to ask permission of a limo driver to go to the capital building. He is the freaking commander in chief. If he says go to the capital building they are gonna take him there.The head of The Secret service might argue that it isn't safe, but if that's where he wants to go that's where he can go.

    2nd, the guy who is Being driven around does not ride up front. So the idea that a 74 year old man jumped across the seat to grab the wheel is just stupid.

    3rd, we are supposed to believe that that he grabbed a guy by the throat who is trained to stop assassins? He tried to strangle this guy? And we are supposed to believe that even after 2 and a 1/2 years of digging this is the first we have heard of this?

    So if you believed this for more than 5 minutes, you need to do some long hard looking in the mirror. And credulously repeating these stories as if this is not a partisan political advertisement mostly filled with Lies and conjecture At responsible journalism.

    Of course, in the hours after Her testimony we learned that the people present have offered to testify under oath that this never happened.This is also how you know they are lying on purpose. They have had a year and a 1/2 to get this story together.And yet, they didNot interview the limo driver? Are we supposed to believe that?
    The fact that they are not presenting the limo driver is all you need to know to understand that they know that this story is not true. Because if you were a committee that is investigating the truth of this matter, and you heard this 2nd hand rumor from some secretary, you would immediately go talk to the limo driver to get 1st hand testimony. The fact that he was not sitting there tells you it is a lie and they know it is a lie . The guy is a career er civil servant and not a partisan actor. He would have no reason to lie for a former president.

    So if you are among the people who spent the last 24 hours discussing how this reveals just how dangerous January 6th was,This should demonstrate to you that you do not have the ability to ruminate on this question. This was as easily spotted as a lie as Amber heard claiming to have doheard claiming to have been repeatedly punched in the face by a grown man wearing large metal rings on every finger and yet having having no readily discernible damage. You don't have to know much to know this is a lie. All you have to do is listen to their own story.

    And as a journalist, there is an extra layer to this. These are the identical people who lied to you for 2 and a 1/2 years about about Russia gate. Not just from the same party, the identical people. They are motivated by the identical motivations. And they are saying things that have the identical conclusion. If you are a journalist and you report what Adam Schiff is telling you about Donald Trump trump without mentioning that he lied repeatedly over the course of many years about the same topic, well, you're not a journalist anymore.

    1. Moderation4ever   3 years ago

      "Of course, in the hours after Her testimony we learned that the people present have offered to testify under oath that this never happened."

      Let's hear their testimony. It one thing to say you'll testify and another to do so.

      1. Marshal   3 years ago

        Leftists made similar claims after the UVA rape story was published, while reasonable people knew immediately it was bullshit.

        No evidence is ever sufficient to disprove assertions which support their propaganda, their only interest is supporting the media's ability to continue making the claim until people stop paying attention, just as they did with the Trump Collusion Hoax.

      2. ThomasD   3 years ago

        You claim to be moderate but do not find it curious that the committee did not subpoena those very people who were present at that moment.

        Or do you really think the committee had no idea what this woman was going to say in her testimony yet called her anyway?

      3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        Why didn't the committee of public safety bring them in? It's not like they contempt of Congress is a toothless charge anymore.

      4. Trollificus   3 years ago

        Hold on. She never even said she was there, She didn't say she saw and heard this. She said SHE WAS TOLD by someone else that this happened. And the person she claims told her this has offered to testify that he never told her any such thing. Other people who were there have offered to testify that it never happened.

        The "Unvestigative Committee" never asked them about it, opting instead for her word. Now it's up to THEM to ask for confirming testimony. You hearing crickets?

        Who the fuck do you think has a burden of proof at this point, ya feckless fucktard?

      5. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Let's hear their testimony. It one thing to say you'll testify and another to do so.

        All the Committee for Public Safety has to do is call them up. Think they'll have the balls to do so, if this is supposed to be a legitimate endeavor and not some kangaroo court with the assessments already baked in?

    2. Brett Bellmore   3 years ago

      Yes, to everything you said. It's damning that Soave didn't lead with, "In an absurd story contradicted on the record by everyone present..."

      This isn't even the first time they've tried this shit. This is what, the 3rd or 4th story following this exact trajectory? Hearsay about Trump doing or saying something crazy and awful, splashed across the headlines, followed by everybody who was actually present saying on the record that it never happened.

      And the media usually end up with, "Well, I guess we'll never know the truth. But it sure sounds like something Trump would do!"

    3. Marshal   3 years ago

      This is why courts, responsible journalists, and decent people generally don't accept hearsay evidence. They can't get the limo driver to say what they want so they pick out an apparatchik who understands how her loyalty will be rewarded.

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      At this point it is both a game and a religious rite. Liberal elites invent ever more outlandish stuff and challenge the devout to believe even harder. And then the elites can high-five each other and start thinking of stuff that is more outrageous.

  68. JasonAZ   3 years ago

    Libertarians for believing hearsay evidence because Democrats say it's true. - Reason Editors 2020.

  69. XM   3 years ago

    Election conspiracy theorists exist. If a hyper partisan committee tried to prosecute them with selectively edited footages and made up stories, "libertarians" should be ringing alarm bells.

    Trump is a volatile personality. He was also a subject to a witch hunt based on a fabricated dossier prepared by his political adversaries. His SC nominee endured false rape allegation by a woman who lied repeatedly under oath. Every conservative SC justice is now under threat by left wing radicals.

    You don't have to like Trump. But you're missing the big picture if your obsession is with Trump's personal conduct. Where was Reason's unmitigated outrage at mobs burning down cities and illegally protesting in front of SC judges? Ross Ulbricht, who definitely broke the law and may have put some lives in danger by running an unregulated network deserves all our sympathy for government overreach, but we can overlook the government holding kangaroo courts on a president who doesn't like free trade?

    Given the Mises overtake of the LP, I can also assume Reason and Cato now represent the David French wing of the libertarian party. Aging, irrelevant, and clinging so desperately to ideological purity on a handful of issues. Lots of libertarians don't like Trump, but they can't turn a blind eye to liberal fascism.

    1. waxliberty   3 years ago

      "Where was Reason's unmitigated outrage at mobs burning down cities and illegally protesting in front of SC judges? "

      Alternate earth craziness.

      BLM riot zones were battles between cops and protesters. Tons of documentation supports the notion that conflict was disproportionately initiated by police. The idea that mobs just went and burned down cities is entirely a propaganda construction.

      "illegally protesting in front of SC judges"

      Should be prosecuted as illegal. But comical to highlight as a worrying trend in the context of modern politics, where the right generates continual carpet bombing of death threats for people doing their jobs – election workers, health care workers. The history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. is completely dominated by the right, including 4/19, the actual police assassinations during BLM (boogaloo), routinely filmed, lionizing James Alex Fields and similar actors, right wing militants have killed more people than jihadis, Payton S. Gendron acting violently on white replacement fears in Buffalo, etc. etc. etc.

      "Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.

      "We will kill you. That’s the Proud Boys in a nutshell. We will kill you… Beating the sh*t out of these people. I think it’s our job to do, and the cops to turn a blind eye... Fighting solves everything. We need more violence from the Trump people, Trump supporters. Choke a motherf*****. Choke a bitch. … Get your fingers around the windpipe.”

      But yeah, we better fret about those liberal protesters carrying signs and wearing pussy hats. Super scary.

      (Not to minimize, there can be risks from any kind of extremism and maybe domestic terror from the left will finally develop in the U.S., but we should obviously start by looking at the reality of where terror and foundational threats to liberty and reason come from in this country, by nature of the beliefs involved.)

  70. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

    https://people.com/politics/rep-lauren-boebert-denounces-separation-of-church-state/

    "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. This is not in the Constitution…”

  71. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "The January 6 hearings do not constitute a trial"

    WHAT?!?!?!?!?

    Nancy and Chuck and Rachel and AOC and that guy at the Times all promised me that this will end with Trump behind bars, which will save Democracy! for all eternity. Now what am I supposed to think?

    1. waxliberty   3 years ago

      You're supposed to think it's encouraging. Having proven how vulnerable the institutions are to corruption and tribal hysteria, and how correspondingly weak the protections for the Constitutional republic, maybe next time your chosen demagogue *will* be able to pull off a coup.

      "BOLD, Certainly. But ... we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules" – the Eastman memo

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Constitutional republic? That's not Democracy!

        1. waxliberty   3 years ago

          facepalm

  72. Brett Bellmore   3 years ago

    Jan. 6 Committee Says Cassidy Hutchinson Told Them That She Heard Mark Meadows Say That A Secret Service Agent’s Friend’s Cousin’s Husband Once Heard That One Of Trump’s Other Aides Said She Thinks She Heard Him Say He Wanted To 'Do An Insurrection'

  73. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    All else equal, testimony under oath ought to be considered at least a little bit more worthy of consideration than testimony not under oath, because someone willing to make a claim under oath is risking more than someone who is not.

  74. mad.casual   3 years ago

    "Anything anyone says under oath is presumptive fact and should be treated as authoritative for all intents and purposes."

    -Chemfuck

    And, again, not under regular oath where someone in a criminal trial might actually face perjury charges based on the outcome of their testimony, a kangaroo trial where endless lists of people have repeatedly, demonstrably, and knowingly at the time lied and faced no consequences. Where the largest, most memorable case of anyone facing perjury charges in recent history resulted in the people, who actually proved he perjured himself, lost all power to enforce the standard for the better part of a decade.

  75. DesigNate   3 years ago

    As long as it agrees with the narrative that Trump is the worst.

  76. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Hearsay under oath is almost never considered in court. How fucking dumb are you?

  77. Seamus   3 years ago

    She testified under oath that she heard someone say something. I'm going to giver her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she isn't a liar, and that she actually heard it. (Whether she heard it correctly or not is another question.) Am I willing to assume that the person she heard actually saw Trump attempt to grab the wheel of the vehicle? Not a chance. The committee had every opportunity to subpoena the agents who were in that vehicle (including the driver) and to get their direct testimony. The fact that we haven't heard any such direct testimony tells me that the committee wasn't able to get it, and that they had to rely on this second- or third-hand report in order to bolster their anti-Trump narrative.

  78. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

    This is feet on Pelosi's desk. What else is there to see?

  79. JesseAz   3 years ago

    I will testify under oath people told me jeff is a retarded fuck. This means it is true. Which it is.

  80. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

    I will testify under oath people told me jeff is a retarded fuck.

    Bad example, because countless people have in fact told you that cytotoxic is a retarded fuck, and that fact can be easily ascertained and confirmed. A better example would be you traveling to Toronto where cytotoxic lives and taking an oath before the city council's zoning board, then testifying to the zoning board that cytotoxic's mom once told you that he was a chronic bedwetter and animal abuser.

  81. mpercy   3 years ago

    I'm willing to testify under oath that JesseAz said that people told him that Jeff is a retarded fuck. So it must be true.

  82. Lashaun Breheny   3 years ago

    How much time do you have?

    UNDER OATH must have bolded and highlighted in today's ActBlue PDF, since he literally can't say anything else and just keeps spamming UNDER OATH repeatedly as if it held any meaning in a non-court proceeding with no defense or hostile counter-party to call or cross examine witnesses or present their own evidence.

  83. HorseConch   3 years ago

    Do you really have to ask that question, Jesse? I'd say he's slightly above Joe Friday and Tony, but below White Mike.

  84. HorseConch   3 years ago

    That is how almost everyone interprets that comment.

  85. MK Ultra   3 years ago

    He pretty much Eleanor Clift back in the McLaughlin Group years, just here to say dumb shit, double-down on it, and get kicked around by those smarter than he.

  86. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    And if Jeff's mom says she said nothing of the sort, claim that she's lying because bias.

  87. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    White Mike only demands citations. He doesn't actually read them.

  88. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    Now there's some reasoned argumentation right there, folks.

  89. Super Scary   3 years ago

    There was also the shaman there, so they had totems, buffs and heals ready to go.

  90. DeAnnP   3 years ago

    Weapons that would not make it through the "Mags" as they were calling them in the testimony. The police transmission mentioned guns.

  91. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Just as pertinent as most of what you have to say, tbqh.

  92. R Mac   3 years ago

    Interesting you ignored Dizzle’s repeated posts of evidence but responded to this.

  93. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

    So you're saying he's committed suicide?

  94. Gary Triest   3 years ago

    Yeah?
    Well that means nothing; just because the person she is quoting denies having said it, doesn't mean he didn't say it, or at least transmitted it into her head by telepathy.

  95. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

    Horns. His headdress had horns. Lethal sharp horns. He was literally The Minotaur incarnate.

  96. DeAnnP   3 years ago

    LIZ CHENEY: Of course, the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. The Select Committee has learned that people who willingly entered the enclosed area for President Trump's speech were screened so they could attend the rally at the Ellipse.

    They had weapons and other items that were confiscated: pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons. And those were just from the people who chose to go through the security for the President's event on the Ellipse, not the several thousand members of the crowd who refused to go through the mags and watched from the lawn near the Washington Monument.

    The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers, and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6th. Let's listen. [Begin videotape]

    UNKNOWN: There's an individual who is in a tree. It's gonna be a white male, about six feet tall, thin build, brown cowboy boots. He's got jeans and a blue jean jacket, and underneath the hoodie jacket the complainants both saw stock of an AR-15. He's going to be with a group of individuals, about 5 to 8 — 5 to 8 other individuals.

    Two of the individuals in that group at the base of the tree near the porta-pottys were wearing green fatigues, green olive dress house fatigues. About 5'8", 5'9", skinny — skinny white males, brown cowboy boots.

    UNKNOWN: They had Glock style pistols in their waistband. 8736-- That subject's weapon on his right hip. That's a negative, he's in the tree. Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree south side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the Don't Tread on Me flag, American flag facemask, cowboy boots, weapon on the right — right side hip. I got three men walking down the street in fatigues.

    One's carrying a AR-15. Copy at 14th and Independence. [End Videotape]

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Quick Work

Charles Oliver | 6.3.2025 4:00 AM

Nevada Becomes the 21st State To Strengthen Donor Privacy Protections

Autumn Billings | 6.2.2025 5:30 PM

Harvard International Student With a Private Instagram? You Might Not Get a Visa.

Emma Camp | 6.2.2025 4:57 PM

J.D. Vance Wants a Free Market for Crypto. What About Everything Else?

Eric Boehm | 6.2.2025 4:40 PM

Trump's Attack on the Federalist Society Is a Bad Omen for Originalism

Damon Root | 6.2.2025 3:12 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!