Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Politifact finally gets one right...
President by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 1:39 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [13 views]

Man sets himself on fire outside Trump’s ‘hush money’ trial in NYC
Humor by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [50 views]

Speaker Johnson moves forward with foreign aid package, even if it risks his job
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2024 5:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (17 comments) [516 views]

Preoccupied Trump too busy to browbeat Mike Johnson into withholding military aid from our allies.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 19, 2024 12:01 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [10 views]

NPR under fire after it suspends editor detesting newsroom partisanship: 'Hard left propaganda machine'
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2024 3:46 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (28 comments) [360 views]

I just voted in the Pennsylvania primary...mail-in
Government by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2024 7:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [118 views]

A Playmate, a porn star, an ex-president and Mr. Pecker. Get plenty of popcorn!
Entertainment by Curt_Anderson     April 14, 2024 3:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (22 comments) [645 views]

Israel has carried out a strike inside Iran, US official tells CNN, as region braces for further escalation
Military by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 3:31 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [25 views]

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (21 comments) [1037 views]

Trump is daring judge to lock him up by intimidating jurors.
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 17, 2024 9:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [46 views]

Crime selectors, pages, etc.
About the committee not allowing more Republicans to be on it:
By Ponderer
June 29, 2022 7:58 am
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

From what I understand, Pelosi turned down two of the Republicans who McCarthy wanted on the committee for reasons of blatant conflict of interest (I know Republicans don't know what "conflict of interest" means, so look it up).

Instead of putting up two other Republicans for the task who weren't likely suspects in the crimes being investigated, he withdrew from doing so altogether and let the situation stand.

So it is essentially the Republicans' fault that there aren't more Republicans on the committee. Why didn't McCarthy just put two up two other Republicans for the positions?

Please... correct me if I'm wrong.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "About the committee not allowing more Republicans to be on it:":

  1. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:34 am

    Oh thank Goodness!

    Since I am apparently right about the Republicans being responsible for there not being more Republicans on the committee, we won't be hearing any more bitching and moaning from the Republicans here about there not being more republicans on the committee.

    Whew!

  2. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:37 am

    Here's the thing, po.

    Yesterday's fiasco would never have happened if the Committee had real GOPs around.

    The normal way that a representative republic works means that GOPs would have challenged Ms Hutchinson's story and caught the foolishness of her account.

    The Committee is functioning as if this is a one-party fascist state. It got busted

    Over here in antiSwamp Land, we believe in our bipartisan government. Both sides. Work together, often in tension.

    You're welcome to believe in democracy.

  3. by Donna on June 29, 2022 8:42 am
    One ear and out the other, hon. It's useless trying to have a rational discussion with Hate.

  4. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:48 am

    "Yesterday's fiasco would never have happened if the Committee had real GOPs around." -Hate

    Well then it was sorta dumb for the Republicans to have not put more Republicans up for the positions on the committee then, wasn't it.

    But I get what they were doing. The Republicans must have figured that if they didn't let more Republicans be on the committee, it would give them a great excuse to complain about there not being more Republicans on the committee.

  5. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 9:08 am
    That might be it, hon, because they had that chance, and then back in May 2021, the House passed a bill which stipulated that five Democrats and five Republicans would comprise the committee, but Senate Republicans blocked it because Trump objected altogether to forming a select committee investigate the Jan 6 insurrection.

    So yeah, I can see how Kevin McCarthy might do that as a last ditch effort to cast aspersions on the committee itself, because he had to know by then that what the committee was going to uncover would be very damaging to Trump and the party.

  6. by Donna on June 29, 2022 9:09 am
    Oops, sorry, obviously I posted that.

  7. by islander on June 29, 2022 12:59 pm

    I agree.

    I believe the Republicans absolutely did not want any kind of hearing for obvious reasons, which is why they blocked the by-partisan hearing approved by the House.

    They couldn't prevent ‘this’ hearing but they could sabotage it by putting two candidates on it that they knew would be rejected. This as I think we all know gave them an excuse to pull their other picks and refuse to take part in the hearings.

    If they couldn't prevent a congressional hearing, they could, just as we see them doing here, claim that the committee is biased since it refused to allow Republicans on the board. Two Republicans did however go against McCarthy's wishes and accepted positions on the board.

    The only thing left that the Republicans could do was to ignore those two Republicans and continue to claim there were no Republicans on the board. However, if were brought up that there were indeed Republicans on board, They simply claimed they are are in effect, Republicans in name only.

The committee nullified any value in that that by calling virtually all Republican witnesses.



  8. by Donna on June 29, 2022 1:12 pm

    So this is great. In the face of no evidentiary offerings to the contrary from the Trump cultists here, it's basically established then that Hate can take his outrage at the imbalanced composition of the hearing committee and shove it where he pulls his lies from.

  9. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:14 pm

    HA! And that was me and not Donna!

  10. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 1:23 pm

    I believe the Republicans absolutely did not want any kind of hearing for obvious reasons, which is why they blocked the by-partisan hearing approved by the House

    Kevin McCarthy appointed a slate of GOP House members to serve on the Committee. Nancy Pelosi rejected the slate.

    Some GOPs were anxious to serve on the Committee. Rabid to participate in the hearings!

    They couldn't prevent ‘this’ hearing but they could sabotage it by putting two candidates on it that they knew would be rejected.

    Rejected?, no. I doubt the GOPs even considered that Pelosi would reject members from the other party. Certainly, some of those GOPs would be a PIA to the Dems, and that is as it should be. This is a two party representative republic.

    What's undeniable is that, since the televised hearings began, GOPs have pulled further ahead in the generic congressional poll and Biden’s negative net approval rating has nearly doubled.

    My word to the Dems is that the Dems should keep this up.

  11. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:36 pm

    "Kevin McCarthy appointed a slate of GOP House members to serve on the Committee. Nancy Pelosi rejected the slate." -Hate

    ...And McCarthy chose to cancel providing any further applicants for the positions rather than suggesting any of these other Republicans you blather about who were rabidly drooling over the job.

    See, you tend to leave out the really important parts of things if they don't suit you or your mission.

  12. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 1:58 pm

    po,

    I can't see how the head of one party gets to tell the leader the other how to manage their own party...

    ...in a two party representative republic.

    Nancy committed a huuuuuuuuuge boner, in my opinion.

    Whether she wanted it or not, she's engineered this ugly, now dysfunctional, situation where juicy politically pornographic testimony that was contradicted within minutes of the time it was given.

    Nancy's fault. Big boner!

  13. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:06 pm

    "I can't see how the head of one party gets to tell the leader the other how to manage their own party..." -Hate

    Well guess what? Fortunately enough for you, you don't have to!

    McCarthy could have put forward any of the other GOPs who you said were chompin' at the bit to do it, but in deference to the wishes of his Orange Allmighty, HE CHOSE NOT TO.

  14. by islander on June 29, 2022 2:12 pm

    Hate wrote: ”Kevin McCarthy appointed a slate of GOP House members to serve on the Committee. Nancy Pelosi rejected the slate.”

    Like Pondy clearly demonstrated, the statement is incomplete and therefor quite deceptive.

    Pelosi only rejected two members of the slate, three were accepted. McCarthey pulled the rest...That’s how an honest person would explain what took place.

    ”Rejected?, no. I doubt the GOPs even considered that Pelosi would reject members from the other party.”

    Rejected, yes! Are you pretending that you think the Republicans would be to dumb and inept to even consider that Pelosi would reject Jim Jordan and Jim Banks? Or do you really believe it?

    ”Some GOPs were anxious to serve on the Committee. Rabid to participate in the hearings!”

    Too bad their boss told them not to.

  15. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:15 pm

    So Bill, given how much bullshit you've pulled out of your ass lately, there should be plenty of room there now for you to be able to shove your apoplectic outrage at the makeup of the committee back up in there now...

  16. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 2:38 pm

    Or you could of course go and fukk yourself. That's always been an open option for you you know.

Go To Top

Comment on: "About the committee not allowing more Republicans to be on it:"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page