When Will The January 6th Committee Go Public?

[ Posted Monday, March 21st, 2022 – 16:42 UTC ]

At some point, the House January 6th Select Committee is going to start going public with what they have uncovered. This will begin with open hearings on national television, featuring witnesses chosen to relate a storyline the committee's members already largely know. Soon after, an "interim report" will be released, and then the committee's final report is planned "before the midterm election." The question of when all this will begin to happen, however, is not yet clear.

It took half a year for the committee to even be formed -- a delay that seemed incomprehensible. First Republicans were given the choice of signing on to a bipartisan effort to investigate the worst attack on the U.S. Capitol since 1814, but not enough Senate Republicans went along with this reasonable and bipartisan idea for the bill to pass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then created the Select Committee in her own chamber, and Republicans still tried to play games by putting mudslinging firebrand conspiracy-theorists on the committee (some of whom may actual bear some culpability for what happened that dark day). Pelosi refused to seat them, and instead seated the only two remaining Republicans who still take their oath to the Constitution seriously. Since then, these two have all but been driven from the Republican Party's graces.

The entire exercise of investigating what happened that day -- including what happened both beforehand and afterwards -- has always been political in nature. The insurrection attempt itself was political in nature, so how could an investigation into it be in any way apolitical? Refusing to consider politics in reporting to the American public on what happened would be akin to a sportswriter being given the task of reviewing the Super Bowl -- but without mentioning a word about football. "A championship game was played today between the two leading teams of their particular sport. They played an exciting game, but we won't bore you with the details of the action, we're going to instead talk about how the game impacts the American public and life in general instead." Such a report would be ridiculously inadequate, obviously.

Since the committee's report will be both public and political, the timing of the release of this information will matter. We are, after all, in an election year. And if the Republican Party had been reasonable and created a bipartisan commission to do the investigation, they could have held as long an investigation as they thought necessary. The Select Committee, however, lives under the Sword of Damocles, since the Republican leadership has announced that they will kill off the committee next January, should their party win control of the House (which is entirely possible). So the committee has to wrap up their work before that deadline.

So far, the investigation has been remarkably leak-free. There have been a few public releases of very limited information, mostly in court filings (either those involved with some potential witnesses' attempts to defy congressional subpoenas or in other cases related to January 6th itself). But there is no steady stream of information leaking out to the press, which almost certainly means that much of what they have uncovered is not yet known to the public.

We are left to guess or decipher teasing remarks from members of the committee. Liz Cheney, one of the two brave Republicans on the committee, was on Meet The Press this weekend, and when Chuck Todd asked her about the committee's work (almost as an afterthought, for his final question, without any follow-up questions at all), she responded:

Well, I think certainly, our first priority is to make recommendations. And we're looking at this like do we need additional enhanced criminal penalties for the kind of supreme dereliction of duty that you saw with President Trump when he refused to tell the mob to go home after he had provoked that attack on the Capitol. So there will be legislative recommendations, and there certainly will be new information. And I can tell you, I have not learned a single thing since I have been on this committee that has made me less concerned or less worried about the gravity of the situation and the actions that President Trump took and also refused to take while the attack was under way.

When the public will hear any of this new information remained unsaid. CBS raised the possibility of this beginning next month:

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is aiming to release an interim report of its findings this June, according to the panel's chairman....

Committee chair Congressman Bennie Thompson told reporters Wednesday that investigators' goal was to wrap up depositions with witnesses by the beginning of April. The committee would then hold public hearings that month, which would be followed by an interim report in June, he said.

The committee's timeline could be pushed back, however, if investigators find out new information or seek testimony and records from additional witnesses.

The Washington Post had a different timeline, however:

As it currently stands, the committee's timeline has been pushed back as it races to wrap up depositions and interviews with individuals due to ongoing litigation that has delayed records requests. Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) recently told reporters that public hearings are expected to commence in May and that the deadlines for the interim and final report are also influx [sic].

"It's a moving target," said Thompson. "We have some timetables but when we get 10,000 pages of information that we need to go through, the timetable moves."

The committee is expected to hold a retreat once interviews have been completed in order for investigators to get lawmakers up to speed on the deluge of information they've collected thus far before moving to the public phase, according to people familiar with the planning.

Both articles quoted Thompson, which makes one wonder if he's already pushed his own timeline back, or whether he was clear in his statements to reporters.

This isn't the first time the committee has teased the possibility of public hearings happening soon, it should be noted. Here is an article (titled: "January 6 Committee Prepares To Go Public As Findings Mount") from HuffPost, which ran on January 2nd of this year:

Now, after six months of intense work, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection is preparing to go public.

In the coming months, members of the panel will start to reveal their findings against the backdrop of the former president and his allies' persistent efforts to whitewash the riots and reject suggestions that he helped instigate them. The committee also faces the burden of trying to persuade the American public that their conclusions are fact-based and credible.

But the nine lawmakers -- seven Democrats and two Republicans -- are united in their commitment to tell the full story of Jan. 6, and they are planning televised hearings and reports that will bring their findings out into the open.

"In the coming months" is pretty vague, but since that story ran, almost three full months have passed by. This is frustrating for anyone who truly does wish to know the full extent of what happened -- complete with who planned it, who encouraged and/or abetted it, and who funded it.

Perhaps the committee has just received an ever-increasing amount of data to sift through, or perhaps they are carefully choosing their moment with an eye towards the political calendar. When would the revelations create a maximum impact during an election year? That's a crass way to think about an investigation into an attempted insurrection, but they're already reportedly striving for maximum public impact in a different way:

The House Jan. 6 committee has tried to recruit high-profile journalists to write its report about the attack on the Capitol, hoping to build a narrative thriller that compels audiences and is a departure from government reports of yore.

Committee members and staffers are seeking to compile dramatic videos, texts and emails in a digital format that is easy to understand -- and easy to share on social media. And they want to put together blockbuster televised hearings that the public actually tunes into, according to people with knowledge of the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

Their challenge: Making the public care deeply -- and read hundreds of pages more -- about an event that happened more than a year ago, and that many Americans feel they already understand.

That seems like a worthy goal. The less dense and impenetrable the report turns out to be, the wider it will be read or at least skimmed.

The committee could have chosen a different route for public dissemination of what they are learning and have learned. They could have kept a constant stream of leaks to the press, which would have built anticipation for further revelations and held the public's attention in the meantime. There's an argument to be made that this would have avoided the problem of the public tuning out and assuming there are no new revelations. But how long could that drumbeat have lasted? If we had been getting regular updates, by now would the public be so jaded with it all that it tuned out anyway? That's also a possibility.

By holding what they know so tightly to their vests, the committee has managed to surprise some of the witnesses with how much they already know. I've heard more than one witness say, after testifying, some version of: "I told them what I knew, but they seemed to already know it all from the specific questions they asked." Since nobody knows what the committee has already uncovered, it would assumably be a lot easier for them to catch any witness in a blatant lie.

For whatever their reasons, they have chosen to delay the public rollout of their investigation's findings. Sooner or later they will begin to reveal what they know. The committee seems to be planning on presenting a full narrative of the entire operation from beginning to end -- a clear storyline the public can follow, with all (or at least most) of the dots already connected. The public witnesses will most likely all have previously testified, so their appearance will be to repeat what they've already said for the public to hear.

Sooner or later, this story is going to be made public, in full. However, whether we're going to have to wait a few more weeks or a few more months before that process begins still seems rather uncertain, at this point.

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


47 Comments on “When Will The January 6th Committee Go Public?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think a few more months would be better. :)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh. Yeah, that was kind of my point. :)

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    From yesterday..

    Multiple news sites have cited the fact that the man is “legally blind” — which explains why he could not testify that he identified Hunter Biden as the man who dropped off the laptops.

    I have only seen it in WaPoop and there was no verification of the claim..

    I am pretty sure they would get called out for claiming he was blind when he wasn’t. If you want sworn affidavits from his doctors, you are on your own to get that.

    Oh, com'on Russ.. Left Wing rags spew huge amounts of BS all the time and never get called out..

    WaPoop claimed that the laptop was Russian Disinformation and the NY Grime just proved that it isn't..

    There are many articles about the guy that talk to him and about him in depth and NONE of them mention ANYTHING about him being blind..

    Hunter Biden all but conceded that the laptop was his..

    The ownership of the laptop is not in doubt.. The NY GRIME stated for the record that it's ownership and content has been "authenticated"...

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 6 Jan Committee is "leak free" because there is nothing to leak...

    Further, Democrats have already admitted that the witch hunt is nothing but a ploy to try vainly to score points for the mid-term..

    And what with Biden's war in Ukraine and the Hunter Biden scandal coming back to the forefront and Jackson Brown Affirmative Action hearings....

    The committee is going to fade into the background as a huge nothing burger..

    Oh sure.. Big Media will hype it up and play the big drama, like they did with the Russia Collusion delusion..

    But, like the Russia Collusion delusion, it will be nothing but a rotten egg that says more about the disgusting politics of the committee members and less about President Trump..

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    "In the coming months" is pretty vague, but since that story ran, almost three full months have passed by. This is frustrating for anyone who truly does wish to know the full extent of what happened

    We know the full extent of what happened.

    A Right Wing protest got out of control and became a Right Wing violent riot and an attack on a SINGLE government building at a SINGLE location over the span of a few hours..

    Just like 22 years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa violent riots and attacks on hundreds of government buildings all over the country.. Attacks were MANY people died, including 8 LEOs.. Attacks where tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people were injured.. Attacks that caused BILLIONS of dollars in damages and made entire neighborhoods look like 3rd world shithole warzones..

    Where are the Democrat committees investigating THOSE violent attacks on THOSE hundreds of government buildings??

    The 6 Jan Committee is nothing but a political exercise to give Democrats SOME semblance of a chance in November...

    How do we know this?? Because Democrats explicitly STATED it..

    So, there is your timetable.. Probably Aug or Sep is when the 6 Jan Committee will wrap things up..

    Just in time for the November elections..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop Waiting for Trump to Get Convicted

    Attorney General Merrick Garland is not going to save democracy. Nor is the attorney general of New York, Letitia James; the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg; nor the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis. As the apparent collapse of the New York district attorney’s investigation makes clear, criminal cases are hard to make. Donald Trump, despite his many seemingly criminal acts, is unlikely to ever spend a day in jail.

    Observers of the Trump malignancy have an unfortunate habit of wish casting—believing that their most optimistic fantasies will become reality. They did this with the Mueller investigation—remember “It’s Mueller Time”?—and they did it with both of Trump’s impeachments. Their dream has always been that somehow, somewhere, someone would call Trump to account for his actions and, in doing so, save American democracy.

    That is what the 6 Jan Committee is all about..

    Convicting President Trump of SOMETHING... ANYTHING... As long as it prevents President Trump from running in 2024..

    Because Democrats KNOW that they will not be able to field ANYONE that can beat President Trump in a fair election..

    THIS is the reason why the 6 Jan Committee exists.. That and, as I said above, to give Democrats SOMETHING they can show to the voters in November..

    Unfortunately, for Democrats, they will fail...

    All of that is serious stuff, to be sure. But it is also, sadly, very common. Even if we accept that the case against Trump is strong enough to be charged (and the recent Mazars disclosures suggest that it is), the simple fact is that fraud of this sort is commonplace in the real-estate market, and failing to declare nonwage benefits is, likewise, a common occurrence. Trump’s criminality may well be greater in degree than that of others, but it is unlikely to be different in kind (at least not on the evidence we can currently see on the public record). To my mind (and also, apparently, to the mind of the Manhattan district attorney), that’s a pretty good defense, as is the lack of an insider who is willing to testify against Trump. If Trump can show that his practices are “common” in the real-estate community, that will make his “They’re picking on me” argument much stronger.

    As I have also mentioned in the past, what President Trump is being accused of is something that is very common in the business circles that President Trump moves in..

    How much criminality would we find if we crawled up Nancy Pelosi's butt with a microscope?? How much criminality would we find if we crawled up Chuck Schumer's butt with a microscope??

    There is not 'there' there...

    Likewise, a federal case against Trump related to the January 6 insurrection—if the Justice Department is indeed investigating one, though we do not know that it is—would be a challenging one. The main complaint, in reality, is both that Trump incited the riot and that he then did nothing to stop it once it got started. But as the former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason has said, making a criminal case out of inaction is difficult. To do that you have to prove a fairly close connection between a duty to act and a failure to do so. Though it is right and correct to say that Trump had a responsibility to act to forestall the riots, having at least partially contributed to their instigation, that’s as much a statement of moral culpability as it is a statement about a legal requirement.

    The people who REALLY deserve the scorn and blame for 6 Jan are the people who did not provide proper security for the capitol.. President Trump ordered the National Guard activated, but Pelosi and Schumer belayed that order and refused to activate the Guard..

    Those few cops that testified?? There were but a few of the HUNDREDS of cops that wanted to testify as to the security failures of the politicians in the run up to 6 Jan.. But the 6 Jan Committee stated up front that they will NOT investigate the security lapses that directly LEAD to the 6 Jan riot..

    That right there tells ya'all the agenda of the 6 Jan Committee...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, from WaPoop.. AKA Washington Post

    Jan. 6 committee faces a thorny challenge: Persuading the public to care

    The House Jan. 6 committee has tried to recruit high-profile journalists to write its report about the attack on the Capitol, hoping to build a narrative thriller that compels audiences and is a departure from government reports of yore.

    Ya get that??

    The 6 Jan committee tried to hire a creative writer to spice up the report as a Hollywood thriller.. :^/

    Committee members and staffers are seeking to compile dramatic videos, texts and emails in a digital format that is easy to understand — and easy to share on social media. And they want to put together blockbuster televised hearings that the public actually tunes into, according to people with knowledge of the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

    Once again.. The committee wants drama for social media...

    We should probably change the name to The Kardashian Committee.. :^/

    They’ll attempt to do so this spring through public hearings, along with a potential interim report and a final report that will be published ahead of the November midterms — with the findings likely a key part of the Democrats midterm strategy.

    And THERE it is...

    Along with preventing President Trump from running in 2024, THERE is the reason for The Kardashian Committee.. Nothing but an election strategy.. No interests in justice or facts or ANYTHING...

    Just a plain old nefarious election strategy...

    From ya'all's own WaPoop...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    96 subpoenas have been issued by The Kardashian Committee...

    Do you know how many of those subpoenas are to people who are actually associated with the events of 6 Jan..

    EIGHT.... ONLY 8 subpoenas are to people who are actually associated with 6 Jan

    88 of the subpoenas are to people who had NOTHING to do with the events of 6 Jan..

    Can ya'all say "FISHING EXPEDITION"??? Sure ya can..

    Further, over 100 subpoenas have been issued in secret for phone records of people The Kardashian Committee refuse to identify.. Not even to the people they are seeking phone records from..

    Ya'all are setting yerselves up for a BIGGER disappointment than when ya'all hyped the Russia Collusion only to have the wind taken out of yer sails when Mueller announced after 3 years and 33 million dollars..

    There was no evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign

    Do ya'all REALLY want to go thru such a disappointment again??


  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all REALLY don't want President Trump to be in the Oval Office....

    Beat him in a fair election..

    This trying to use the law for political ends?? It's bullshit and will ultimately end in failure..

    Further, by continuing to lose and lose and lose again to President Trump, you show the American people that President Trump is a winner.. Over and over and over again President Trump wins..

    The Russia Collusion Delusion loses.. President Trump wins..

    The Kardashian Committee loses.. President Trump wins..

    With every win, ya'all make President Trump stronger and stronger...

    Beat him at the ballot box in a FAIR election...

    But Democrats know that they cannot do that.

    So they have these Kardashian committees, these wet dream prosecutions and civil cases that simply showcase how much President Trump wins all the time..

    Democrats are their own worst enemies... By their own actions, they bring about the VERY thing they are trying to stop..

    It's called

    The Ishmael Effect

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:


    Fox News Headline:

    Zelenskyy: Russia is ‘torturing, kidnapping’ children; Mariupol ‘completely destroyed’:

    It's this kind of sensationalist "reporting" that makes me distrust ANYTHING we're getting from the Media sites...

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The WaPoop and NYGrime? Seriously? Obviously not. :(

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.

    Biden is making a colossal mistake in thinking he can bleed Russia dry, topple Putin and signal to China to keep its hands off Taiwan.

    The Biden administration not only thinks it’s doing enough to sustain the Ukrainian war effort, but not so much as to provoke Putin to escalation. It also thinks it’s doing enough to satisfy public opinion, which has rallied strongly behind Ukraine, but not so much as to cost American lives, aside from a few unlucky volunteers and journalists.

    The optimism, however, is the assumption that allowing the war to keep going will necessarily undermine Putin’s position; and that his humiliation in turn will serve as a deterrent to China. I fear these assumptions may be badly wrong and reflect a misunderstanding of the relevant history.

    Biden is not learning the proper lessons of history...

    “The language people speak in the corridors of power is not economics or politics. It is history.”
    -Former SecDef Ashton Carter

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The WaPoop and NYGrime? Seriously? Obviously not. :(

    Awww, com'on.. Their trademarks.. :D

    OK, OK.. I'll give up some of my favorites.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair warning though...

    Odumbo and Occasional Cortex are my red lines.. :D

    I'll give you WaPo and NY Times, but Odumbo and Occasional Cortex are sacrosanct.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter’s censorship of a joke

    Well, it finally happened (we’re kind of surprised it didn’t happen sooner): The Babylon Bee has been locked out of our Twitter account.

    The satirical article that offended the Twitter overlords? “The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.” For the simple offense of labeling a biological man a man, through a satirical headline, we have lost access to all 1.3 million of our followers on Twitter.

    A world where you can state a simple biological fact and face censorship, the loss of revenue and your livelihood, and excommunication from the public square for stating truth, no matter how satirical tongue-in-cheek your tone is, is a scary one indeed. As the famous Ron Paul saying goes, “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

    It's a sad sad world when a company can kill your livelihood and online presence SOLELY because you state a bona fide scientific FACT...

    Thank you, Democrat Party.. :^/

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I am especially proud of The Kardashian Committee :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    Everything that Democrats say about Jackson Brown was ALSO true about Judge Kavanaugh...

    And yet we know how Democrats treated Kavanaugh... :^/

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    This constant harping on "the first black woman" blaa blaa blaaa is really getting annoying...

    Don't we want to live in a society where such a claim as "the first black woman to" blaa blaa blaaa be met with a collective, "Yea?? So???"...

    As long as Democrats continue to divide us by race, we simply CANNOT achieve such a society Democrats CLAIM they are working towards...

    Once again. Democrats are their own worst enemies..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi, Liz..

    That's the link I am following.. I tried the WaPo Youtube but it was too nauseating...

    Lemme know if there is a better link that you are watching...

    Assuming you are watching...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jackson Brown punts on the court packing question.. :^/

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    She's tap dancing like crazy on the immigration question..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lindsay Graham is really sticking the knife into Democrats over their treatment of Judge Barrett...

    As well he should..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ketanji Brown Jackson serves on board of school that promotes critical race theory

    Judge Jackson serves on board of Georgetown Day School, which promotes books by originators of critical race theory

    Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden's Supreme Court nominee, serves on the board of trustees for an elite private Washington, D.C., school that promotes critical race theory (CRT).

    Jackson’s questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee says that she has been a board of trustees member at Georgetown Day School since 2019 and a member of the Georgetown Day School community for nearly a decade.

    "Since becoming part of the GDS community seven years ago, Patrick and I have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous progressive education that is dedicated to fostering critical thinking, independence, and social justice," Jackson said in the Winter 2019/2020 edition of Georgetown Day School’s magazine, referring to her husband.

    I am liking this nominee less and less...

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sheesh, it's not as if she got piss drunk and tried to rape someone.

    sounds a little like the songwriter jackson browne.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    sheesh, it's not as if she got piss drunk and tried to rape someone.

    How do we know??

    I am sure we can find someone who will make that bullshit claim.. Someone who doesn't remember when or where it happened. Someone who claims there were witnesses there.. Witnesses that stated under oath that the accuser was full of crap..

    I am sure there is someone out there like that.. Someone like Blasey-Ford...

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if someone does make that claim, let's listen.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    One has to wonder how Jackson Brown reconciles her alleged support for LEOs with the Democrat Party's DEFUND DEMORALIZE DEMONIZE THE POLICE policies...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it's "meaningful" to someone that a black woman sits on the SCOTUS, then that someone is racist..

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The dictionary no longer considers your definition of racism valid.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You keep using that word, inconceivable. I don't think it means what you think it means.
    -the princess bride

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:


    if someone does make that claim, let's listen.

    Yer joking, right??

    The dictionary no longer considers your definition of racism valid.

    Not factually accurate..

    Your politically oriented definitional change of racism does not change the meaning of what racism is..

    Democrat definitions is like Democrat science..

    It's nothing but very poorly disguised Democrat activism..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jackson doesn’t ‘quite remember the basis’ for Dred Scott decision

    Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said she doesn’t “quite remember the basis” for the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that people of African descent were not U.S. citizens.

    Jackson made the comment during questioning by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who said the Dred Scott decision, “which treated slaves as chattel property, was a product of substantive due process.”

    Jackson responded, “The justices have interpreted the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to include a substantive provision, the rights to due process, they have interpreted that to mean not just procedural rights relative to government action, but also the protection of certain personal rights related to intimacy and autonomy. They include things like the right to rear one's children. I believe the right to travel, the right to marriage, interracial marriage, the right to an abortion, contraception—“

    “Treating slaves as chattel property?” Cornyn interjected.

    “I don't quite remember the basis for the Dred Scott opinion, but I'll trust you, that that’s—" Jackson said.

    “The fact is,” Cornyn interrupted, “is it not that you can use substantive due process to justify basically any result?”

    “The court has identified standards for the determination of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, substantive due process," Jackson replied.

    "FUMBLE!!!! FUMBLIA!!!!"

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:


    }}}}if someone does make that claim, let's listen.{{{

    Yer joking, right??

    Because I can list DOZENS of names of people making claims and Democrats not only REFUSING to "listen" but actively ATTACKING people in the most VILE of manner for making "claims"...

    Would you like that list??

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's start with the claims that people are making over Hunter Biden's laptop...

    Do you think Democrats should listen?? :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You drag $100 bills through trailer parks -- there's no tellin' what you'll find. I know these people. I went to school with 'em. I necked with 'em in backseats. I spent nights with 'em."
    -James Carville regarding Bill Clinton accusers..

    Remind me again how Democrats should "listen" when accusations are made??

    Because, yunno... It seems that Lefties don't want to "listen" when the claims are made AGAINST Democrats..

    Did anyone here want to "listen" to Tara Reade's claims??

    No.. I don't believe ya'all did..

    So please.. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming Blasey Ford's claims with absolutely ZERO supporting facts should have been listen'ed to...

    Blasey Ford was absolutely NOTHING but a trump'ed up political hit job that had absolutely NO BASIS in fact or reality...

    If she had walked in off the streets to a police station and made those claims, she would have likely been arrested and charged with filing a false report if they would have bother'ed to listen to her at all..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:


    I am REALLY trying to get into S4 of Discovery..

    Can we have that androgynous Tal person transfer'ed to the Red Shirts??

    She has GOT to be the most annoying and eye-rolling sci fi character since Jar Jar Binks??

    At least Jar Jar was funny...

    Tal and her imaginary (now robotic) friend whatsisname lend absolutely NOTHING to the story. Just one big virtue signal character that takes up valuable screen time..

    But I am pressing on with watching..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    California preschoolers' anti-Biden chant enrages parents: 'Indoctrinating her students'

    One outraged mother said, 'That was the great message she learned that day'

    A California parent was outraged after she saw video of her daughter and other preschool students chanting in class that they wanted President Biden out of office.

    "Who's our president," a preschool teacher at Turning Point Christian School in Norco asked the young students, according to a short video posted on a school messaging app.

    "Biden," the students responded, KABC reported.

    "What do we want to do with him?" the teacher asked.

    "We want him out," the students responded in unison twice.

    Completely unacceptable, right??

    Pre-school kids should be allowed to be KIDS and not have political shit shoved down their throats, right???

    Remember that when ya'all advocate for kids to have gender-bending political shit shoved down their throats, eh??

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Let's start with the claims that people are making over Hunter Biden's laptop...

    Do you think Democrats should listen?

    Yes. And those claims should be thoroughly investigated.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Did anyone here want to "listen" to Tara Reade's claims??

    Yes, at least some of us did listen and take the charges she made seriously. I'm still not a hundred percent sure she was lying, although she had a lot of sketchy things in her story to call suspicion, among them a social media post professing her attraction to Vladimir Putin. Blasey Ford had zero suspicious or attention seeking history.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes "listening"... :D

    Blasey Ford had zero suspicious or attention seeking history.

    Other than the fact that she went thru a Democrat politician who kept her story under wraps for over a month and that even her own witnesses claimed she was making things up..

    Yes, other than those facts she had "zero" suspicious or attention getting history..

    Blasey Ford's actions PROVE that it was nothing but a political agenda...

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    Along with other definitions, "history" is one we need to clarify. It generally means something that came beforehand.

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    John Paul Mac Isaac told Fox News that he is legally blind, and therefore he "can't be 100% sure" that the individual who dropped off the laptop was Hunter Biden. But when he was backing up the hard drive, he stumbled upon "disturbing" images, including "pornography", that freaked him out. Apparently, although Isaac's blindness prevented him from positively ID-ing Hunter Biden, it didn't stop him from viewing the contents of the hard drive.

    What was the guy doing snooping through and reading the content of the emails? That isn’t necessary when searching for corrupted data or for backing up a hard drive!

    And he was disturbed finding “pornography” on a laptop??? Notice that he did not find pornography on the laptop — but “pornography” instead!

    Funny, one of the FoxNews articles on their interviewing the guy fails to mention that he was blind even though it does come up in the attached video.

    As for Discovery…

    Tal and her imaginary (now robotic) friend whatsisname lend absolutely NOTHING to the story. Just one big virtue signal character that takes up valuable screen time..

    You are shown the first ever Trill symbiont successfully merged with a human and then merged with an AI android and all you can focus on is that they are non-binary and identify as them/they ??!! The writers haven’t made how they identify and their sexual orientation anything more than passing footnote in their storyline.

    I realize that you cannot get what it means for kids who are part of the LGBTQ+ community to see these characters on TV; but trust me it is significant. Growing up, I never saw any representation of a gay man that wasn’t a flaming queen completely void of masculinity. Seriously, I would see the news reporting on the Pride parades and they always showed the most flamboyant and nelly men (wearing only assless chaps and feathered boas). It made me think, if that’s GAY, then I am definitely NOT GAY and it made me want to hide my sexual orientation even deeper in the closet.

    I found myself in tears this season when they showed Stamets and Dr. Culber getting into bed talking about their day. There was nothing special about the scene — which is why it moved me to tears! They weren’t having sex… they weren’t having some deep conversation…they were just being a couple going to bed. I am so thrilled that kids today are able to witness what I would have given anything to have had my teenage self get to see that on StarTrek!

  44. [44] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    I love this, Listen. What part of a more perfect union doesn't mean including and telling everybody's story?

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Yes, at least some of us did listen and take the charges she made seriously. I'm still not a hundred percent sure she was lying, although she had a lot of sketchy things in her story to call suspicion

    For me, the sketchiest of the sketchiest was her claim that she and Biden got it on in a secluded hallway in his senate office building. That was a real hoot!

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Haven't had a chance to watch, Michale - working day and night, you know.

    Why aren't you watching on C-Span?

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why is it, Michale, that all you can seem to focus on is that fact that she is a Black woman, to the exclusion of everything else about her, including, you know, her judicial philosophy and such? ;)

    Your '2%/SOLELY based on race/gender' comments are wholly non-serious.

    Speaking of non-serious, Ted Cruz asked her whether she agreed that babies are racist?

    I understand he is a serious presidential candidate. Good God. Let me rephrase that ... I understand he is a presidential candidate for 2024, seriously!? Good God.

    Guess I'm not missing anything. I don't have time for any of this nonsense.

Comments for this article are closed.