Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (10 comments) [76 views]


The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (37 comments) [328 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [26 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [172 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [18 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [64 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [99 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [114 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [12 views]


Media selectors, pages, etc.
4 reasons for the MAGA House hearings’ bellyflop
By HatetheSwamp
February 14, 2023 4:38 am
Category: Media

(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)

pb disagrees with this opinion piece. It's classic "Curt-ism," i.e., arguing that the GOPs blew their whole wad in the opening sessions of their Biden Crime Family, and other, hearings.

However, the point here is that pb and OD are the posters on SS who seek truth, who don't simply spew propaganda and pretend that it's scientific truth.

Every time pb catches wind of a news item, he looks for coverage from THE HILL because that's where objectivity and diversity of thought lives.

Then, of course, he goes to Frankie Schaeffer. Bahahahahahahahahahaha! NOT!!!!!


Cited and related links:

  1. thehill.com

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 "4 reasons for the MAGA House hearings’ bellyflop":

  1. by Donna on February 14, 2023 6:18 am

    You disagree with the opinion piece because of what? I would have given a reason rather than an inarticulate nuh uh.




  2. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 6:59 am

    pt. pb was clear. He disagrees with it because of the "Curt-ism," i.e., the belief that, after the introductory hearing, the GOPs have shot their whole wad. H, e, double hockey sticks! You progressive SwampLovers haven't even had a chance to mock, out of hand, material from the laptop. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh. You know as well as Lead does that much is yet to come.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 8:44 am
    Since their initial stumble out of the blocks, I haven’t seen any news about the GOP congressional hearings in the liberal media. HtS, is conservative media reporting on their hearings? Are there any more hearings planned? Are they looking their wounds and planning a comeback?


  4. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 9:24 am

    Stumble?

    They produced an insider account of the weaponization of the FBI by an eyewitness...

    Nicole Parker who is:

    1. Much more a babe than Cassidy Hutchinson, and
    2. Offered no hearsay testimony.

    You invented Curt-ism and continue to practice it at a world class level. Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.


  5. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 9:32 am
    Nicole Parker had “concerns”. She had no evidence of weaponization. She griped that FBI agents knelt on one knee during a BLM demonstration. Nobody seriously thinks that FBI agents are mostly progressive liberals out to get Republicans.


  6. by Donna on February 14, 2023 9:35 am

    Keep it up, House Republicans. According to a recent poll I saw, 73% of those polled don't like the direction that House Republicans are taking. I posted about that a couple of weeks ago.





  7. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 10:12 am

    Hmmmm, Curt. All Ms Hutchinson had was hearsay and innuendo and people like isle wanted to adopt her and invite her home to meet their sons. If Nicole Parker weren't simply an attractive communicator of what's, essentially, an opening argument, you might have something.

    But, I'm pretty sure that Curt-ism is only a progressive Swamp wet dream. There's lots more to come.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 10:19 am
    Hutchinson's testimony was NOT hearsay. She testified to what the Secret Service driver (Tony?) told her. She didn't claim to be a witness to Trump in the SUV demanding to be driven to the Capitol.

    As far as I know, despite claims of foul from the rightwing, nobody has contradicted Hutchinson under oath.






  9. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 10:31 am

    Her account of what the Secret Service driver said is hearsay about Trump. If there's a crime committed by the driver, her testimony would be direct testimony against him. Baha.


  10. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 10:49 am
    "[Even] if hearsay rules applied to congressional hearings (and, one last time, they don’t), the overwhelming majority of Hutchinson’s testimony would likely have been admissible — either because it wasn’t hearsay in the first place or because it was admissible hearsay owing to the nature of the statements and/or the refusal of those who made the statements about which she testified to put themselves in front of the Jan. 6 committee.

    Were this a criminal trial, the one line of testimony about which there might be a colorable argument is Hutchinson’s statements about what Tony Ornato — a Secret Service agent who was the White House deputy chief of staff for operations — told her about Trump’s alleged altercation with a member of his Secret Service detail as he was leaving the Jan. 6 rally. But there are still several possible grounds on which even that statement might be admissible in a criminal trial, especially if there were other indications of the statement’s reliability or if Ornato refused to testify." --- Steve Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law

    (Ornato did not testify to refute Hutchinson's recounting)
    msnbc.com


  11. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 11:01 am

    Curt,

    Right, this wasn't a trial. Hearsay rules don't apply. You know, though, that nuthin came of Ms Hutchinson's testimony. The J6 Committee ended up unsuccessfully attempting to make sumpthin out of Trump doing nuthin for 187 minutes.

    Ms Parker spoke only of opinion formed from direct, first-hand experience. Now, if the Committee folds and determines to go no further than Ms Parker, Curt-ism will prove to be valid but I think that you know as well as I that the GOP publicity hounds on the Committee will be back for more...much more. Much, much more.


  12. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 11:57 am
    Nuthin?

    The Democrats beat the odds and flattened the “red wave”. They provided the DOJ and Fani Willis with plenty of testimony and evidence.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on February 14, 2023 3:00 pm

    I dunno, Curt. GOPs won 022 Senate races 20-15 and won the national popular vote by 3%. If the GOP presidential candidate wins the popular vote by 3% in 024, the race'll be an Electoral College landslide.


  14. by Donna on February 14, 2023 3:50 pm

    And if monkeys come flying out of your ass, then what?


  15. by Curt_Anderson on February 14, 2023 4:37 pm
    Exactly, Donna. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

    It's an established fact that Democrats are better at turning out for presidential elections than mid-term elections. So any popular vote advantage that the Republicans may have had last year will likely evaporate in the next general election.



  16. by HatetheSwamp on February 15, 2023 2:30 am

    On Monday, I think, on The Five (I'm sure, being the Fox News junkie you are, you know when), Jesse nailed it. "Democrats care about ballots, not votes." JESSE WATTERS FOR PRESIDENT! Bang on.

    It's always been the way. Tammany Hall. Jim Crow. Vote early vote often.

    Bang on.


Go To Top

Comment on: "4 reasons for the MAGA House hearings’ bellyflop"

* 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