Jim Jordan

[WrestlingRasta]

This hearing is a shit show, and he is a disgrace to wrestling.  Republicans attacking republicans all in the name of a criminal.

[MPhillips]

I saw him win his fourth HS title. That's all the good I can say.

[Paul158]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

This hearing is a shit show, and he is a disgrace to wrestling.  Republicans attacking republicans all in the name of a criminal.

Could you please explain what you are saying. The last sentence in particular.

[WrestlingRasta]

Republican congressmen drilling republican official, asking questions then cutting them off to argue or make irrelevant remarks without letting them answer.  If you can find a clip about the Richmond memo it is a perfect example.  

[VakAttack]

What hearing are they doing today?  is the Wray hearing?

[WrestlingRasta]

yes

[Paul158]

9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Republican congressmen drilling republican official, asking questions then cutting them off to argue or make irrelevant remarks without letting them answer.  If you can find a clip about the Richmond memo it is a perfect example.  

I'm not  to sure that most conservatives like the recent actions of Director Wray. I could be wrong.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Paul158
missed a word

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I'm not  to sure that most conservatives like the recent actions of Director Wray. I could be wrong.

I'm aware, and that's my point.  

[WrestlingRasta]

25 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Republican congressmen drilling republican official, asking questions then cutting them off to argue or make irrelevant remarks without letting them answer.  If you can find a clip about the Richmond memo it is a perfect example.  

Another example was when one member claimed ‘tyrannical raid’ on mar a lago. The director corrected him that it was not a raid, it was a legally executed search warrant where they knocked on the door, identified who they were and what they were doing there, and asked them to step outside, which they did without incident. The member said and they went in weapons drawn. Director said they were not weapons drawn, they had weapons, they always have their weapons but they were not drawn. The member replied, yeah and they went into an American family home. Their father’s home. 
 

The point of this hearing is not to find facts. The point of this hearing is for MAGA republicans to drill non maga republicans so maga citizens can jerk off in front of their TV and send them more money. 

[BobDole]

All of these hearings are just politicians clamoring for a sound bite that they hope goes viral.

[WrestlingRasta]

The biggest tell in Jordan is that when he’s talking to one of these witnesses, he spends more time looking at the gallery or pretending to fiddle through his papers than looking at the person he is talking to. 

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Another example was when one member claimed ‘tyrannical raid’ on mar a lago. The director corrected him that it was not a raid, it was a legally executed search warrant where they knocked on the door, identified who they were and what they were doing there, and asked them to step outside, which they did without incident. The member said and they went in weapons drawn. Director said they were not weapons drawn, they had weapons, they always have their weapons but they were not drawn. The member replied, yeah and they went into an American family home. Their father’s home. 
 

The point of this hearing is not to find facts. The point of this hearing is for MAGA republicans to drill non maga republicans so maga citizens can jerk off in front of their TV and send them more money. 

You need to understand that it’s a process.  An element of the legislative branch is investigating elements of the executive branch and this is preliminary, as to the FBI’s participation in targeting political opponents.  It’s actually about the fourth or fifth in the series, so far.  The answers to these questions will be examined to determine the next steps to take, possible witnesses, subpoenas, etc.  As for your concern about republicans being harsh to another republican, lots of people claim to be republicans in DC, like Comey.  I think the tell in this hearing, as in most , is the amount of unresponsive answers. 

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

You need to understand that it’s a process.  An element of the legislative branch is investigating elements of the executive branch and this is preliminary, as to the FBI’s participation in targeting political opponents.  It’s actually about the fourth or fifth in the series, so far.  The answers to these questions will be examined to determine the next steps to take, possible witnesses, subpoenas, etc.  As for your concern about republicans being harsh to another republican, lots of people claim to be republicans in DC, like Comey.  I think the tell in this hearing, as in most , is the amount of unresponsive answers. 

I’m well aware and understanding of the process. We’ll have to agree to disagree as to how we are perceiving what we are seeing. 

[Offthemat]

I didn’t watch a lot of it, did they ask Wray anything about the early morning FBI SWAT raid on Mark Houck, the pro-life preacher whose wife and seven children were threatened at gunpoint while he was being arrested, and was acquitted at trial?

[Le duke]

13 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I didn’t watch a lot of it, did they ask Wray anything about the early morning FBI SWAT raid on Mark Houck, the pro-life preacher whose wife and seven children were threatened at gunpoint while he was being arrested, and was acquitted at trial?

Houck admitted to pushing the victim twice.

Should the FBI should not pursue justice based on the religion of the assailant?

[MPhillips]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The point of this hearing is for MAGA republicans to drill non maga republicans so maga citizens can jerk off in front of their TV and send them more money. 

Boom! Roasted!

@VakAttack

[WrestlingRasta]

25 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I didn’t watch a lot of it, did they ask Wray anything about the early morning FBI SWAT raid on Mark Houck, the pro-life preacher whose wife and seven children were threatened at gunpoint while he was being arrested, and was acquitted at trial?

I had it on most of the time and I don’t believe that case was brought up. 

[WrestlingRasta]

54 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

 I think the tell in this hearing, as in most , is the amount of unresponsive answers. 

But I do find this perspective interesting, given you later told us you didn’t really watch it. Speaking of tells….

Kinda tells us a bit about how you form your opinions….eh??

[DJT]

I listened to some of it… basically the same dog and pony show put on by whomever is in control of the House. 
 

I will say the one topic which still hasn’t been really explained at all is Ray Epps. Is it all a conspiracy theory? No idea… it’s another case of where an explanation would get all but the loonies to move on from it. The more stonewalling done (which was done again today), the more fuel thrown on the fire, propagating the conspiracy theories. The public won’t trust the government if the government doesn’t entrust the public with the truth.

[WrestlingRasta]

The whole Ray Epps thing, I mean there’s only so much to say, by both he and the FBI. At what point does ‘unresponsive’ become okay asked and answered??

[DJT]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The whole Ray Epps thing, I mean there’s only so much to say, by both he and the FBI. At what point does ‘unresponsive’ become okay asked and answered??

I admit I haven’t read everything on it, maybe it’s been fully explained, but when during a congressional hearing, after a congressman lays out the evidence against the guy, the FBI director’s response is, “it would be irresponsible for an FBI director to sit here and discuss why an individual was charged or not charged”… that’s stonewalling. Yes, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to charge the individual, but why isn’t the explanation, “we arrested him based on this evidence, but the prosecutor decided to not move forward with filing charges”? 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Le duke said:

Houck admitted to pushing the victim twice.

Should the FBI should not pursue justice based on the religion of the assailant?

The DoG and FBI should have followed the local authorities lead and stayed out of it.  The verdict is evidence of this, except for the Biden law enforcement view that the process is the punishment.  

Edited July 12, 2023 by Offthemat

[mspart]

They can't be seen answering questions with facts or statements relevant to the question. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

There’s a lot to this whole case that I could sit here and type out, all of it based on time I’ve spent seeking info on on it, because in the first year or so after 1/6 I felt like it was a important piece. 
 

Instead I’ll just relate what I’m seeing here, which is a good bit of “I haven’t really paid a lot of attention to…” 

-But-

“I still know what happened and who’s to blame”

I mean, what can I say?  You can either buy what you’re fed, or not. It’s not up to me to convince anyone of anything. People that really want to know about something will seek it out. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[Offthemat]

17 minutes ago, DJT said:

I admit I haven’t read everything on it, maybe it’s been fully explained, but when during a congressional hearing, after a congressman lays out the evidence against the guy, the FBI director’s response is, “it would be irresponsible for an FBI director to sit here and discuss why an individual was charged or not charged”… that’s stonewalling. Yes, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to charge the individual, but why isn’t the explanation, “we arrested him based on this evidence, but the prosecutor decided to not move forward with filing charges”? 

The best place to learn about Ray Epps, and other similar cases, is revolver.news Darren Beatties website.  
 

https://www.revolver.news/