I candidly admit I haven’t paid much mind to the January 6 committee hearings. I see headlines in the major news sites about such and such being subpoenaed (and/or telling the
partisan witch hunters to go pound sand) and hear second hand about the back-and-forth between former Trump officials and supporters vs. turncoat Liz Cheney and her Democrat honchos.
But in the process of the months-long proceedings, it seems like a number of issues have come to the forefront that demand attention – and they’re not receiving the treatment from the establishment news media that they duly deserve. Julie Kelly at American Greatness has done a terrific job of following the subject and covered the plight of a good many peaceful and non-violent protesters who’ve been unfairly accused, and jailed for years without constitutional justification. But still, there are questions.
As would be expected, Donald Trump’s haters have devoted an oversized amount of time to hoping Nancy Pelosi’s committee finds something juicy to blow mindlessly out of proportion. One of those Trump bashers is #NeverTrumper extraordinaire Bill Kristol, who falsely believes without evidence that the hearings will actually stimulate some sort of public backlash against Trump.
In a piece titled “The Forest and the Trees -- The January 6th Committee hearings are full of interesting tidbits. Don't lose sight of the big picture.”, Kristol wrote last week at The Bulwark:
“There are many ways to try to make clear the shape of the present forest—but this is the simplest I’ve been able to come up with:
Trump conspired to overturn the election.
“The committee will show how Trump propagated the lie that he hadn’t lost; how Trump pressured state legislators to overturn their states’ results based on lies; how Trump pressured senior officials at the Department of Justice to support this effort; how Trump pressured his vice president to join the conspiracy to overturn the results; and how Trump summoned the mob to Washington and encouraged them to storm the Capitol in a last-ditch effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So the heart of the matter is that Donald Trump was the head of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election...
“The incendiary lies and the criminal conspiracy leading up to January 6th can only be said to end well if elected officials at all levels in both parties repudiate the lies and proclaim the truth. It can only end well if the large majority of voters in both parties come to accept the truth. And it can only truly end well if those who were part of the criminal conspiracy are held accountable, so that we are less likely to be subject to a similar criminal conspiracy again.”
Well, Bill, what if the “truth” is, based on volumes of evidence, that there was significant voter fraud that adds up over time?
Beyond this, Kristol thinks he has it pegged, doesn’t he? Kind of like “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall”, if one of Nancy Pelosi’s goons should happen to fall, she’s got Bill and his Bulwark pals in reserve to step right in, get passed around the room and come up with all the right questions for those Trump honks who clearly don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to telling the Democrats – and Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – that there wasn’t any “organized” kill-the-government effort on January 6 and therefore, this entire episode is boring, costly and absurd political theater that thrills only liberals and the complacent establishment media.
Seriously, after having watched about ten minutes of the televised propaganda, I couldn’t do it any longer. We’ve all heard the story before. So, with the generous help of an eternally establishment media suspicious friend who requested anonymity so he could speak freely on the record, I (we) present our questions for the committee:
Number one: Why are we only hearing one-side-of-the story? Were there no witnesses subpoenaed – and did none of the testimony from any of those witnesses – give plausible explanations of “suspicious” or “possibly criminal” activities? Have Madame Cheney and her puppy welp Adam Kinzinger called any such witnesses? If not, why? Regardless of whether the GOP leadership agreed to fully participate, if the committee's goal is to “discover the truth about what happened,” shouldn’t such witnesses be part of the process? Shouldn’t what they said be presented too?
Number two: If this was an “insurrection” by militant right-wing fanatics and white supremacists, where were the weapons? Did they think they were going to over-throw the US government using waiting line stanchions and flagpoles? Did someone involved in the conspiracy simply forget to bring the guns? “Pete, you had ONE job. How could you forget the guns you dummy!? Now what are we supposed to do?”
“Yeah, now we’ll look like complete idiots.” -- Jacob Chansley, a.k.a, the “QAnon Shaman.”
Number three: What was the plan for Jan. 7? (You know, holding on to power after overthrowing the government?) It's like what Jerry Seinfeld observed when they didn't have his rental car. “Anyone can take a reservation. But it's the holding of the reservation....” You mean the intricate and elaborate scheme, communicated through encrypted text channels and using coded messages failed to think that far out?
Number four: Did the committee interview ANY of the other TENS OF THOUSANDS of people who were at the Rally who didn’t storm the Capitol? Why didn’t they? Did these non-riot participants not get the memo? Did they not hear the “dog whistle?” Were their parking meters all running out at the same time?
Number five: Is it actually surprising that President Trump didn’t activate any military (National Guard, US military, FEMA, Homeland Security) response that day? Because, you know, that might have been mistaken as an actual attempted military coup? See #2 above. Any of you guys seen “Valkyrie?” (Duh.)
Number six: Does the fact that President Trump didn’t go on TV immediately and “tell his followers to stop” also surprise you? Because, you know, that might have indicated that he actually DID control them. Did the George Floyd’s family come out -- in real time -- to tell rioters to stop and beg the “mostly peaceful protesters” to refrain from looting, burning and damaging property in the summer of 2020? Surely, some (all) of the media would have given them a platform for saying that. I guess that indicates that they didn't feel that they had the responsibility or ability to do that. Imagine! See #5 above.
Number seven: For the upcoming gun protest in Washington DC, would it surprise you that members of Congress and the Administration are involved in the planning and coordinating events/appearances/logistics in advance of the protest? Can you imagine the possibility that they are making contact, holding meetings and conferencing activist groups and special interest organizations leading up to the event?
Number eight: Has anyone on the Committee ever attended an event (public or private) where someone got out of hand, did something that the host didn't condone or intend, or otherwise ruined it for the other guests? Never seen someone too drunk at a wedding? Never been around when an uninvited person(s) showed up and made everyone else uncomfortable and decide to leave? Never seen petty arguments turn into ugly confrontations? Never saw things spill out of the venue into another place that was not intended?
Number nine: How does the Committee feel about Liz Cheney fundraising on her position on the committee? She is. (She represents Wyoming but some of us Virginians got her May 21 letter and “courageous conservative leadership” donor form.)
Number ten: Is anyone on the Committee going to ask a witness-in-the-know to explain Nancy Pelosi’s role in the security debacle? How about calling San Fran Nan herself? This would certainly boost the otherwise pathetic TV ratings for the show trial. Pelosi should be asked about why she rejected Trump’s offer to call out the national guard prior to the big rally planned for January 6. Could it be that Pelosi was in on a greater conspiracy to make it look like Trump supporting outliers were the majority and that all Republicans – except for Cheney and her band of GOP separatists – are volatile and violent would-be insurrectionists?
Why hasn’t anyone pointed out that Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer, as Democrat congressional leaders, are/were responsible for overseeing the security operations at the capital that day? Schumer wasn’t fully in charge yet, but he must have been in on the briefings. How could they have left the capitol building so naked and those inside so afraid?
Number eleven: Why hasn’t Ashli Babbitt’s name come up? The only proven homicide victim on January 6 was the diminutive former military officer Babbitt, who was killed for no apparent reason. On-scene video showed that Babbitt was actually trying to stop the violence perpetrated by others, not encourage or participate in it. She most likely was jumping through that window to the Speaker’s lobby to escape the weirdos outside, and was shot for her trouble. What a disgrace!
At the very least Babbitt’s husband and mother deserve to have her story told. When will her family get their moment? The January 6 Committee’s complete apathy towards the subject is a national travesty. George Floyd lies buried in a solid gold casket; Ashli Babbitt’s ashes were scattered in the ocean off the beach where she used to walk her dog. Talk about injustice!
There hasn’t been and likely won’t be any thorough investigation into Babbitt’s slaying. And the stupid January 6 committee doesn’t give a lick about the “real” story to prevent future unseemly political violence.
There are more questions than answers for the phony political show trial that the January 6 Committee is putting on before a disinterested public audience. “Normal” people care a lot more about how much gas costs and how much inflation eats into their retirement savings, not seeing Liz Cheney grandstanding over nothing. Will Democrats get what they deserve?
Joe Biden economy
Democrat welfare bill
Build Back Better
13 House Republicans Infrastructure bill
Marjorie Taylor Green
2024 presidential election