1579 Comments

I am a centrist conservative and support our Constitution as written. I am also a fan of Bari and Common Sense is one of the few media sources I spend my limited time reading. I am not, and have never been, a fan of Donald Trump. He is a petty, bombastic, crude, self-aggrandizing buffoon. He also did some incredible things against huge odds during his administration that I fully supported. I voted for him out of resignation and dismay that we could not provide better candidates, in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Many like me are not convinced that the 2020 election was the "most secure ever", and the recent documentary, 2000 Mules, presented a heretofore unrecognized manner in which the election might have been subverted, and possibly produced a fraudulent outcome. This needs to be further investigated. I hope Trump does not run again. He had his day and I cannot stand the thought of another four years of unhinged anti-Trump rage. Biden is the worst president in my lifetime.

That said, I have not watched the Jan. 6 hearings. To be candid, I do not have the time and my past efforts at watching such things has been a futile exercise. All are largely theater intended to obtain or justify a particular political or ideological position and politicians are unable to avoid pontificating when they have a soapbox. I am astounded by this article. Ungar-Sargon admits that the hearing is blatantly partisan yet accepts the testimony at face value. We have countless examples of government functionaries lying under oath during the Russian collusion hoax to de-throne Trump and I would vouchsafe that never in American history has there been such a determined, no-holds-barred effort to delegitimize a duly-elected American president as occurred during Trumps presidency. My view of the videos of the Capital on Jan. 6 was of an unruly, disorganized protest gone bad and I feel this has been typically overblown by the left into some sort of top down attempt at an insurrection. It is much along the lines of "most peaceful protests" during the BLM riots. Are we to believe the progressive narrative and testimony of the left or our lying eyes?

I hope to see a reasoned, civil rebuttal of this terrible article.

Rick Bosshardt, MD

Expand full comment

You said it better than I ever could. I applaud you.

The Jan. 6 committee is a disgrace, an aberration and its actions have been appalling. Look at what they have done to Peter Navarro and John Eastman as the latest examples.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

Completely agree with you both.

Weiss was good in her early stages, when she was writing about wokesterism is schools. now she's outsourced a lot of her work, and sends us this kind of bullshit. After what's happened the last 2 years, hard to believe Batya Ungar-Sargon unquestioningly believes what he sees on state media. And Weiss must agree with him to give him air time. But I guess there's still a few of 'em out there.

I was ambushed with auto-renew on my subscription to her substack. If I had had any notice, I definitely would have canceled.

Expand full comment

You can always go in and cancel to stop the reoccurring charges. I just did that for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I had paused it a while back, returned to see if it had improved, discovered it hadn’t with this propaganda piece, and cancelled my paid subscription as well as the the publication sending me notifications.

The head of the secret service, Engle, who was actually there, came out immediately after the hearing and said it didn’t happen. He and the agents would like to testify, under oath, that it didn’t happen. Why wouldn’t the show trial J6 “committee” have asked these people up front?

This is a pure Stalinist show trial, and like the trials in the USSR, the simple-minded gullible fools uncritically buy whatever 💩 they are sold no matter how many times the exact same people lie to them.

If Bari wants to keep pushing debunked propaganda, and this is most definitely not the first time, that’s fine. I’m not paying for it, nor am I wasting my time reading it.

It takes a rather large fool to believe the President’s arms are 10ft long and can grab the wheel from his seat. It takes a fool to think they needed to have “testimony” from someone who wasn’t there, but “heard” about it like a 6th grade gossip queen, but the J6 “committee” never actually bothered to get testimony from someone who was actually there about what happened.

This publication has become the joke Weiss supposedly was trying to leave behind..........

Expand full comment

Batya Ungar-Sargon may be impressed with the new “details” he heard from the January 6 Committee, but he seems disinterested in details that after a year and a half, have not been provided. Here are some of the ones I have:

What intel did Pelosi receive about potential violence on January 6 and why did she hamstring the Capital Police by dismissing their request for additional force, including as any as 20,000 national guard troops offered by Trump?

Who concocted and spread the lie that officer Sicknick was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher? Why were the autopsy results disproving the lie withheld for 3 months?

Why hasn’t all footage of the event been released, including the footage of unarmed, 90-pound Ashli Babbit being shot to death by Lt. Michael Byrd, ostensibly for posing a threat to him as she tried to crawl through a broken window?

Were there any FBI instigators in the crowd? Were they part of a Red Flag operation like the one they engineered in the attempted “abduction" of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer?

There are plenty more questions to be answered and I’m sure with just a little effort, Bari could come up with a few more.

Expand full comment

Yeah and in typical LEFT fashion they didn't allow a defense. The LEFT doesn't allow a defense or a debate because if that would have happened their SHAM would fall apart for everyone to see. Typical LEFTIES. The minute you start talking FACTS and FIGURES they all huff and puff and squash the conversation by either mocking you or calling you a name.

The fact that we went two years and counting during a "pandemic" with so many aggressive polices and mandates and not one public debate happened between the sanctioned expert authorities and the censored expert authorities and there was no public outcry for transparency and debate that amounted to anything fair and balanced shows you how unconscious most of the population is today. Sad.

Expand full comment

"Yeah and in typical LEFT fashion they didn't allow a defense".

That's why it's so laughable to hear the leftist “anger” directed at Merrick Garland for his apparent passivity in indicting Trump. Maybe they're too dumb to know that any trial will require cross examination and deposing witnesses but he does. If this is the best Pelosi's Kangaroo Court has I doubt even a partisan hack like Garland is willing to indict and suffer the humiliation and embarrassment he did by classifying moms domestic terrorist's because they objected to their children being labeled racists.

Expand full comment

That is one of the more specious positions I've heard. The LEFT doesn't allow a defense? Liz Cheney is a part of the Left? This is a fight within the various Power Elite factions and has nothing to do with "Lefties" or Righties.

"The minute you start talking FACTS and FIGURES they all huff and puff and squash the conversation by either mocking you or calling you a name."

That is Trumpian behavior in a nutshell.

Expand full comment

Very excellent points. A broader hearing would touch on at least some of these issues. At the same time, I think the writer of this article is not focused so much on the comprehensive facts of this entire sordid affair - which do deserve investigation - but on the personality and behavior of President Trump. No matter how selective the Jan 6 Committee is of its facts, and no matter how effective his presidency was in many respects, I don't want this guy representing me to the world any more than I want Hillary or Biden.

Expand full comment

Not sure why it takes three months to find out Officer Sicknick died of a stroke as opposed to having his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. Shouldn’t this be obvious within days? When you have such an obvious lie repeated for months in major press organs, you lose faith and interest in their future reporting. I would like to see the New York Times explain/justify this in an article. Also, why were some persons on camera encouraging demonstrators to enter the Capitol never arrested? Hmmm. Who were they? Lastly, how do you have an attempted coup, as it was frequently termed, with virtually no weapons when you can, I think, buy guns at Walmart? The fact that almost no one was armed in a country where guns are widely available makes the argument for a demonstration that went out of control.

Expand full comment

Killer points, Lisa.

Expand full comment

Why hasn't Rey Epps been arrested? Why hasn't he been traveling the MSM interview circuit? Why isn't he writing a book about his experience and cashing in? Why was Ray Epps on video urging people to "go into the Capital"? Why has the MSM ignored Ray Epps and those arrested for just walking around? We all need to stop supporting MSM and Businesses that promote corruption, racial division, lawlessness and claim to have the moral high ground.

Expand full comment

Great points

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

Thanks NCMom. You said this better than I did. It's a show trial.

The adversary process has served our nation well for over 200 years. The Democrats and their cronies in social media believe they can fool us all by protecting us from "misinformation." You know, "for the greater good." Isn't that convenient how the greater good always benefits them... ... while turning Democrat-controlled cities and constituencies into wastelands. What, really have the Democrats done for black people in the last 60 years? Chicago, Baltimore and other Dem-controlled cities are killing fields. In the schools, teachers make a lot more money (40% more than private school teachers) but the students are learning less. And what they're learning is, whites are inherently evil and can't help themselves. How is that going to help them compete in a world economy?

Rant off.

They haven't fooled all of us. But the publication of this piece shows they're still fooling a lot of people.

Expand full comment

The question really isn’t what the Democrats have done for us in the last 60 years as much as it is what they have done to us in the last two.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

It is not even a show trial - because at show trials you at least get a chance to respond to the ‘evidence’.

Expand full comment

It's "North Korean Style Propaganda" that idiots devour in an effort to quell their unconscious Ego.

Expand full comment

"The adversary process has served our nation well for over 200 years"

Agreed. Thus you would have thought McCarthy would have made an honest attempt to get respected Republicans on there, not sabotage it with idiots like Jim Jordan

Expand full comment

Not me anymore. Thank you NCmom and Evil Incarnate……

Expand full comment

This article was the last straw for me, just cancelled my subscription also.

Expand full comment

I think all of us, progressives and conservatives, have to get over canceling our subscriptions and our friendships as soon as we are faced with opinions with which we disagree. Far better to counter them with sound argument and debate

Expand full comment

I don't cancel friends or family over political or ideological differences. That has nothing to do with how I choose to spend my money. I also choose to pay for 23 other Substacks that approach their publications from a variety of perspectives. I am personally unwilling to pay for this propaganda, and this is not the first time I have seen this particular publication push debunked propaganda. I am not Bari's personal friend.

I am all for opinions I disagree with, but not paying to read how some Stalinist show trial "changed" someone's mind when they mind changing propaganda was debunked by the people actually there within minutes. While most of his extended family has escaped, my husband has an aunt and first cousins still in Cuba. I can tell you from family how a population itching for a leftist cultural revolution and willing to buy into propaganda ends - lots of poverty, death, and misery.

There isn't good debate about issues or solutions with articles that are this poor in quality (unlike Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi who wouldn't publish this nonsense without at least including the testimony was immediately disputed by those with actual first hand knowledge).

The world would suck if everyone agreed on everything. It would be utter boredom. Part of that is completely respecting that other people will make a different choice than me, which is fantastic, but doesn't change my personal choice on how I spend my own money.

Expand full comment

I have not cancelled a single friendship over politics, and I have in-laws who are card carrying socialist conspiracy nutters. I do not subscribe to Mother Jones, or the Washington Post however because thier reporting is garbage despite my being liberal. I do subscribe to the Daily Wire not because I always agree with their conservative viewpoint (I often don't) but because the reporting has integrity. While having an admittedly conservative spin, they usually get the facts right and when they don't they correct the record. I have had several instances in the past where a Common Sense article just didn't fact check and misrepresented things. This was the last straw.

Expand full comment

Me too. I am very careful allow differing opinion and will stay subscribed to people I disagree with often if I feel they are bringing an interesting perspective, but this is just National Enquirer garbage. This isn't an opinion, this is heresay and hysteria.

Expand full comment

I can't help but find all this outrage pretty funny. When push comes to shove, all conservatives seem to want is a Fox News-style echo chamber that just tells them what they want to hear 24/7.

However many subscriptions BW & CS lose because they chose to criticize Republicans' beloved God-Emperor Trump, I can't imagine they'll be missed. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Expand full comment

How many times has Bari admitted, Russia-Gate was a hoax—as all of us—she fell for it too. This latest bombastic testimony falls right under the same category. This lady "heard" these allegations ??? Really? and we call this treasured testimony?

Daily revelations across the past 6 years left us breathlessly awaiting the cuffs to fall upon Trump's wrists—charges so grim—only to find fake news from our trusted media had hoaxed us yet again.

Expand full comment

Absolutely agree. Many of the Trump cultists are just sad precious little snowflakes - much like the wokesters they correctly criticize.

Expand full comment

I voted for Trump twice, and I'd vote for him if he manages to run again, but every other time he opens his mouth he shoots himself in the foot.

It's amazing he can still walk. He is definitely a flawed human being but

he is open and honest about it, unlike his successor. I cut him slack because he is not a politician, he is a business man.

Expand full comment

GOOD FOR YOU. THESE people are either idiots or - so lucky that they literally never had to worry their pretty little heads about anything - ever. I was actually at an earlier rally in DC. ANTIFA AND BLM ARE VERY PRESENT THERE.

Expand full comment

You seem like a very precious snowflake. You are now heartbroken over criticism of Trump and your fixed world view? Maybe you are more 'woke' then you think.

Expand full comment

BATYA IS A WOMAN. I've recommended her book and YouTube vid's on "woke" and its subversion of media a few times. Another woman, Shoshanna Zuboff is also an author I recommend with a book and YouTube vid's on the tactics of the corporate/surveillance state and its assault on civil liberty and citizen privacy.

That said: For myself, the loathsome venality of the Democratic Party so outweighs any culpability of those accused in the Trump/January 6 hearings that it is painful, loathsome and almost impossible to stay in the room with an electronic device broadcasting it.

I enjoy the articles Ms. Weiss posts here and the cross section of authors she presents. Some pieces lean a little too far toward the red meat spectrum and lack the depth Glenn, Matt and Wesley bring to the fight but she also lends platform and voice too many suffering the everyday consequences of the woke/totalitarian Bund now assaulting us. In fairness she also links us to sources we might pursue in our own search for clarity. This SUBSCRIPTION JOURNALISM thing is a brand new puppy dog and has the potential to grow the truth telling teeth that will free us from the stage show sleight of hand politics like the 1/6 hearings. Don't give up on her yet.

Expand full comment

I am an annual subscriber here (and Matt, Glenn, et al.) and will not cancel because of this article. It is useful to read this article as it indicates what is in the mind of the circle on the left that hates President Trump.

Expand full comment

Yeah. Have to allow Bari some room to run different opinions and her time to vet is no doubt limited like yours and mine. Anyway provokes good comments.

Expand full comment

I understand and respect your point. I pay for another 23 authors on substack, and subscribe to numerous more, with a huge variety of viewpoints. I don't mind reading people with a different perspective and opinion, it's how I learn.

But.......... I also won't personally pay for plainly debunked propaganda as that is free and abundant. I can turn the subscription back on down the road if I chose to, but I think this model only works if there are consequences for becoming the msm. I respect others will come to a conclusion more similar to yours, which is good that we have different reactions to articles like this.

I am in the market looking for truth, and acknowledgement of actual causes and outcomes. I hope Weiss brings this publication back to that place and I feel it's worth my money at some point in the future, but for me today, it's not.

Expand full comment

Wish I could afford 23.

I'm gonna re-read Batya's article with your comments in mind.

Mrs. Weiss seems to have a good social conscience and fair play as do most of the authors she places on Common Sense. I suspect that you and I may share the feeling that many of the well educated observers ensconced behind the shield of financial success underestimate what the players behind the current ascending world fascism are capable of.

Let me recommend a book. THE AION LECTURES: Exploring the Self in C.G. Jung's AION by Edward F. Edinger. It's a slow read but once you get it there's a lot of light for consideration.

Expand full comment

I agree Mike. We don't need to become what we are fighting against. Batya is a woman and I do usually enjoy hearing her and reading her. This article is a tough one because this hearing is a dog and pony show for the left and has lost its believability from the start, if they can't handle dissenting views on their committee how can we believe them? We learned some new things from his staff that we should all take into consideration, but it did not sway my mind that this whole thing was promoted for political reasons and the fact that this wasn't a true bi-partisan committee means it can't be taken seriously. From what I can tell Trump handled himself horribly and in response to what appeared to be unfair practices in the election (would be nice to see a real deep dive into how this election was held and exactly how and why we got the outcome we did - if it is all on the up and up there is no problem with this and either way would restore confidence in the process). I am not a Trump fan, but I did like many of his policies and that he would fight hard against the left. Just the mere fact of two sides trying to hold each other in check is important. Honestly, we all need to step back and become more objective if we ever want to get out of this culture war. Bari I am not leaving you! We can't expect you to bat a thousand. Batya, I will keep reading you too, while I may often disagree I learn a lot from you and how you look at issues. Curious to see a response, but even if there isn't one I am still a big Bari fan!

Expand full comment

I'm also a fan of the ladies in question. And, I agree that expansion of SUBSTACK possibilities to include special investigative reporting on the smoke screened D.C. hog trough would begin to define a new empowerment of the American national dialogue. Stay strong. Saty clear.

Expand full comment

Dissenting views?

Many of the points made are very clearly binary. Did this occur? Yes or No.

Did you say or do this? Yes or No.

As far as a lack of GOP representation: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/politics/nancy-pelosi-rejects-republicans-from-committee/index.html

And countering, well that is CNN is not an argument. Once again, this is binary. Did it occur? Yes or No.

Expand full comment

I hope her book craters. I’d never read it after the infantile article she just wrote here. Hundreds of pages if drivel like this? What a waste of time.

Expand full comment

Trump tying to commandeer "the Beast" has as much credibility at Trump

peeing in Moochelle's hotel bed in Moscow.

Expand full comment

And yet, we see, as the progressives knew we would, that audiences can be fooled all of the time.

Expand full comment

That was my indicator that this "witness" (of hearsay) was full of it. Not sure how one would manage to try to grab the steering wheel while riding in the back of a limo.

Expand full comment

I'm still amazed how many have such little grasp on reality or human nature that they actually believed as plausible that a US Billionaire, with a beautiful wife and access to gorgeous women, who is a germaphobe, who does not drink or do drugs, would fly to Russia for the purpose of letting hookers pee on him. Trump has a lot of personality quirks and flaws., but all of them point away from Russian hookers peeing of him, not towards it.

Expand full comment

Especially now that the witness has been debunked by several and the committee is ignoring that she lied under oath. Its quite appalling. It had destroyed this country’s whatever was left trust in our government.

Expand full comment

I will miss your good comments, NCmom. Today I am enjoying the comments so much more than the silly article.

Expand full comment

Makes you glad to be alive doesn't it.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the kind compliment.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

This isn't a trial. It's a Congressional hearing that is part of an investigation gathering evidence.

And you are focusing on one disputed aspect that Cassidy Hutchinson fully acknowledged was related to her by Tony Ornato (who may very well be lying) to discredit the entire hearing. And it isn't even a terribly important claim. It is a salacious claim that is sucking up all the oxygen despite having little bearing on Trump's attempt to overthrow our constitutional order.

(Not to mention that Trump wasn't riding in the Presidential limo. He was in a smaller vehicle that wouldn't have required his arms to be "10 feet long".) Much of what else she reports are things she witnessed firsthand. She *was* there.

As were virtually all of the other people who testified to the things that happened behind the scenes. White House lawyers and staffers, his own AG, his campaign manager - his *own daughter* for crying out loud.

If you're going to call people "fools", then I'll have to note that it takes a "rather large fool" to side with a man making an unprecedented attempt to remain in office after clearly losing an election that he was almost universally expected to lose by anyone paying attention to the polls and political dynamics of the country, and which he told you *well beforehand* that he was going to dispute if he lost - after having made the same claim about the election he won four years ago.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

It's a Democrat propaganda set piece dressed up to look like a congressional hearing.

Please answer this question: When before has a congressional hearing not provided an opportunity for the party opposite to question witnesses?

Please don't point to Kinzinger and Cheney. They were appointed by Pelosi because they are allied with the Dems in their hatred for Trump. It's like, you can have your own lawyer. But the prosecutor gets to appoint him.

Expand full comment

I'll be happy to, but ultimately you'll have to ask Kevin McCarthy.

You see, when he provided his initial list of five to Nancy Pelosi it included two congressman who both lent serious credence to Trump's false election fraud claims - which per se is entirely inappropriate on a committee that is investigating the actual facts behind an insurrection spurred by those very same fraudulent claims. Jim Jordan, a key Trump ally, was himself a potential target of the investigation, and Jim Banks made it clear he intended to use the committee to investigate Democrats rather than the actual source of the insurrection.

Obviously, having these two on the committee would have undermined its credibility and threatened to turn it into a referendum on whether the election was stolen, which was already not in dispute. To use an analogy similar to yours, it would have been like having mobsters on a panel investigating the mob.

So Pelosi accepted the other three, but rejected Jordan and Banks. All McCarthy had to do was replace two people who were obviously there to derail the committee in the first place with people whose commitment to discovering the truth wouldn't be so validly and obviously in question.

At that point, McCarthy pulled all five and decided his best bet would be to paint the committee as a partisan witch-hunt. Which has apparently worked for some, as he has spent the time since then lying to the media, claiming that Pelosi wouldn't let him appoint anyone to the committee, and saying that she violated over 200 years of precedent in doing so. And of course, ignoring the fact that rejecting proposed submissions to a select committee is hardly unprecedented, as well as the irony of him attempting to shield an *actual* unprecedented act - refusing to concede a presidential election and plotting to overturn the results - from being exposed to the light of day.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

Oh, and a couple more things, Mr. Incarnate. Or may I call you Evil? :-)

Seriously, if what you're saying is that you actually would have liked a truly independent, non-partisan commision to investigate this (like say, the 9/11-commission), the Democrats agreed with you. Which is why they proposed one, and it easily passed the House even with some Republican support. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnel filibustered it in the Senate. His rationale? He claimed it would be a political exercise! After all, they already had two committees in a Democratic-controlled Senate looking into it - what more would a non-partisan, independent commission add?!

So you see, the Democrats tried to give you what you wanted, but Republicans blocked it. Why did the Democrats do this? Because some of them still care about credibility and doing things the right way? Maybe. Because they don't care about their electoral fortunes and are willing to put them on the line for the truth? Of course not. Because they were *extremely* confident in what an independent commission would find, given everything we already know? Bingo.

And for that matter, so was Mitch McConnel. Which is why the last thing he wanted was to plant an electoral time bomb that might go off right when his party might be trying to re-elect (albeit against his better judgement) the very guy he didn't have the balls to deliver the political coup de grace to when he had the chance. Better to leave everything in a state that he could denounce as "partisan" if need be. So thanks to him, what we're left with is this "partisan" House select committee that you don't trust.

But let me tell you where you're making a *huge* mistake in that regard. Because, say what you want about Cheney and Kinzinger - what you can't call them is *partisan*. They're *tanking* their political careers for this. Cheney was the #3 Republican in Congress, and now she probably wont be there next term. Kinzinger was redistricted away in Illinois - think the Democrats are doing him any favors for this? He'd be doomed either way.

You see, that's the real shit. That's when you really know that someone is sincere. They may be motivated by hatred of Trump - but when someone is willing to ignore their own career interests, that has to make you wonder if they have a good reason. Every single one of Trump's defenders - and of those who remain silent - knows that opposing Trump would be committing political suicide. Cheney and Kinsinger are doing just that - all while enraging their base and getting death threats.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, it should. Because those are two people refusing to engage in the kabuki and being *real*.

Expand full comment

When has the Minority Whip done the following: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/politics/nancy-pelosi-rejects-republicans-from-committee/index.html

Don't paint all that you dislike as a failure of the "Libs" that is either ignorant or trying to make a point through manipulation. Failed leadership is failed leadership and there is enough to go around on both sides of the aisle.

Expand full comment

LOL!!! Oh yes, gathering "evidence" involves hiring a TV producer named James Goldston, then airing on live television pure gossip from a disgruntled chic that wasn't even there rather than bothering to ask those who were actually there (including the head of secret service Engle, who was actually there, and along with the agent driving immediately refuted said gossip and asked to testify to that under oath). No, she wasn't there. She is repeating what she claims she was "told."

As for fools, every single one of the dozens of Biden disasters was predictable, and actually predicted, and you voted for him anyway because the media told you orange man hurt your feelings. LOL!!!!

Yes, I support a booming economy, school choice so children not as fortunate as mine can go to their excellent and open throughout Covid private school, an open economy, energy independence, fed babies, geopolitical stability, affordable food, normalizing relationships in the middle east, and a national border!!!!

You are so simple its comical.

Expand full comment

When failing to convince based on sold argument there is always the strategy of throwing up nonsense such as "disgruntled chic", "LOL", "You are so simple its comical..."

"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6" Subpoena Engle and others who were in the vehicle to testify under oath.

Your so-called "disgruntled chic" did not claim to have personally witnessed these events. She personally witnessed enough. She clear stated that she was relaying what she had heard from another source. That by definition is hearsay.

Disappointed with Biden and the Democratic leadership? Stand in line.

Expand full comment

It isn’t at all clear that the election wasn’t stolen. Perhaps if the media’s coverage of Trump since 2016 wasn’t so extremely biased there would be less scepticism.

Expand full comment

Look, I'm sorry, but if it isn't clear to you, it's because you haven't been paying attention or you get your information from bad sources. I'm not saying this to be mean or to insult you - I want you to understand why you're misinformed.

Nor am I trying to be arrogant. Few people paid more attention to this election than I did, and my expectations of what was going to happen were very well validated by actual events. So if you want to know what actually happened, listen to people who turned out to be well informed. If you want to keep believing something that validates your priors, about Trump or about the mainstream media, keep listening to people who misled you and/or told you what you wanted to hear.

The election has been confirmed in every way imaginable; there have been numerous recounts, audits, and investigations, all of which have found absolutely zero evidence of fraud. There is not a single claim that has withstood scrutiny. A Republican legislator in Michigan who investigated the claims in Antrim County actually found that they were so baseless that he recommended that the state's AG look into prosecuting the people capitalizing on them. Even the absurd "Cyber Ninjas" audit in Arizona confirmed Biden's win, and Pillow Guy's massive summer convention uncovered nothing - only embarrassing Mike Lindell and demonstrating how he was played for a fool by conspiracy theorists.

Trump told you well before the election (just like he did in 2016) that he was going to claim fraud if he lost. Responsible media outlets did everything they could to warn people of the things that Trump was expected to exploit in his entirety predictable claims. The fact that the winner probably wouldn't be known on election night because the high turnout would make the vote take too long to count. The fact that Trump would likely seem to be in the lead on election night because the in-person voting was expected to lean Republican (polling and party affiliation indictated that the mail-in ballots would skew Democratic - something Trump ensured by exhorting his supporters to vote in person), and in most states mail-in ballots couldn't be counted early. Trump was expected to try to exploit this to claim it was stolen overnight - the same crap he tried to pull in 2018 on a smaller scale when he tweeted about having to "go with the election night results". And that's exactly what he did.

The Republicans sent unqualified goons to "monitor" poll sites - what they actually did was intimidate poll workers and file entirely frivolous and baseless affidavits, making various unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims. It was this kind of crap that got Republicans in trouble in the early eighties when they ended up entering into a 35-year consent decree with the Federal government not to send poll watchers or engage in other voter intimidation tactics - conveniently this expired in 2017.

Meanwhile, dishonest politicians like Rand Paul (who knew better) characterized vote submissions from large urban districts, which overwhelmingly skew Democratic, as "late night ballot dumps". Anyone with basic sense can look at a typical purple-state county-by-county electoral map, with its islands of urban blue dotting a sea of rural red, and tell that you should expect Democratic votes to come in clumps.

If you want to blame "media bias" for people's uncertainty, don't blame mainstream media. They responsibly told you what to expect. The fault lies with the outright propaganda from Fox, Newsmax, and OAN, who lied to you about Trump's prospects in this election, then lied again when he lost in order to cover their own asses. They only stopped lying once Dominion Voting Systems filed billion dollar lawsuits against them.

You have been conned by a dishonest and nihilistic political party in thrall to a narcissistic sociopath whose personality cult has taken over the party. They knew who he was in the beginning when they overwhelmingly opposed him, and only threw in with him when politically it was their only option. You can continue to let them deceive you, with the anti-anti-Trump crowd on sites like this giving them the benefit of the doubt because they prioritize battling the excesses of wokeness over the political stability of our country. Or you can wake up to the reality that the far right represents as much of a threat to this country as the far left - and in the short term, a far worse one.

Expand full comment

Finally someone NOT willing to be distracted by politics, whataboutism, and those Dems. Ugh! It's important that we have an accounting of what these people have to say. If we are fortunate it will be utilized to prove dereliction of duty, at the very least. He is the number one cheer leader in all of this. He's been grooming those that will let him for years. I find these discussions dishonest when people can't focus on what's right in front of them. He spent over a year telling America if he lost it was because people cheated. He and his goons couldn't find proof of this. Be a grown-up and pass the baton, for God sake.

Expand full comment

Hilldawg has spent 5 years claiming Trump was illegitimate, and you stupid lefties cheer. We still have a ways to go to reach your kind of stupid.

Expand full comment

My recollection is, Trump was asked during his debate with HRC if he would accept the results of the election. He answered as he should have - he'd need to wait and see how it turned out. To say yes, he'd unconditionally accept the results would be buying a pig in a poke.

I don't recall anything about him grooming his followers for years. If you can point to something specific, please provide a link.

Was it OK for Hillary Clinton to claim she was robbed after the 2016 election? You know she did that, right?

If It's OK for her to do that, what's wrong with the answer Trump gave?

Expand full comment

It also is not about truth, it is about harming the GOP, anyone with two functioning brain cells will see and understand that fact. So I understand your lack of comprehension abilities.

Expand full comment

I’m not siding with Trump. I don’t like him and I don’t want him to be President again. That being said, Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony is suspect for a variety of reasons and I’m projecting that at least some of it will be proven as false. And the people overseeing this farce have zero credibility based on their repeated bungling and constant lying. We all know that there has not been enough evidence - even 18 months later - with a variety of audits, etc. to credibly prove a successfully rigged election. However, there has been plenty of incompetence as well as illegal chicanery unveiled and we need better oversight in future elections to prevent total loss of faith in the election process.

Expand full comment

Repeated bungling and constant lying? By whom - the January 6th committee? Or is this another vapid, undirected slam aimed at the amorphous blob of Democrats/MSM/Twitter comprised of peopleof your ilk don't like?

Because you know who has, verifiably lied, literally tens of thousands of times? (Yes, literally.) Trump.

And no, I'm sorry, but I'm not part of your "we all know" circle of confirmation bias. If you think that the numerous audits, investigations, and recounts, which all verified the official counts and turned up nothing but people making demonstrably fraudulent claims, combined with a complete lack of any verifiable evidence that anything improper happened, (even if you are unaware of how Trump telegraphed his scheme well ahead of time) do not constitute the best approximation of "proof" you're going to get that the election was valid, you live in a bubble of ignorance from which you won't escape until you learn what it means to make reasonable judgements about what's likely true and what isn't.

Expand full comment

"Stalinist show trial" is hyperbolic nonsense. "State media" is also hyperbolic nonsense. This is an open proceeding, broadcast in real time, unedited. Anyone can skip the commentary offered by the various TV networks- especially if they're watching C-Span.

The Trump Republicans don't get to characterize the hearings as a partisan witchhunt; the GOP House leadership voluntarily made the decision to decline to participate in the hearings as advocates for Trump's side of the argument (such as it is). That voluntary refusal to participate might as well be a nolo contendre plea. Anyone who isn't committed to Trump's crisis cult realizes this. The bitter-end Trumpites are ignoring or mischaracterizing facts and twisting logic in ways that will only be shown up as more obvious over time.

Expand full comment

House Republicans refused to provide members b/c a) two of their own choices were rejected by Pelosi, and b) Pelosi appointed Cheney and Kinzinger - two Republican Trump-haters - to take their place. Surely I don't need to explain to you, it shows a fundamental lack of fairness.

Same question I asked Eric73: When, EVER, has that happened before?

He doesn't have an answer to that. I don't expect you will either, Mascot.

Expand full comment

I don't know if it's ever happened before. The Congressional rules governing the proceeding allowed Speaker Pelosi to exert that veto power, so I would not be surprised to find precedents. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that there isn't a precedent, because the situation being investigated has no precedent. But it's your insinuation, so do the legwork to back it up.

Nothing was stopping GOP House leader McCarthy from substituting 2 other Republican House members and offering up a new slate of 5 members to Speaker Pelosi. Instead, he basically ceded the choice of Republicans to her. Even former President Trump is now on the record as being displeased by McCarthy's decision in that regard.

I'm more interested in the testimony itself than the choice of the interrogators. And in that regard, I've found the substance of the June 16 testimony by former VP Pence advisers Greg Jacobs and Judge Michael Lutting as considerably more authoritative and damning than anything else that I've heard thus far.

But I do get why Trump defenders would prefer to ignore the June 16 hearing in favor of focusing exclusively on any procedural squabble or scrap of testimony that they can find elsewhere to exploit, as if it discredited the entire hearing process- because anyone out to discredit Jacobs and Luttig would be in over their heads. I honestly think it's a pity that there aren't any pro-Trump buffoons on the House hearings panel, because I really would have liked to hear them trying to impeach the testimony of Greg Jacobs and Judge Lutting with an adversarial line of questioning.

For that matter, I invite any Trump defender who reads this post to try it. Here's the C-Span link https://www.c-span.org/video/?520944-1/president-trumps-campaign-influence-vice-president-pence

Expand full comment

NC... great post, "pure Stalinist" no question, but it is good to see that these people are "out there", we should be aware of the other side, understand just how knavery they become...please.

Expand full comment

Hate to see you go, NC Mom. I actually look forward to reading (and usually liking) your comments.

Also have to say I'm surprised by the depth of anger in the comments on this article. Most of us (rightly) deplore the NY Times for firing a great editor who dared to run an op-ed piece it's core readers found objectionable. Yet here many of us are doing the same thing: "firing" Bari (by unsubscribing) because she ran a piece we find objectionable. As the top commenter, who did not cancel his subscription, suggests: if you think the article is full of holes, then tell us where and why. Substack (and Bari, Matt, Glenn, etc.) are great not just as a counterweight to the shrieking nonsense of the MSM, but also because of the thoughtfulness, vigilance, and devotion of its readership to accuracy and truth.

My read of the article was somewhat different than many of the commenters'. My takeaway is that, while the Dems have conducted themselves in their now-customary putrid manner, Trump and his people behaved even more putridly on this than we already knew. (Which is saying something.... Does anyone think the speaker of the Arizona house is not credible?)

Anyway, sorry to see you go, NC mom, and hope to see you in Matt's comments section.

Expand full comment

I’m canceling as well.

Expand full comment

A shrewd move. Now that you'll no longer be able to comment, you'll be saved the effort of having to defend Donald Trump's indefensible attempt to declare himself Autocrat-In-Chief by trying to arm-twist, cajole, and badger VP Pence into bypassing the Constitution. You must realize that lackeying for Trump is a task that's only going to get more difficult from here on out.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5020277/judge-luttig-warns-president-trump-allies-clear-present-danger-american-democracy

Expand full comment

Have you ever been to the USSR to speak with authority on what Stalinist trials were? Do you know what real torture is?

Expand full comment

My father was arrested when he was a student. His crime? "Failing to avert his gaze when the presidential limousine passed."

Expand full comment

LOL!!! The strawman that lies at the foundation of why stupid humans repeat the same mistakes stupid humans before them made - the ridiculous belief that we can't learn lessons from history because we weren't "actually there" is exactly why "never again" never actually happens. Your argument is right up there with all the times people swore "it's different this time" when it never really is.

Expand full comment

Histrionic nonsense.

Expand full comment

The analogy to Stalinist show trials fails on the face of the facts. It's plainly ridiculous, to anyone who hasn't allowed their partisanship to override widely acknowledged history.

Expand full comment

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Common Sense was a place for sensible rationale readers - those that can't stand wokeness - but also not in thrall of Q-Anon and the cult of Trump. Those willing to hear a variety of opinions. Unfortunately, because Bari Weiss was so effective against the left, she has attracted brainwashed cultists such as yourself that would normally hang out on 4Chan and Breitbart. Bye Bye!

Expand full comment

lot s of hate there honey...pigment

Expand full comment

I am unsubscribing now. If this is what these contributors are going to offer then I have no time for it. To be clear, I welcome opposing views and opinions (they are critical to free speech and democracy) but I draw the line at fawning over show trials orchestrated by the party in power and that deny due process and cross examination to the accused (whoever that may be). I also have no issue with a full transparent hearing on 1/6. Let’s find out what really happened (eg, what role Nancy Pelosi and others played in denying the requested security at the Capitol and who the agitators were who were repeatedly caught on video). Why are they refusing to show the 1000s of hours of security camera footage?

More broadly, and as stated above, I’m disappointed that a piece like this was given the green-light given all of the blatant lies that have been force fed to us by the MSM for years only to be debunked repeatedly. Just yesterday we learned that the 1/6 committee’s star witness (who spewed nothing but unchallenged hearsay testimony) is being refuted by the secret service members who were actually present. Enough!

Expand full comment

If you think this piece was "fawning" then you're full of shit about "welcoming opposing views and opinions"

"When I first learned that the January 6 Committee was planning to air its hearings on primetime, I was deeply skeptical. The gross spectacle of that day wasn’t some secret scandal that, like Watergate, required deep reporting to uncover the truth. "

"I could think of few things less urgent than actions committed a year and a half ago by a president who no longer holds public office at a time when so many are making agonizing decisions like whether to buy meat for dinner or use the money for gas and settle for rice and beans instead. "

"For months now, I’ve been pointing out how self-indulgent it was for these politicians to demand that we endlessly empathize with the trauma they suffered on January 6 because of the danger posed by a riotous mob—while they refuse to do anything about the life-threatening danger that their constituents have learned to live with."

"It also felt wrong to me that there were no Trump supporters on the committee to cross-examine witnesses, and I was deeply put off by the highly produced nature of the spectacle, which seemed designed to electrify a moribund base. "

"I’m still not convinced that January 6 was an insurrection. It still seems to me that, beyond a handful of extremists, January 6 was a riot that got out of hand, and that a selfish President Trump hoped he might profit from the chaos."

"I’m also not convinced that his actions on January 6, however heinous, are enough to erase Trump’s policy legacy"

"I still feel sickened by the fact that many of these politicians tweeting endlessly about that day are not lifting a finger to help their own constituents, who are living daily with the kind of chaos and violence they supposedly abhor."

Expand full comment

It’s the classic sh*t sandwich. Positive comments on both ends with the real message in the middle. So maybe not fawning, but apparently taking anything the hearings say hook line and sinker.

Batya seems pretty naive to me and this article is very short on questioning what is said at the hearings. We are in a post truth world where people routinely lie for what they perceive as the greater good. I would expect more skepticism from someone who writes here.

Expand full comment

Batya wrote a book called How Woke Media is Undermining Our Democracy, so I wouldn't exactly call her naive.

Expand full comment

Do you expect more skepticism, or do you expect a particular point of view to be articulated here and are disappointed you didn't get it?

I find it gob-smacking the number of people who are wailing in agony over how the site has supposedly been captured by the left when I have been fretting over the exact opposite. The fact that this site routinely blasts the MSM for every mistake and misperception yet ignores the outright fabrications on Fox News/Newsmax/OAN. The fact that it has no problem calling out cultural authoritarians on the left while disregarding political authoritarians on the right. The fact that with a disgraced president who tried to overturn our constitutional order threatening to do so again and a Republican party enabling the installment of election deniers in key positions of state authority, this site has had almost nothing to say about this clear threat to our Republic and spends more time defending the Canadian trucker convoy.

This site publishes an anti-Trump article once in a blue moon and has people up in arms threatening to cancel their subscriptions over it. The most critical post has more likes than the article itself. That says something about the actual audience by whom this site has been captured.

Expand full comment

The entire D.C. sideshow seems to be paid cover for the continued looting, of not just the hard earned treasure of everyday Americans, but a direct assault on the culture and moral center of their lives. A muddling of reason and dialogue, an obfuscation and twisting of the facts purposefully intended to prevent the discussion and creation of real solutions.

I'm a fan of Mrs. Ungar-Sargon and her work on how "woke" is compromising media. I think some of the negative reaction here is our personal disgust at being continually ping-ponged by the corrupt MSM/Democratic party machine. Experiencing the Presidency and America hostage to the transparent Russia Gate lie followed by the exploitation of 1/6 to further evade dealing with the consequential damaging realities Americans are suffering as the result of D.C. ineptitude and graft is a serious trigger in itself. Mrs. Ungar-Sargon somehow pulled it.

In actuality Trump, the 1/6 hearings and MSM/"woke" are only symptoms of the diseased utopian pathology being utilized by totalitarian finance to rationalize their further imposition of a big tech/surveillance state/corporatist CCP style feudalism. This entire airball is simply the new version of the shining object in the path of the monkey, give me free labor, personal exploitation of resources while the consequences of my actions destroy the world and, I'm gonna get away with it. It's no different than Ludlow, Colorado or Lawrence, Massachusetts.

Expand full comment

Just my opinion, Miles. Calm down. Batya’s “mind has been changed” by this sham political theater so I take that as tacit support for their “findings”. I think that is pretty naive on Batya’s part but that is her opinion and she is entitled to it…and I am entitled to mine.

Expand full comment

You're entitled to your opinion; you're not entitled to both be triggered by differing opinions (have no time for it, draw the line, disappointed it was published, etc.) while at the same time patting yourself on the back for welcoming disagreement. Pick one or the other.

Expand full comment

And you are entitled to question her reasoning ability. Just because someone changes their mind about something doesn't mean they are right. They just changed their mind.

I look at this as a way of gaining cred with Conservatives. It doesn't work when all you have are weak testimony examples from a sham proceeding.

Expand full comment

"I draw the line at fawning over show trials orchestrated by the party in power"

Did you call the Benghazi hearings (all of them) a show trial, too? Or was that show trial OK because Republicans ran it?

"and that deny due process and cross examination to the accused (whoever that may be)."

What denial of due process? The accused, Donald Trump, is welcome to testify to the J6 committee, whenever he wants. He only has to show up and answer questions under oath. Whether he does is entirely on him, not the committee.

Republicans had their chance to staff the J6 committee with intelligent members. McCarthy chose Jim Jordan and other buffoons. When Pelosi correctly objected, McCarthy said, "Then I appoint no one, you're on your own." Pelosi chose two Republicans and launched the investigation. McCarthy fucked his own party with his refusal to take this committee seriously.

"we learned that the 1/6 committee’s star witness (who spewed nothing but unchallenged hearsay testimony) is being refuted by the secret service members who were actually present."

First, it was not hearsay. She accurately reported what she was told by the Secret Service team and/or the Chief of Staff, and said so right up front: "This is what they told me." She did not say she witnessed the actions, she said she was told about it by the Secret Service. Second, her testimony has not been "refuted" until the agents and Mark Meadows appear before the J6 committee and testify under oath as to their version of events. Which means the committee will be able to ask, "If Trump did not grab for the steering wheel or assault the agent, why did you tell her he did? Are you lying to us now or were you lying to her then?"

Finally, this is not a courtroom, it's a congressional hearing. The rules of courtrooms do not apply, just like they didn't in the Benghazi hearings. Condemn both or neither, you can't pick and choose.

Expand full comment

there are certainly similarly to the Benghazi hearings and these hearings, I paid very little attention to either. Here are a couple of major distinctions, please correct me if I am wrong:

1) Benghazi hearings did not prohibit the dems from choosing who would sit on the committee unlike these hearings

2) During Benghazi hearings, Dems controlled the presidency and DOJ, so there was no real way to do the hearings besides congressionally (unlike today when the Dems control Presidency and DOJ, DOJ currently doing prosecutions on this subject matter)

Expand full comment

Exactly. And the Benghazi disaster needed hearings. An Ambassador and other American officials were assassinated. And the Secretary of State had refused repeated requests from the Ambassador for added security over the previous six months. That needed a Congressional hearing to find out how this could have happened.

Expand full comment

"...She accurately reported what she was told . . ." is the very definition of hearsay - an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Expand full comment

She testified about what SHE was told directly. That makes it not hearsay. If the agents want to be sworn in and testify as to what they said, they can, and it wouldn't be hearsay either.

In any case, it doesn't matter. This is not a criminal or court proceeding, it's a congressional committee hearing.

Expand full comment

Fundamental fairness always applies. This is an inquisition, meaning that it combines the roles of investigator, prosecutor and judge into one. The Dems had the opportunity to make it at least appear to be a fair and balanced proceeding and didn't take it. After that, everything it does is tainted. They knew that, but did it anyway, a fact that strongly suggests they didn't and don't care about anything but their preferred outcome. If you think any sort of proceeding in which only one side gets to present witnesses, cross-examine, offer evidence, etc. is fair, I strongly suggest you think again.

Expand full comment

"The Dems had the opportunity to make it at least appear to be a fair and balanced proceeding and didn't take it."

To the contrary: Democrats did this by the fairness book. This committee contains two powerful Republican congresspeople, one of whom is co-chair of the committee: Liz Cheney, one of the hardest-right Republicans in the nation, who voted with Donald Trump 93 percent of the time in his four years in office. If this were as "one-sided" as you claim, there would be zero Republicans on the committee. Instead, Democrats AND Republicans are asking questions, offering evidence, and cross-examining witnesses without showboating.

You would have preferred Jim Johnson and Marjorie Taylor Greene? They would have made this a clown show, not the fair examination of who did what when that it is.

I strongly suggest you rewatch the Benghazi hearings if you want an example of an inquisitional witch hunt.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yes....exactly. Extra emphasis on "MSM is part of the DNC". That is the biggest shame/crime of all.

Expand full comment

I would add the priority of out elite and media class is disconnected from reality. IN other news the greatest human rights atrocity in our life time occurred at the border, but oh wells!

Expand full comment

I will also not renew my subscription is Weiss keeps including writers who accept and believe the hearings are fair and reasonable when even the democrats admitted to staging and producing the televised event. Not political hearing but event to stop Trump becoming President again. Especially after this Biden administration which Hunter Biden gave us substantiated proof of his entire family’s corruption and Biden’s allowing so far over 2 million illegals and more growing by the day, gas prices at these high levels due to Biden shutting down the pipeline and stopping domestic production Donald J Trump is the only one to turn this around. Yes. He really does need to save America. This J6 circus thinks we can’t think and reason for ourselves. If this forum continues to publish idiots who believe the J6 lies presented I will not continue to support or read it. Very disappointing I really thought Weiss was smarter than this. I liked the fact I did not agree with her on everything it this article just wasted my time and disgusted me enough to waste more time on this response.

Expand full comment

Read your entire comment, but really want to draw attention to the fact that we have pretty good evidence and Intel that our sitting president has committed treason while he was the VP and perhaps is still committing treason. His son was clearly engaged in illegal or unethical acts while he was VP and yet, here we are watching the LEFT orchestrate their sham North Korean Style Propaganda show for everyone to see. They clearly think little of the American people and perhaps rightly so.

Expand full comment

I agree with all except the perhaps rightly so.

Expand full comment

Lily...gotta hear both sides, that was not BW. Me, i am glad to hear Ungars is Out There...whom ever he/she is.

When the world finds out, clean air makes the world Warmer, i want to know the Real denouncers of Truth...thanks

Expand full comment

Ungar-Sargon is not a left wing shill, she’s a balanced journalist in general, and one of the few I’ve come to trust even if I don’t always agree with her.

I think she’s had a rush to judgment here, but she shouldn’t be completely discounted for that. Only chastised perhaps to hold off and dig deeper.

Expand full comment

She did not say anything of significance except there has been no evidence that President Trump or his team didanything to cause the Jan. 6 Capitol incident. Everything else is piling on Orange Man Bad.

Expand full comment

She said this and it's not even true: "As the rioters at the capitol chanted “Hang Mike Pence” and erected a gallows outside the Capitol, President Trump said “Mike deserves it,” according to Tuesday’s testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows. "

Cheney claimed that as a Trump quote, but nothing in Hutchinson's testimony stated that as a Trump quote. Rather she paraphrased Meadows saying "You heard him, he thinks Mike deserves it", and the "it" is undefined - could be deserving to be called out by the mob in general for not doing the goofy override Trump wanted, or deserving hanging.

Proof at 2:00 of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3mQVZdpFhM

Expand full comment

Anyway, if Ungar-S is swayed by things she "learned" that aren't even true, we don't need to waste much time with this article or her viewpoint here.

Expand full comment

Sorry, when someone writes a piece of crap like this, I disregard them. Left, Right, or Center. My bandwidth is too small to be reading people who I don't think are smarter than I am. My judgement as this author is a sucker. So buh-bye!

Expand full comment

I like this approach. Fair.

Expand full comment

I find this comment about the article being bullshit and the fact that Bari would dare to run something that disagrees with your "bias" means you would and no doubt will unsubscribe. I thought I had finally "found my crowd" - those who could listen to others with whom they disagreed in the odd chance that one could learn something and get out of ones owns balloons and debate with respect and civility ,and a little humility

alas, now it seems, that some of the commentators on Common Sense have lost theirs. Instead, there is the same assuredness that I and I alone have the TRUTH and anything that goes against MY truth is not worth $5.00 a month.

Not a whole lot different from the Tucker Carlson crowd.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022

I am one of "Tucker Carlson crowd." How can we fight the "cancel culture" if we fall prey to the same type of thinking? Bari Weiss has created a platform for dialogue. Don't abandon her. She is a strong centrist. We need centrists, do we not?

Expand full comment

If you think Batya's article is accurate at all then tell us who had an AR-15 on January 6 at the capital.

You do realize that Hutchinson was not with Trump on Jan. 6 and that her entire testimony about what Trump supposedly said is hearsay, don't you?

Expand full comment

My wife is progressive and listened to the hearings yesterday. We had a good talk about the nature of Hutchinson’s testimony as evidence. She says that she heard a number of things; the truth or falsity of any assertions she heard should be given minimal weight; it is weak as hearsay evidence. The fact that she HEARD these items IS evidence that she heard them. She should have been cross examined to possibly discredit her testimony (aka impeach her testimony). Then we can call as witnesses the people from heard she heard these comments to see what they observed. At some point, we get to the people who were with the president.

As to the statement that there were people armed with AR-15s, the truth of falsity of that assertion is not important, she can testify that she heard warnings to that extent. Once again, we need to call as witnesses the people who supposedly made these statements to see what they remember saying and what they knew at the time.

Expand full comment

The committee members knew that Hutchinson had only hearsay testimony to give and they knew what she would say. That is why they called her. She would create inflammatory new rumors that credulous "journalists" like Batya and Bari would spread like wild fire without ever considering their validity.

The committee's only reason for existing is to smear Trump, not to get at the truth.

Expand full comment

Dean...nice put...covers

Expand full comment

You're such a hypocrite. "I thought I had finally "found my crowd" - those who could listen to others with whom they disagreed..." We've written things you disagree with, so now we're awful.

"... Not a whole lot different from the Tucker Carlson crowd..." You're all peace, love, brotherhood, and tolerance. Except for those haters/racists/Nazis in the Tucker Carlson crowd. Don't kid yourself. You hate us. It's not enough we tolerate that which we don't like. We have to embrace it. If we don't think males should participate in women's sports, we hate trans people, and we're evil. Isn't that right? It's you who are the hater. You hate us.

Expand full comment

You're the ones throwing temper tantrums because Bari posted an article critical of your orange messiah.

Expand full comment

You say those taking umbrage with this article are doing so because it's critical of the "orange messiah"? Just about ALL of the comments I've read that are annoyed by the essay relate to the sham investigation with no defense and the age old (now) hook line and sinker gullibility of those who loathe the "orange messiah". Pelosi orchestrated the make up of the committee, excluding the two R congressmen who would have questioned the witnesses from an opposing viewpoint. Only you have shown an infatuation with Trump in these comments. It would serve you to reread the comments to show your bias, Miles.

Expand full comment

What a joke. You actually are the one prejudging this. You insult anyone questioning this as a Trump stooge. Well, the opposite can be true too. I think you only like the hearings because you are getting all the “Orange Man Bad” porn that you crave.

See how that works? If you think it’s unfair then tough sh*t

Expand full comment

No they are disagreeing with the writer.

Expand full comment

Agree 100%. I am here to see different opinions. Calling this article a BS and unsubscribing show to me that there are tons of people that want to hear what they want to hear. I do not share all opinions presented in Common Sense, but I like that they are exposed here.

Expand full comment

So I disagree with Batya. So what. I am not going to unsubscribe. I learn more from people I disagree with; it helps me understand what I believe in. Bari puts out more content than Taibbi and Greenwald combined. I will discontinue my subscriptions to them before I discontinue my subscription to Bari.

Expand full comment

Does it bother you at all that some of these different opinions are falsehoods? Hutchinson's testimony about Trump assaulting his secret service detail and trying to grab the steering wheel of his limo has already been shown to be false (NBC reported it). And her testimony is all hearsay. We'll probably find out that more of what she told the committee is false. For example no one had an AR-15 near the capital on Jan. 6, but it makes for a good smear.

Expand full comment

Nope. From Batya's article I know how Hutchinson testified. From the other article I can get the information how these testimonies were verified.

Expand full comment

Well, did you stop watching Tucker Carlson when he interviewed left-wing people like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard on his program?

Expand full comment

People like you are so effing condescending. You act like you know what people are thinking. It's a common thread I'm seeing of the people who don't like the criticism.

Maybe think about why the criticism is there. From a non-condescending I know better standpoint.

Expand full comment

so you have no idea who i am or what i think other than a comment I made - and you - knowing who i am from your better standpoint have judged me as condescending. It wasn't the criticsm i minded - it was the way it was offered . but never mind. You go your way and I'll go mine.

Expand full comment

So I don’t know you or how you think, but you know everyone else. Introspection….look into it.

Expand full comment

I agree with you. I joined a few substack communities in the first place because of my great concern about gaslighting children and turning society upside down over Gender Ideology, apparently started by the Mengeles like Dr. John Money. I'll stick around awhile for anything more Bari might post regarding schools, etc. but otherwise I enjoy the reader comments far more than most articles. For that reason, I hope some of ya do stick around. - LM

Expand full comment

Although Common Sense has been my heretofore favorite publication, I too am cancelling because of this article and a couple of other recent ones. Bari is outsourcing too much and I don’t know why she’s choosing authors like this one, but it’s not a good sign. I don’t know what I’ll find to replace this site (and the intelligent comments made by the readers- my favorite part). Any suggestions are welcome.

Expand full comment

This doesn't exactly answer the question about another publication but I think Victor Davis Hanson is a very clear thinker. I just read a great piece by him:

"VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Cry-Baby Leftist Mind"

Dailycaller.com/2022/06/30/victor-davis-hanson-cry-baby-leftist-mind-supreme-court/

"What would the Left do if after 2022 midterms a Republican majority Congress emulated its own infantile tantrums?

Imagine new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tearing up a President Joe Biden State of Union address on live television."

Expand full comment

Great piece. Thank you!

P.S. the incessant ads that one has to scroll past in order to read it are annoying, but VDH is worth it.

Expand full comment

You are welcome! It looks like you can avoid ads by reading his articles on his own website.

Remember all those “Resistance” bumper stickers people put on their cars in 2016?

https://victorhanson.com/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-2/

Expand full comment
Jul 4, 2022·edited Jul 4, 2022

See: https://victorhanson.com/

And today's piece:

"Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?

Leave a Comment / July 4, 2022

Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness"

https://victorhanson.com/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-2/

Expand full comment

The Left's infantile tantrums. Right. Like, for instance, incessantly crying over losing an Election and becoming the first president to not honor a peaceful transition of power.

Go back and look at what a complete embarrassment Trump made of that State of the Union Address. You'll see why Pelosi tore up her copy.

Victor Davis Hanson is another joke Flight-93 "conservative", who used to be respected among conservatives and now has more sensible Republicans wondering if he ever wasn't a loony authoritarian. You'll find plenty of those at "American Greatness", along with lots of thinly veiled racism (or not so thinly veiled, like the infamous"Cuck Elegy"). Put simply, AG is one of those sites that makes it that much more difficult to argue that white supremacy isn't experiencing a resurgence.

If all you want is criticism of the left, there are plenty of people and sites that will gladly lead you down a right-wing rabbit hole. They'll happily cater to the illusion that Donald Trump is just a wrongly maligned, misunderstood guy hated by the left simply because he flouts their pieties.

Or you could stick with a site that up until now you trusted to give it to you straight - until they told you something you didn't want to hear.

Expand full comment

So you won't tolerate someone who has been a staunch defender of Republicans and critic of Democrats giving you her honest opinion of the Jan 6th hearings? Do you really just want a site that criticizes only the left and otherwise engages in apologism on the right? That certainly isn't what I signed up for.

Expand full comment

No, I don’t. But this piece was sloppy. Not worthy of what I previously considered to be a superior journalistic site. As someone else commented, I want to read pieces by those who are “smarter” (more informed) than I am. I want to learn something from every piece. That didn’t happen here. It’s a slippery slope, and I’m concerned that this piece exhibits the beginnings of a descent into ordinariness.

Expand full comment

You are little different than the cancel culture wokesters. In many ways worse- as you are so brazenly hypocritical. If you leave, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Orange man cultists are possibly the only thing worse than cancel culture CRT lefties.

Expand full comment

Hard to recommend a replacement substack Aimee. Unfortunately I'm a critic. It's hard to find a writer that sooner or later doesn't disappoint me.

For different reasons, I'm not renewing w/ Alex Berenson.

I like what Glen Greenwald writes, but think he can be a bit wordy, and slow to get to his point.

Robert Malone has been pretty level-headed and steady. He's targeting a different audience than Bari Weiss. Lately some of his stuff has been highly technical, and difficult for me to follow. But that's b/c of MY limitations. That aside, I can't really find anything about him to criticize.

Expand full comment

My problem with Glenn Greenwald is that there can be several weeks where there is no new content. The same with Matt Taibbi. At least Bari has regular content every week. I might drop Greenwald and Taibbi and pick another writer in their place.

Expand full comment
Jul 17, 2022·edited Jul 17, 2022

I'm a critic about almost everything, so this is FWIW.

Don't disagree w/ you about Greenwald's content. In addition, I wish he would sharpen up his writing. He has good ideas and observations, but when he puts them down in print or does a podcast, he's wordy. Wish he would be a little more respectful of his audience's time.

When I'm judging what content to give my time to, second thing I look at, after the title (and short summary if available), is how much time will it require. If more than I want to give, I go on to the next thing.

For someone like him, I recommend "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. The whole thrust of the book is for writers to get rid of excess verbiage that adds no value.

Expand full comment

Aimee...please stay aboard, give it time, BW must put out another side at times, just to give a balance/openness...thanks

Expand full comment

Okay… will do. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Evil... got to consider, just because we get this goop from Ungers, does not show BW to be in agreement, it is helpful to see the enemy...grateful.

Expand full comment

Wow...bari...expected better...

Expand full comment

I didn’t like the auto renew feature either and posted something about it. I most likely would have renewed but it would have been nice if it was my decision.

Expand full comment

You have a good point and I have questioned that too - however my point is just that if some security measure was mandated for the election it should have been followed - and no one seems to care that it wasn’t

Expand full comment

He is a she. I've seen her on Tucker Carlson.

Expand full comment

Batya is a woman, not a "he".

Expand full comment

Rick did a great job. While I agree with the early and largely negative sentiments expressed regarding the content here in the comments, I appreciated this piece and think Common Sense subscribers should consider Bari's running a business.

I didn't watch the "hearings," having read Sharyl Attkisson's journalism documenting the literal mountain of lies spewed out of the left and their sycophant accomplices in the legacy media, the summary was useful to me. I took a lot of it with a grain of salt.

Point being, the author wrote well and expressed a legitimate point of view, giving the commenters fodder for debate. Bari is looking for smart journalists to build her business, they won't all be fully aware of the broader situation. Most people are not.

As usual, I learn as much from the comments as I do the piece sometimes. Case in point today: look at Brad Casalvieri's background on Hucthinson, Michelle Styles background on our founders understanding of the fall of Rome and the relevance of their wisdom today, or my favorite, Daviid Lawrence Jorling's background on the western broadcast of ABC news calling out the likely fraud of some of Hucthinson's comments.

Back to Bari and her business, this author lacked some important context - okay, see above dear author. More importantly, Bari's woo'ing democrats, hoping to share facts that will influence their point of view and quite literally save our country and protect our children's future. So, for the super negative commenters, not Naomi, remember we are here to support and improve Common Sense. We can't make this an echo chamber, she and we, need to woo.

Expand full comment

I don’t want an echo chamber, either, which is why this publication is so important for me. I’ve read many articles from this author before that were excellent, so even if this one doesn’t hit the mark I wouldn’t want to miss out in the future. I haven’t read her book about how woke media is destroying democracy, but I would agree with that statement alone.

Expand full comment

Couldn’t agree with you more. I admit I love the comments section as much or more than I do the actual newsletter. There are more than just a few insightful people here who are willing to share their take in a measured manner. I never come away from Common Sense without some additional knowledge or perspective. That is a gift that far exceeds the price of my subscription. This newsletter and it’s readers are a terrific foil for the idea that civility and wisdom are dead.

Expand full comment

Exactly. I subscribed because I value the voices of sanity and common sense. I also wanted to participate in the discussion. I love reading comments and learning what others think and why and in this setting it's mostly civil and thoughtful and I appreciate that as well. I always learn something new. Isn't that what LIFE is about, learning and growing together?

Expand full comment

Expressed a point of view...not sure how legitimate it is...

Expand full comment

I think we all know Bari's leanings but I give her credit for allowing the freedom to offer unbridled comment. To her discredit, the commenters are often more illuminating the the authors she publishes. It' bothers me too that we have to go elsewhere to read what they did to Navarro and others. Are you listening Bari? How about giving Navarro some air time?

Expand full comment

Bari's contributors nearly all come from the Left side of the political spectrum. We have some mighty fine writers on the right side as well but they are not represented on Common Sense.

Expand full comment

I would say that Bari is a centrist. For instance, I’m to Bari’s left on abortion. (Yup, deal with it.) Her choice of Mike Pompeo and Condoleezza Wright as interviewees I consider right-wing (I’m not criticizing these choices, just pointing them out). She defended the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, which I thought was justified, and it put her at odds with the left. She defends Abigail Shrier’s work on the trans issue and shares Common Sense with Shrier to give her articles a wider audience, even though Shrier has a Substack of her own. She published Katie Herzog on the trans ideological corruption of science and medicine and the use of cancellation to destroy the careers of doctors who insist that the sexual binary is real. (Gender-critical thought is deemed by the left to be irrevocably right-wing.) She also gave her podcast to a defense of the Central Park Karen in an excellent interview with black conservative Kmele Foster.

I could go on and on. I guess my point is that I, a life-long liberal who have extricated myself from the censorious, ideologically compromised left side of the aisle, whatever that even means anymore, appreciate Bari’s unclassifiable mixture of insights and topics. I often do not agree with her. I often find Nellie Bowles’ TGIF segments to be superficial and poorly researched, including her annoying use of the pronoun “she” to describe Lia Thomas. And for the record, I am disappointed regarding this piece by Ungar-Sargon. I shook my head while reading it and thought, no, just no, you have drunk then Kool-Aid, my friend, take a chill pill and start over. But OK, whatever.

I will continue to support Bari. She is honorable, hard working, articulate, very bright, a genuine seeker of the truth, with a deep respect for the First Amendment. Her choices are going to piss me off sometimes. This is normal. I cherish her work because I learn things, and sometimes I even agree with her.

Expand full comment

I’m probably to the right of Bari on nearly every issue, which I’m guessing makes me far to the right of you, Beeswax, on nearly every issue. But I agree wholeheartedly with ever word of your last paragraph.

Expand full comment

*every

Expand full comment

Correction: Condoleezza Rice.

Expand full comment

I would like to encourage all the regulars here to continue their subscriptions. We cannot get emotional about a POS article, as we are all here to discuss things. I'm taking it month-by-month.

Having said that, I will say to Bari: if you want to continue to be taken seriously by the people who put you here, start publishing some work by conservatives. Anything short of that, and you are open to the charge of hypocrisy. You, in fact, have NOT shown balance in your choice of material

Expand full comment

I agree there is no balance in the selection of writers and articles. The balance seems to come from the readers who then post commentary. It has been clear to me for a while now that the majority of the posters on these threads are conservatives. I often find the commentaries more interesting and informative than the piece that sparked all the discussion. That is certainly true in this case where the instigating article is demonstrably inferior in many ways, including facts.

Expand full comment

This is exactly why I comment frequently.

Expand full comment

"I would like to encourage all the regulars here to continue their subscriptions"

I second that, unless she ignores your sage advice.

Expand full comment

Hopefully Bari didn't publish this with the hope of running off the more conservative commenters. In her previous post there were some comments that Bari's comments space was being overtaken by 'right-wingers.'

Expand full comment

Conservatives in addition to David French.

Expand full comment

David French shouldn't be published anywhere on Earth...

Expand full comment

It’s Common Sense from the left side of the spectrum. We have National Review for the mostly sane right side. Taken together they present a possible normal dialogue that gets lost in the WP/NYT/CNN/MSNBC/FOX interpretation of political dialogue.

Expand full comment

I have to disagree on national review. They sold out a long time ago. Andy McCarthy who I really liked, had a terrible article on Jan 6. I know David French is not there anymore, but he is the problem with "conservatism" iMO. He is brilliant but he is more consumed with the process than the results. I feel he would rather lose gracefully and hold his head up high on principal, then realize that human nature is not always logical and cut and dried.

Expand full comment

You are correct and that is why I said “mostly” sane. They definitely go off the deep end sometimes.

Expand full comment

Hey, hey, hey, please pull Fox out of there. Sure you have Cavuto and Baier, and Geraldo but there is also Tucker Carlson. He's worth all of Fox.

Expand full comment

Agreed. I've read some really good columns by Kira Davis. She did a piece on kids and the gender confusion push that summed up its inherent problems very well.

Expand full comment
founding

How about Navarro testifying under oath?

Expand full comment

He's been indicted. Does he have any choice?

Expand full comment
founding

Everyone has a choice. My comment was responding to the suggestion that Navarro publish something.

Do you imagine that DOJ would not withdraw the indictment if he agreed to honor the subpoena and testify before the committee? Maybe he’s weighing the option of a pardon should there be a Republican President in 2024. Hard to say.

Expand full comment

"Everyone has a choice".

And my guess is he'll have plenty to say, after being forced to spend a half million dollars on lawyers. That's what this all really about. It's what government inquisitors do to punish and financially ruin anyone in their sights. Just ask General Flynn who was coerced by the Mueller inquisitors into pleading guilty to a non-crime so he and his family would not become destitute. Navarro had the integrity and balls to give the middle finger to all the stooges running Pelosi’s show trial. If the JustUs Dept. ever puts him on a real trial my bet is the press won’t even cover it because he’ll expose facts they don’t want to hear.

Expand full comment

That is what taking the 5th is for and I would wager his lawyer has so advised.

Expand full comment

When we the American people understand we are being serially abused by our government. The January 6 committee is like the very concept of January 6 itself a total abusive scam. Arrests of Navarro and Eastman are, like everything else originating in the Biden administration, at total embarrassment. Yes, Donald Trump may not be our favorite person but yes, he did a far better job than many of the other Presidents of our lifetimes. It is about the Constitution! Elect constitutionalists and those who have the adequate brain power to interpret it correctly.

Expand full comment

A group of people stormed the U.S. capitol and were, for the most part, out of control for quite awhile. It is COMPLETELY normal that this would be investigated. Kevin McCarthy choosing to not have any Trump supporters on the committee is on him.

Expand full comment

WTF are you talking about? Kevin McCarthy was allowed to have the same number of Rs as Ds on the committee and his choices were rejected by Pelosi. This is a joke and a sham and everyone should understand that this is not how a government representative of the people should work.

Expand full comment

Two of McCarthy's 5 choices were rejected by Speaker Pelosi, who was apparently within bounds in exercising the power to do so. Not all of them, the way you're making it sound. And nothing was stopping McCarthy from picking two different choices and re-submitting the GOP slate. But McCarthy realized at that point what a gift that Pelosi had given him, by providing him with a pretext to boycott the hearings.

I think Pelosi blew it, personally. It would have been much more entertaining for many of us to hear Greg Jacobs and Michael Luttig responding to hostile questioning from the Trump contingent on June 16. https://www.c-span.org/video/?520944-1/president-trumps-campaign-influence-vice-president-pence (with transcript, although the video is much funnier)

Expand full comment

Seems to me we the American people are being royally played. I understand there are two sides here but due to the monstrous, despicable games being played by the “Democrats” they have destroyed any and all possible credibility they may have once possessed.

Here is a report on a very small example:

https://youtu.be/PKjSE1g7NrI

Expand full comment

I didn't say anything about McCarthy, lol. Pelosi is a joke of a wasted person and should not be representing we the people... The Jan 6 committee is a joke. No it certainly is not how a government by and for we the people should work.

Expand full comment

KW Norton, I was responding to Scott after his pathetic, lame, joke of a response to you.

Expand full comment

Kevin McCarthy appointed 5 members who are Republicans, which is what the rules for the committee required. Your attack is on Speaker Pelosi who illegally rejected his appointments.

Also, when was there a committee to investigate the riots that disrupted the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh for several days? That was certainly worse than January 6.

Expand full comment

Sorry, but my attack is on exactly what I said. You are free to not agree.

Expand full comment

Rfhirsch is also responding to Scott, not to you.

Expand full comment

two things:

1) DOJ has been investigating, so there really isn't a need for the Dems in Congress to do it, and with Schiff's record on these hearings, how can there be any real trust

2) Pelosi rejected McCarthy's appointments....

Expand full comment
founding

Unless I’m mistaken, Pelosi only rejected two of the five: Jordan who was involved directly in some of the matters under investigation and Banks who said he would use the hearings to “prove” the election was stolen. So Jordan has a rather clear conflict of interest and Banks rejected the committee’s limited scope. McCarthy then pulled the other three nine of whom had no similar issues and so now we are where we are.

Even Trump now says McCarthy was wrong in not placing GOP members on the committee - which suggests that he recognizes how damaging some of the testimony against him has been. Of course, his reason was that the members would leak everything to his team in advance which is hardly a reassuring expectation.

In my view, Trump has irrevocably damaged his legacy which, at some in the future, would have focused on the good things he accomplished and for which his Administration was never given credit in real time. Truman, Hoover and others went from very much out of favor to higher favorability in later years. For all his vaunted gut instincts, Trump might have traded what he saw as a short term gain for long term opprobrium. Everyone made choices but in this case, Trump might have been better served had he listened to his advisors and told the Giulianis, Eastmans and Clarks “you’re fired.”

Expand full comment

Funny thing is Adam Kinzinger will lose his seat in November because of redistricting and Liz Cheney will lose it because she's a loser. And they hated Trump so know one believes they represent an opposing POV. You can obfuscate all day long and it doesn't change what Pelosi did to change the committee and it's ultimate conclusion. But like with everything the Dems do, this will backfire. They always overplay their hand.

Expand full comment

Anytime trust is broken in a relationship it cannot work well. The American people's trust with this government is increasingly broken. Both political parties are corrupt although there is some hope of current governors who have gained some impressive ground and seem to understand more about the Constitution.

Expand full comment

C'mon Scott, that would be a fair criticism of McCarthy if it was accurate, but it's a lie.

The GOP appointed reps to be on the J6 committee but they were 'rejected' by Pelosi. Fyi, this is the first time in the history of a Congressional hearing that one side wasn't even allowed to choose who represented them.

You good with that?

Expand full comment

It is completely normal that it is investigated. It is completely outrageous that people are spending a year + in jail awaiting trial on glorified misdemeanor/trespassing charges while thousands of people who participated in far more violent riots in other cities are getting off lightly (many with minimal pre-trial imprisonment).

People who were violent on Jan 6 deserve to be treated like violent criminals and subject to normal pre-trial detention. But many of the cases we are hearing about are outrageous.

Expand full comment

Except for the fact this committee is a Kkangaroo court worthy of a third-world dictatorship. What is and was out of control were not a bunch of renegade citizens but an entire United States government in league with the World Economic Forum. the Bilderberg Group and the Biden Crime family. (To mention a few.)

Expand full comment

100% on all accounts. It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again. It may have been interesting with the balance of McCarthy's nominations to the committee, but without that it is a step below Kabuki Theater. I would rather watch zero gravity sumo wrestling.

Expand full comment

To: Naomi, Evil Incarnate, NCmom, R. Bosshardt, etc,

For all who think this is just a "show trial", have you listened to the testimony? Based on the various postings I think that you don't like what you hear.

You want to get to the truth?

Call your elected representatives and demand a special prosecutor (It happened during the Clinton Administration - investigation of Vince Foster's death, Whitewater, and for blowjobs in the Oval Office). This special prosecutor has the power to subpoena and not simply "invite" testimony.

I want to hear directly, under oath, from Mark Meadows, Ivanka Trump, the Secret Service, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, Michael Flynn (who took the Fifth), and yes Donald Trump. The list could go on. Let there be cross-examination.

I want to know under threat of perjury:

Did John Eastman speak with White House Counsel regarding a Presidential Pardon. Yes or No?

Did Mark Meadows ask for a Presidential Pardon? Yes or No.

Did Donald Trump, while riding in the Beast, attempt to crab the steering wheel and lunge towards one of his Secret Service detail? Yes or No.

Did Donald Trump accrue $250 million dollars in donations for a fund that never existed? Yes or No.

Did the Capital Police refuse the presence of the National Guard and who is responsible? Yes or No. The Constitution of the United States is very clear on the role of the Executive Branch in calling upon State Militias in a time of crisis.

This is a very messy situation and given the polarization in this country very difficult to manage; however, there are processes to do this. You may think the current proceedings are a kangaroo court; however, did any members of the GOP agree to be represented apart from Liz Cheney?

Expand full comment

Trials have both a prosecution and a defense.

A one sided trial is North Korean Style Propaganda.

Expand full comment

A kangaroo court is one political side running the show. The January 6 Committee is a political ploy by the “Democrats” and more particularly a political ploy to distract from the evil being perpetrated by the Biden Crime Family and associates. The American people understand this.

Expand full comment

Kevin McCarthy abrogated any adult responsibility to bring "balance" to these proceedings. Rather like a petulant child he refused to play know full well that "the base" would see his behavior as principled as opposed to cynical.

Kennedy Crime Family

Nixon Crime Family

Bush Crime Family

Reagan Crime Family

Obama Crime Family

Clinton Crime Family

Trump Crime Family

What is the difference?

Expand full comment