No, Liz Cheney is not a traitor in the sense that Jane Fonda provided aid and comfort to an enemy of America during a time of war. Liz Cheney is an unprincipled fool who supported an unconstitutional and vicious impeachment farce ginned up by truly evil people who always place the Democratic Party before the good of the nation. Cheney now licks the boots of bastards who wanted her father tried as a war criminal. Does she support bringing criminal charges against Hillary for fabricating the Russia hoax? Where is Bernie on that little matter? I once was a big fan of Bernie Goldberg. I learned the error of my ways.
There might be a level of personal animus here, because of what Trump said about the late Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney's husband and defense secretary under Bush Jr. and proponent of the 2003 Iraq war.
At the time, Trump said little about the war, but later made it clear (perhaps conveniently) that he was opposed to it and thought it was a really bad idea. So far, fine. But Trump also used inflammatory rhetoric, in that way only he can do, to accuse Dick Cheney of being a monstrous war criminal and so on, sounding (as the "alt/paleo right" often does) like the far left. This should not go unnoticed.
That said, Liz Cheney's deserves our approbation, even if you don't agree with her tack. I would not have voted to impeach Trump the second time, although a vote of censure was certainly in order. (Trump definitely should not have been impeached the first time, given what we now know about Ukraine and Hunter Biden, as well as the non-existence of any Russia-Trump connection -- that impeachment revealed much of the Democratic leadership as sociopathic.) Liz Cheney is a real conservative from the Cold War Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan-Thatcher era, of a type that unfortunately seems to be fading into history -- to be fully replaced soon by rabid populists/isolationists who carry around the complete speeches of Victor Orban as bedtime reading.
The larger problem with Trump is his extreme narcissism. The key analyst who predicted Trump would have a hard time voluntarily relinquishing power was Sam Vaknin, the Israeli psychologist who convincingly and earlier demonstrated that Obama is also a narcissist. Trump's case is just more blatant and dangerous. Vaknin asks a question very different from the usual partisan barking, which is why have so many American voters turned their backs on conventional parties and politicians and embraced such figures? It can't be just that they're "outsiders" (not really true in Obama's case, although it is in Trump's).
Here's a short video from Vaknin about Trump and other politicians. Vaknin doesn't speak publicly often, so listen when he does:
What about the impeachment votes? Did they reflect Cheney's political and personal animosity or were they heroic? Trump wasn't a fan of her war monger father. And in Ukraine, didn't some of the corruption in Ukraine deserve investigation (and may still deserve investigation)? Is the January 6th committee investigating what happened on January 6th, or is it narrowly focused on Trump's failings, which were many? Mindless hatred of Trump is not heroic. War mongering Republican leaders (she is a charter member) are losing the argument with their base for mindless wars and military operations. We send kids off to war or put people in harm's way to deal with 30 years of failed foreign and energy policy.
I used to be a fan Bernie, but your hatred of Trump has resulted in your becoming what you decry - a blind, biased idealogue. The star chamber event known as the January 6 hearings is well orchestrated and only allows testimony that follows a pre-approved narrative. Had Jordan and Banks been allowed by Pelosi to be part of the committee, the hearings may - emphasize may - have some semblance of balance. Instead, she only allowed Cheney and Kinzinger who have been never Trumpers from the start and fully support a very biased and one-side hearing. That you refuse to acknowledge how biased the hearings are makes you the one swallowing the lie. For the record, I don't like Trump, never have and never understood his appeal. That being said, I would support him again given his record of accomplishment - something you again fail to fully acknowledge. You hate Trump for his poor behavior - which I can understand to some degree, but if you are going to hold Trump accountable for his poor behavior - and I am talking pre 1/6 - then why don't you take a closer look at the Biden crime family and Joe's history of plagiarism, lies, flip-flops, and dealings with the Ukraine, Russia, China, along with hist brother's and Hunters entanglements with those governments. As for Cheney, hugging supposedly brave witnesses for peddling preposterous hearsay evidence - you know, Trump trying to grab the wheel of his limo - speaks volumes to her dishonesty. That such testimony is even allowed with no cross examination is simply one illustration of literally hundreds that show how biased this hearing is. Why don't you to a real deep dive and look at questions not being asked and evidence not being allowed to be presented?
Bernie doesn't "hate" trump, and his assessment of Trump comes not from blindness, but from keeping his eyes wide open, and maintaining the same principles and standards he's had for political figures since long before Trump ever entered politics (unlike the vast majority of the right who abandoned theirs for the former president).
As for the January 6 committee, you're misrepresenting what happened. Sounds like you've swallowed a lie. Probably because of your biases.
Republicans were given the opportunity to be part of a 50/50, 9/11-style, truly bipartisan January 6 commission (an opportunity they both asked and successfully negotiated for), and then decided to kill it when it came time to vote for its approval. Next came the first iteration of the select committee, in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered five of thirteen seats to the GOP; this was in addition to her already having selected Republican Liz Cheney for one seat, amounting to roughly the same party make-up as the Benghazi committee. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, like he did the first time, initially agreed to the terms. But when Pelosi rejected two of his picks, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (both prominent participants in Trump’s “Stop the Steal” efforts), McCarthy pulled his other three Republicans and vowed not to appoint any others. He could have just replaced those two with two others (he had roughly 200 members of congress he could choose from), but rejected participation entirely, which even Trump has trashed him for.
If you want someone to blame for the committee not being what you say you want it to be, blame McCarthy and the GOP who denied it. And if you're more upset at Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Bernie than the guy who literally tried to overturn a U.S. election (which you don't think is a big deal since you say you'd still support him in the future), lost everything politically for the GOP (House, Senate, Presidency, Arizona, Georgia, the suburbs, etc), and caused a riot at the U.S. Capitol, you might want to think twice about charging others with "bias".
Seriously, a few years ago, if someone had told you that one day you'd support a guy who literally tried to steal a U.S. election, the efforts of which led to a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol (where the attackers wanted to kill the vice president), would you believe them?
Oh, and one last thing. Cassidy Hutchinson didn't testify about what happened in the limo, she very clearly testified about what she was told happened in the limo. If she was told incorrectly, that doesn't suggest she's dishonest. For example, if you told me your favorite ice-cream flavor is chocolate, and I tell someone, "Barnes tells me her favorite ice-cream flavor is chocolate", am I'm "lying" if it's really vanilla? No. You understand this, right?
But here's the kicker. Remember those secret service people who supposedly couldn't wait to refute Hutchinson's testimony under oath? Well, apparently they weren't so eager after all. They instead got lawyers and are hunkering down, while other members of the secret service are saying they were told the same story about the limo that Hutchinson was. Strange, huh?
Well, this stack is a stack of you know what. I’m done here. Experiment over - professional and career envy has wrecked your profession. Good riddance to you and Bernie, Bernard.
Sorry John, but your arguments are hollow. First, it is very clear that Bernie does hate Trump - he has pretty much admitted it in these columns. As for for the 50/50 BS, Pelosi would not allow for any republican who would not follow the pre-approved narrative which is why for the first time in history the party in control did not allow the other party to determine who would participate. It is striking that you don't see this. It is also striking that you and Bernie so easily dismiss the mountains of evidence that there was election fraud. And, frankly it was not because of Trump that people protested on Jan 6, it was because of the kind of BS that you and Bernie are now peddling. Trump's words did not inspire me to do anything, but the constant lies and smears are what do motivate me to at least respond to the kind of rubbish you now report.
As for Cassidy Hutchinson, I thought an intrepid journalist such as yourself would understand the meaning of hearsay, but since you obviously do not, it means that she testified based on what she heard, not what she saw. As for it's accuracy, all one needs to do is look into the size of the presidential limo and how it is set up to see how preposterous that testimony is, so stop with the silly straw-man arguments.
As for the secret service lawyering up, I don't blame them given the treatment of people who don't follow the prescribed narrative - after all, who wants to receive the Flynn treatment or Roger Stone treatment of being raided at 6 am but FBI thugs. There is nothing that suggests they are not willing to testify, just that they don't want to be trapped.
This country is in a lot of trouble, and in my opinion, it is largely the result of not just media bias, but outright lieing and you two are now part of that problem. Your implied claim that this show trial is somehow balanced is a complete, demonstrable lie. I am no fan of McCarthy, but saying it is his fault that republicans don't have proper representation is pure rubbish. Pelosi was not about to give air time to anyone who might ask uncomfortable questions about her or of any of the witnesses allowed to testify publicly.
2. Pelosi's rejection of 2 out of 5 Republicans was a rejection of ALL Republicans "who would not follow the pre-approved narrative" (demonstrably false if you bothered to look at the other 3 Republicans, or the simple fact that she previously offered the GOP a 50/50 commission, that wouldn't even use members of congress, THAT THE REPUBLICANS REJECTED).
3. The election was fraudulent because of "mountains of evidence" (which you're so confident about that you didn't bother to cite. Let me guess: 2000 Mules!)
4. People like Bernie and I caused January 6. (Brilliant).
5. Hutchinson is "dishonest" for answering a question, under oath, about something she heard second-hand (blame the committee if you didn't like them asking about second-hand accounts. I certainly blame them).
6. That I am a journalist (I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be).
7. That I have claimed the committee is balanced (I have not. In fact, I've said all along that it was unbalanced, and that's because the Republicans chose for it be).
Well John and Bernie - are you now thrilled that the FBI has raided Mar A Lago? Will you condemn this action or will you continue to be the clapping seals like the rest of the MSM? By the way, re: your comment "but from keeping his eyes wide open, and maintaining the same principles and standards he's had for political figures since long before Trump ever entered politics". Really, then why didn't Bernie ask the following questions of Biden and for that matter why didn't you?
1. Why did members of your family keep getting lucrative business opportunities overseas while you were vice president?
2. How did your brother, Frank Biden, secure $45,000,000 in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration for his Caribbean projects?
3. How did a newly-minted firm employing your other brother, James Biden, receive a $1.5 billion contract to build homes in Iraq despite having no experience in construction or international development?
4. Why did your son, Hunter Biden, accompany you on your official trip to Beijing in December 2013? *
What did he do on that trip? Who did he meet with?
What should the American public make of the fact that just 10 days after this trip, your son’s boutique private equity firm secured a $1 billion investment deal from the state-owned bank of China (later expanded to $1.5 billion) despite having no prior experience in China, and with this deal, the Chinese government granted your son’s firm a first-of-its-kind arrangement to operate in the recently formed Shanghai Free-Trade Zone—a perk not granted to any of the large established financial institutions?
5. Should the American public be concerned that your son’s private equity firm partnered with a Chinese government-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate to facilitate the purchase of an American company that produced strategically sensitive dual-use military technology that the Chinese government wanted?
6. Does your “Build Back Better” proposal contain any provisions to ensure that American taxpayer-funded technology is not bought off by Chinese state-backed enterprises working with private equity firms like your son’s?
7. Back in 2000, you voted in favor of giving permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to China. At the time, you said that this would not lead to “the collapse of the American manufacturing economy” because China is “about the size of the Netherlands” and could not possibly become “our major economic competitor.
Furthermore, you predicted that free trade with China would establish “a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom” for the people of China. Do you still stand by these statements today after 3.4 million American jobs have been lost to China and millions of China’s citizens have been imprisoned, surveilled, disappeared, and used as slave labor by an increasingly authoritarian regime enriched by 20 years of record trade imbalances from flagrant trade violations?
8. The People’s Republic of China has a bold plan called “Made in China 2025” to dominate the key technologies of the future in order to overtake the United States militarily and economically. Do you still contend that China is “not competition for us”?
9. Why did you promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to financial special interest groups when research was clear that the deal would make it easier for corporations to move U.S. jobs overseas?
10. Do you believe Xi Jinping kept his promise to Barack Obama to end cyber-espionage against the United States? If not, what are you prepared to do about it?
11. Do you accept that the coronavirus originated in China? Do you think China was honest with the world in its handling of the coronavirus? Are you satisfied with China’s explanations for how it spread? Do you believe their claims about the number of cases and fatalities in China?
12. Do you think China should be held responsible in any way for its handling of the coronavirus? If not, why not? What, if any, repercussions should there be for China in its handling of the coronavirus?
13. Did you suggest investigating Michael Flynn under the Logan Act, as Peter Strzok’s notes suggest?
14. You said in your DNC acceptance speech that America is ready to “do the hard work of rooting out our systemic racism.” What did you do in your 36 years as a U.S. senator” and 8 years as vice president to root out systemic racism? Why didn’t it work?
15. You have called for “revolutionary institutional changes.” What does that mean in practice?
16. You have vowed to rescind the Trump tax cuts. Can you think of a single example of a country that recovered from a recession by raising taxes? How does rescinding Trump’s tax cuts NOT raise taxes on those making less than $400K/year?
17. Will you disavow ANTIFA and the Marxist BLM Foundation?
AND — How about your alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade in 1993?
Also, care to look into why Paul Pelosi Jr, accompanied Nancy on her Asian trip? Was he looking to solidify his Lithium mine investments, battery investments, both, or looking for new opportunities? Why was he not listed on the flight manifest?
Maintaining principle my ass. I used to respect Bernie, but he has completely lost all respect for good reason.
1. Another straw man argument - I am very critical of Trump, but I don't hate him. Go back and read commentary from Bernie from before - it is clear that he hates Trump.
2. Pelosi would refuse to allow any republican who might ask hard questions like ""There's one fundamental question that I hope Democrats will actually answer and address and that is why wasn't there a proper security presence that day? And frankly, only the speaker can answer that question, so let's see if the Democrats bring that up."
3. Yes - 2000 mules does in fact present a lot of evidence. That you so easily dismiss it reveals your own bias.
4. You need to learn to read harder. It is the media in general that fans the flames of hatred in this country, and while you may not be a journalist, you do post columns and write about politics. It was not Trump that inflamed people, it was the incessant smear about Trump and his followers. And, the smearing of republicans did not start with Trump - leftists have been using hate-filled, toxic, and inflammatory rhetoric for decades. That Trump stood up and pushed back is why a lot of people supported him. It's also another reason why people like DeSantis and that Cheney claims that DeSantis is too much like Trump shows that she knows next to nothing about him.
5. You really have a reading comprehension problem. I did not say Hutchinson was dishonest, I was saying Cheney was being dishonest and the committee in general for taking her word as gospel - as did much of the media. So, maybe you actually agree with me on this point.
6. Ok, you are not a journalist. That does not excuse your inability to understand terms like hearsay.
7. Blaming the republicans for an unbalanced hearing is ludicrous. It would not matter what they agreed to do with Pelosi, it would have been twisted and tortured to be turned into the witch hunt that it is.
1. Lol. When have you ever been "very critical" of Trump? The worst Trump criticism I've seen you give is that he has "bad behavior". Ooooh. You can't be even bring yourself to acknowledge that he lost the election, let alone that he tried to steal it, and sold millions on a lie that caused Jan. 6.
And since Bernie's criticism of Trump is "hatred", according to you, I guess we should go by your measure, and attribute your criticism of Bernie to "hatred" as well. Sound fair?
2. You're just repeating the same demonstrable falsehood as before. Congrats. And in case you missed it (easy to do when you skip the hearings, and just repeat Fox News talking points on them), the security failings will be part of the committee's final report.
4. Trump loyalists did not riot at the Capitol, assault police officers, trash the building, and chant "Hang Mike Pence" because people in the media said mean things about Trump and his supporters. They did it because Trump spent two months convincing them that their election, and democracy itself, had been stolen from them, and that January 6, at the U.S. Capitol, was their last chance to get it back. Heck, they themselves keep saying this, but you'd rather blame people like me and Bernie. lol.
5. So, you're saying Hutchinson's not dishonest, but Cheney and the committee ARE dishonest for asking her about a second-hand account? Nonsensical. I didn't like the question, for the mere fact that it was a second-hand account, but that doesn't amount to dishonesty. And again, other secret service agents heard the same story she did, which is all she testified to in regard to the limo.
6. I understand exactly what hearsay is, and have acknowledged every single time I've written about this topic, including to you, that that particular question solicited a second-hand account (the only one in Hutchinson's entire testimony, as the rest were first-hand accounts). I don't understand your inability to comprehend this.
7. The Republicans are exactly who are to blame for an unbalanced committee and hearings, and I've explained why repeatedly. Your reflexive partisanship just won't let you accept the truth.
I agree with you completely. I had suspicions about Trump, worried that if elected he would govern as a liberal Republican from New York City. He turned out to be the president I always wanted. Bernie Goldberg's hatred of Trump is disappointing given Trump's battle with the sort of dishonest propagandists Goldberg exposed back in 2002. The January 6 commission consisted of biased ideologues covering up real crimes.
Thanks. Did you see that the FBI has raided Mar A Lago? Meanwhile, Hunter roams freely, Paul Pelosi Jr enjoys a free trip to Asia with Nancy where he can look into his Lithium mine ivestments and maybe score a few more deals while us taxpayers pay for his travel. The level of corruption surrounding everything with dems is impossible to overstate. Where is Liz in asking any of the questions about Biden? This is beyond outrageous. Would love to see Bernie's perspective, but I will be damned if I am going to pay one red cent to see it.
What R U smoking Bernie? Put the smokables down buddy. DC Police found 2 pipe bombs at the Capital 04JAN20. POTUS Trump and his administration called and warned Fancy Pants, and warned both SGTs AT ARMS in House AND Senate. Then, POTUS Trump offered National Guard support AND fencing around Capital. Fancy Pants REFUSED. Then POTUS Trump pleaded with protesters "TO BE PEACEFUL!" So kindly GoFondleYourself! Udummy. Disappointed in you
If she said the fix was in - she should have a myriad of evidence created by usurped State voting laws. And yes, sticking up for daddy dearest is obvious here too. The aggregated poll numbers are what they are for a reason.
Bernie, I might have agreed with you on Liz Cheney until her comment on DeSantis. DeSantis isn't an election denier and he isn't a Trump sycophant. But it would be just so difficult for her to support him because he's too much like Trump, whatever that means. Don't know what kind of Republican Liz would support but she'll be done in a couple of months so I guess I don't care. And the ad her father put out was pretty cringe worthy. Dick never saw a war he didn't like so I'm not just so sure on who is dangerous and who isn't.
Nailed it again Bernie! Lots of moral contortions happening over your truth bombs.
Look out below!
No, Liz Cheney is not a traitor in the sense that Jane Fonda provided aid and comfort to an enemy of America during a time of war. Liz Cheney is an unprincipled fool who supported an unconstitutional and vicious impeachment farce ginned up by truly evil people who always place the Democratic Party before the good of the nation. Cheney now licks the boots of bastards who wanted her father tried as a war criminal. Does she support bringing criminal charges against Hillary for fabricating the Russia hoax? Where is Bernie on that little matter? I once was a big fan of Bernie Goldberg. I learned the error of my ways.
There might be a level of personal animus here, because of what Trump said about the late Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney's husband and defense secretary under Bush Jr. and proponent of the 2003 Iraq war.
At the time, Trump said little about the war, but later made it clear (perhaps conveniently) that he was opposed to it and thought it was a really bad idea. So far, fine. But Trump also used inflammatory rhetoric, in that way only he can do, to accuse Dick Cheney of being a monstrous war criminal and so on, sounding (as the "alt/paleo right" often does) like the far left. This should not go unnoticed.
That said, Liz Cheney's deserves our approbation, even if you don't agree with her tack. I would not have voted to impeach Trump the second time, although a vote of censure was certainly in order. (Trump definitely should not have been impeached the first time, given what we now know about Ukraine and Hunter Biden, as well as the non-existence of any Russia-Trump connection -- that impeachment revealed much of the Democratic leadership as sociopathic.) Liz Cheney is a real conservative from the Cold War Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan-Thatcher era, of a type that unfortunately seems to be fading into history -- to be fully replaced soon by rabid populists/isolationists who carry around the complete speeches of Victor Orban as bedtime reading.
The larger problem with Trump is his extreme narcissism. The key analyst who predicted Trump would have a hard time voluntarily relinquishing power was Sam Vaknin, the Israeli psychologist who convincingly and earlier demonstrated that Obama is also a narcissist. Trump's case is just more blatant and dangerous. Vaknin asks a question very different from the usual partisan barking, which is why have so many American voters turned their backs on conventional parties and politicians and embraced such figures? It can't be just that they're "outsiders" (not really true in Obama's case, although it is in Trump's).
Here's a short video from Vaknin about Trump and other politicians. Vaknin doesn't speak publicly often, so listen when he does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzNLVLXHt0
About election integrity and theft, Bari Weiss had a very insightful podcast episode recently:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7FaVBkNxgkJSTIQWth7OHZ?si=JBfcY7uQSxqedj4yLwQqkQ
What about the impeachment votes? Did they reflect Cheney's political and personal animosity or were they heroic? Trump wasn't a fan of her war monger father. And in Ukraine, didn't some of the corruption in Ukraine deserve investigation (and may still deserve investigation)? Is the January 6th committee investigating what happened on January 6th, or is it narrowly focused on Trump's failings, which were many? Mindless hatred of Trump is not heroic. War mongering Republican leaders (she is a charter member) are losing the argument with their base for mindless wars and military operations. We send kids off to war or put people in harm's way to deal with 30 years of failed foreign and energy policy.
I used to be a fan Bernie, but your hatred of Trump has resulted in your becoming what you decry - a blind, biased idealogue. The star chamber event known as the January 6 hearings is well orchestrated and only allows testimony that follows a pre-approved narrative. Had Jordan and Banks been allowed by Pelosi to be part of the committee, the hearings may - emphasize may - have some semblance of balance. Instead, she only allowed Cheney and Kinzinger who have been never Trumpers from the start and fully support a very biased and one-side hearing. That you refuse to acknowledge how biased the hearings are makes you the one swallowing the lie. For the record, I don't like Trump, never have and never understood his appeal. That being said, I would support him again given his record of accomplishment - something you again fail to fully acknowledge. You hate Trump for his poor behavior - which I can understand to some degree, but if you are going to hold Trump accountable for his poor behavior - and I am talking pre 1/6 - then why don't you take a closer look at the Biden crime family and Joe's history of plagiarism, lies, flip-flops, and dealings with the Ukraine, Russia, China, along with hist brother's and Hunters entanglements with those governments. As for Cheney, hugging supposedly brave witnesses for peddling preposterous hearsay evidence - you know, Trump trying to grab the wheel of his limo - speaks volumes to her dishonesty. That such testimony is even allowed with no cross examination is simply one illustration of literally hundreds that show how biased this hearing is. Why don't you to a real deep dive and look at questions not being asked and evidence not being allowed to be presented?
Bernie doesn't "hate" trump, and his assessment of Trump comes not from blindness, but from keeping his eyes wide open, and maintaining the same principles and standards he's had for political figures since long before Trump ever entered politics (unlike the vast majority of the right who abandoned theirs for the former president).
As for the January 6 committee, you're misrepresenting what happened. Sounds like you've swallowed a lie. Probably because of your biases.
Republicans were given the opportunity to be part of a 50/50, 9/11-style, truly bipartisan January 6 commission (an opportunity they both asked and successfully negotiated for), and then decided to kill it when it came time to vote for its approval. Next came the first iteration of the select committee, in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered five of thirteen seats to the GOP; this was in addition to her already having selected Republican Liz Cheney for one seat, amounting to roughly the same party make-up as the Benghazi committee. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, like he did the first time, initially agreed to the terms. But when Pelosi rejected two of his picks, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (both prominent participants in Trump’s “Stop the Steal” efforts), McCarthy pulled his other three Republicans and vowed not to appoint any others. He could have just replaced those two with two others (he had roughly 200 members of congress he could choose from), but rejected participation entirely, which even Trump has trashed him for.
If you want someone to blame for the committee not being what you say you want it to be, blame McCarthy and the GOP who denied it. And if you're more upset at Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Bernie than the guy who literally tried to overturn a U.S. election (which you don't think is a big deal since you say you'd still support him in the future), lost everything politically for the GOP (House, Senate, Presidency, Arizona, Georgia, the suburbs, etc), and caused a riot at the U.S. Capitol, you might want to think twice about charging others with "bias".
Seriously, a few years ago, if someone had told you that one day you'd support a guy who literally tried to steal a U.S. election, the efforts of which led to a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol (where the attackers wanted to kill the vice president), would you believe them?
Oh, and one last thing. Cassidy Hutchinson didn't testify about what happened in the limo, she very clearly testified about what she was told happened in the limo. If she was told incorrectly, that doesn't suggest she's dishonest. For example, if you told me your favorite ice-cream flavor is chocolate, and I tell someone, "Barnes tells me her favorite ice-cream flavor is chocolate", am I'm "lying" if it's really vanilla? No. You understand this, right?
But here's the kicker. Remember those secret service people who supposedly couldn't wait to refute Hutchinson's testimony under oath? Well, apparently they weren't so eager after all. They instead got lawyers and are hunkering down, while other members of the secret service are saying they were told the same story about the limo that Hutchinson was. Strange, huh?
Well, this stack is a stack of you know what. I’m done here. Experiment over - professional and career envy has wrecked your profession. Good riddance to you and Bernie, Bernard.
Career envy? 😂 Enjoy your kool-aid, Thomas.
Bahahahaha- your’s not mine..
Sorry John, but your arguments are hollow. First, it is very clear that Bernie does hate Trump - he has pretty much admitted it in these columns. As for for the 50/50 BS, Pelosi would not allow for any republican who would not follow the pre-approved narrative which is why for the first time in history the party in control did not allow the other party to determine who would participate. It is striking that you don't see this. It is also striking that you and Bernie so easily dismiss the mountains of evidence that there was election fraud. And, frankly it was not because of Trump that people protested on Jan 6, it was because of the kind of BS that you and Bernie are now peddling. Trump's words did not inspire me to do anything, but the constant lies and smears are what do motivate me to at least respond to the kind of rubbish you now report.
As for Cassidy Hutchinson, I thought an intrepid journalist such as yourself would understand the meaning of hearsay, but since you obviously do not, it means that she testified based on what she heard, not what she saw. As for it's accuracy, all one needs to do is look into the size of the presidential limo and how it is set up to see how preposterous that testimony is, so stop with the silly straw-man arguments.
As for the secret service lawyering up, I don't blame them given the treatment of people who don't follow the prescribed narrative - after all, who wants to receive the Flynn treatment or Roger Stone treatment of being raided at 6 am but FBI thugs. There is nothing that suggests they are not willing to testify, just that they don't want to be trapped.
This country is in a lot of trouble, and in my opinion, it is largely the result of not just media bias, but outright lieing and you two are now part of that problem. Your implied claim that this show trial is somehow balanced is a complete, demonstrable lie. I am no fan of McCarthy, but saying it is his fault that republicans don't have proper representation is pure rubbish. Pelosi was not about to give air time to anyone who might ask uncomfortable questions about her or of any of the witnesses allowed to testify publicly.
Hollow? lol. Barnes, let's review your thesis:
1. Criticism of Trump is "hatred" of Trump.
2. Pelosi's rejection of 2 out of 5 Republicans was a rejection of ALL Republicans "who would not follow the pre-approved narrative" (demonstrably false if you bothered to look at the other 3 Republicans, or the simple fact that she previously offered the GOP a 50/50 commission, that wouldn't even use members of congress, THAT THE REPUBLICANS REJECTED).
3. The election was fraudulent because of "mountains of evidence" (which you're so confident about that you didn't bother to cite. Let me guess: 2000 Mules!)
4. People like Bernie and I caused January 6. (Brilliant).
5. Hutchinson is "dishonest" for answering a question, under oath, about something she heard second-hand (blame the committee if you didn't like them asking about second-hand accounts. I certainly blame them).
6. That I am a journalist (I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be).
7. That I have claimed the committee is balanced (I have not. In fact, I've said all along that it was unbalanced, and that's because the Republicans chose for it be).
Very insightful, Barnes. Very insightful.
Well John and Bernie - are you now thrilled that the FBI has raided Mar A Lago? Will you condemn this action or will you continue to be the clapping seals like the rest of the MSM? By the way, re: your comment "but from keeping his eyes wide open, and maintaining the same principles and standards he's had for political figures since long before Trump ever entered politics". Really, then why didn't Bernie ask the following questions of Biden and for that matter why didn't you?
1. Why did members of your family keep getting lucrative business opportunities overseas while you were vice president?
2. How did your brother, Frank Biden, secure $45,000,000 in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration for his Caribbean projects?
3. How did a newly-minted firm employing your other brother, James Biden, receive a $1.5 billion contract to build homes in Iraq despite having no experience in construction or international development?
4. Why did your son, Hunter Biden, accompany you on your official trip to Beijing in December 2013? *
What did he do on that trip? Who did he meet with?
What should the American public make of the fact that just 10 days after this trip, your son’s boutique private equity firm secured a $1 billion investment deal from the state-owned bank of China (later expanded to $1.5 billion) despite having no prior experience in China, and with this deal, the Chinese government granted your son’s firm a first-of-its-kind arrangement to operate in the recently formed Shanghai Free-Trade Zone—a perk not granted to any of the large established financial institutions?
5. Should the American public be concerned that your son’s private equity firm partnered with a Chinese government-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate to facilitate the purchase of an American company that produced strategically sensitive dual-use military technology that the Chinese government wanted?
6. Does your “Build Back Better” proposal contain any provisions to ensure that American taxpayer-funded technology is not bought off by Chinese state-backed enterprises working with private equity firms like your son’s?
7. Back in 2000, you voted in favor of giving permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to China. At the time, you said that this would not lead to “the collapse of the American manufacturing economy” because China is “about the size of the Netherlands” and could not possibly become “our major economic competitor.
Furthermore, you predicted that free trade with China would establish “a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom” for the people of China. Do you still stand by these statements today after 3.4 million American jobs have been lost to China and millions of China’s citizens have been imprisoned, surveilled, disappeared, and used as slave labor by an increasingly authoritarian regime enriched by 20 years of record trade imbalances from flagrant trade violations?
8. The People’s Republic of China has a bold plan called “Made in China 2025” to dominate the key technologies of the future in order to overtake the United States militarily and economically. Do you still contend that China is “not competition for us”?
9. Why did you promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to financial special interest groups when research was clear that the deal would make it easier for corporations to move U.S. jobs overseas?
10. Do you believe Xi Jinping kept his promise to Barack Obama to end cyber-espionage against the United States? If not, what are you prepared to do about it?
11. Do you accept that the coronavirus originated in China? Do you think China was honest with the world in its handling of the coronavirus? Are you satisfied with China’s explanations for how it spread? Do you believe their claims about the number of cases and fatalities in China?
12. Do you think China should be held responsible in any way for its handling of the coronavirus? If not, why not? What, if any, repercussions should there be for China in its handling of the coronavirus?
13. Did you suggest investigating Michael Flynn under the Logan Act, as Peter Strzok’s notes suggest?
14. You said in your DNC acceptance speech that America is ready to “do the hard work of rooting out our systemic racism.” What did you do in your 36 years as a U.S. senator” and 8 years as vice president to root out systemic racism? Why didn’t it work?
15. You have called for “revolutionary institutional changes.” What does that mean in practice?
16. You have vowed to rescind the Trump tax cuts. Can you think of a single example of a country that recovered from a recession by raising taxes? How does rescinding Trump’s tax cuts NOT raise taxes on those making less than $400K/year?
17. Will you disavow ANTIFA and the Marxist BLM Foundation?
AND — How about your alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade in 1993?
Also, care to look into why Paul Pelosi Jr, accompanied Nancy on her Asian trip? Was he looking to solidify his Lithium mine investments, battery investments, both, or looking for new opportunities? Why was he not listed on the flight manifest?
Maintaining principle my ass. I used to respect Bernie, but he has completely lost all respect for good reason.
1. Another straw man argument - I am very critical of Trump, but I don't hate him. Go back and read commentary from Bernie from before - it is clear that he hates Trump.
2. Pelosi would refuse to allow any republican who might ask hard questions like ""There's one fundamental question that I hope Democrats will actually answer and address and that is why wasn't there a proper security presence that day? And frankly, only the speaker can answer that question, so let's see if the Democrats bring that up."
3. Yes - 2000 mules does in fact present a lot of evidence. That you so easily dismiss it reveals your own bias.
4. You need to learn to read harder. It is the media in general that fans the flames of hatred in this country, and while you may not be a journalist, you do post columns and write about politics. It was not Trump that inflamed people, it was the incessant smear about Trump and his followers. And, the smearing of republicans did not start with Trump - leftists have been using hate-filled, toxic, and inflammatory rhetoric for decades. That Trump stood up and pushed back is why a lot of people supported him. It's also another reason why people like DeSantis and that Cheney claims that DeSantis is too much like Trump shows that she knows next to nothing about him.
5. You really have a reading comprehension problem. I did not say Hutchinson was dishonest, I was saying Cheney was being dishonest and the committee in general for taking her word as gospel - as did much of the media. So, maybe you actually agree with me on this point.
6. Ok, you are not a journalist. That does not excuse your inability to understand terms like hearsay.
7. Blaming the republicans for an unbalanced hearing is ludicrous. It would not matter what they agreed to do with Pelosi, it would have been twisted and tortured to be turned into the witch hunt that it is.
1. Lol. When have you ever been "very critical" of Trump? The worst Trump criticism I've seen you give is that he has "bad behavior". Ooooh. You can't be even bring yourself to acknowledge that he lost the election, let alone that he tried to steal it, and sold millions on a lie that caused Jan. 6.
And since Bernie's criticism of Trump is "hatred", according to you, I guess we should go by your measure, and attribute your criticism of Bernie to "hatred" as well. Sound fair?
2. You're just repeating the same demonstrable falsehood as before. Congrats. And in case you missed it (easy to do when you skip the hearings, and just repeat Fox News talking points on them), the security failings will be part of the committee's final report.
3. Dinesh's movie is garbage, but he's laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to MAGA marks: https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000
4. Trump loyalists did not riot at the Capitol, assault police officers, trash the building, and chant "Hang Mike Pence" because people in the media said mean things about Trump and his supporters. They did it because Trump spent two months convincing them that their election, and democracy itself, had been stolen from them, and that January 6, at the U.S. Capitol, was their last chance to get it back. Heck, they themselves keep saying this, but you'd rather blame people like me and Bernie. lol.
5. So, you're saying Hutchinson's not dishonest, but Cheney and the committee ARE dishonest for asking her about a second-hand account? Nonsensical. I didn't like the question, for the mere fact that it was a second-hand account, but that doesn't amount to dishonesty. And again, other secret service agents heard the same story she did, which is all she testified to in regard to the limo.
6. I understand exactly what hearsay is, and have acknowledged every single time I've written about this topic, including to you, that that particular question solicited a second-hand account (the only one in Hutchinson's entire testimony, as the rest were first-hand accounts). I don't understand your inability to comprehend this.
7. The Republicans are exactly who are to blame for an unbalanced committee and hearings, and I've explained why repeatedly. Your reflexive partisanship just won't let you accept the truth.
There you again Barnes.. It's clear you are stooging for Trump and what's left of the tattered disarray called the GOP without even a hint of irony.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously while trotting out unvarnished nonsense like this?
I agree with you completely. I had suspicions about Trump, worried that if elected he would govern as a liberal Republican from New York City. He turned out to be the president I always wanted. Bernie Goldberg's hatred of Trump is disappointing given Trump's battle with the sort of dishonest propagandists Goldberg exposed back in 2002. The January 6 commission consisted of biased ideologues covering up real crimes.
Thanks. Did you see that the FBI has raided Mar A Lago? Meanwhile, Hunter roams freely, Paul Pelosi Jr enjoys a free trip to Asia with Nancy where he can look into his Lithium mine ivestments and maybe score a few more deals while us taxpayers pay for his travel. The level of corruption surrounding everything with dems is impossible to overstate. Where is Liz in asking any of the questions about Biden? This is beyond outrageous. Would love to see Bernie's perspective, but I will be damned if I am going to pay one red cent to see it.
What R U smoking Bernie? Put the smokables down buddy. DC Police found 2 pipe bombs at the Capital 04JAN20. POTUS Trump and his administration called and warned Fancy Pants, and warned both SGTs AT ARMS in House AND Senate. Then, POTUS Trump offered National Guard support AND fencing around Capital. Fancy Pants REFUSED. Then POTUS Trump pleaded with protesters "TO BE PEACEFUL!" So kindly GoFondleYourself! Udummy. Disappointed in you
If she said the fix was in - she should have a myriad of evidence created by usurped State voting laws. And yes, sticking up for daddy dearest is obvious here too. The aggregated poll numbers are what they are for a reason.
Bernie, I might have agreed with you on Liz Cheney until her comment on DeSantis. DeSantis isn't an election denier and he isn't a Trump sycophant. But it would be just so difficult for her to support him because he's too much like Trump, whatever that means. Don't know what kind of Republican Liz would support but she'll be done in a couple of months so I guess I don't care. And the ad her father put out was pretty cringe worthy. Dick never saw a war he didn't like so I'm not just so sure on who is dangerous and who isn't.