If you are referring to the January 6 committee (the once that Liz Cheney co-chaired) I agree. Not bipartisan in any meaningful way. But that committee wasn't looking at "Russia" and the 2016 election, was it?ddraig wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 5:07 pmAh, bait and switch! The typical method of denying what you i=originally posted. You were the one to bring up the House and Senate Committees. And now you throw in a third? And just how "bipartisan" were these hearings when the Dems refused the credentials of a number of Republicans on that committee? Oh, and have you seen Adam Schiff's "evidence" of Trump's malfeasance yet? Last I heard, Trump gave Pelosi the means to call in the National Guard. But she never did!gil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 12:46 amWhat committee are you referring to? The House January 6 committee? I thought that was pretty bad in a number of ways.ddraig wrote: ↑Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:36 pm
The information they were "given" came from the DOJ with both FBI and CIA supplying the info. Both organizations are/were compromised. And those "bipartisan" committees were installed with hand picked "Republicans with axes to grind while other, more moderate Republicans, were kicked out of the committees. And what of the "evidence" that Adam Schiff had that was going to be shown to us? Easy enough to prove that Trump was guilty of "Russian Collusion," but no one had any evidence! So, no evidence and prejudiced jury.
I'm referring to the Senate Select Committee where each party's leadership selects the members, and the majority party (in this case, Republicans) selects the chair. Schiff (I'm not a fan, although that doesn't matter for this conversation) was not a senator at the time, much less a member.
Let's not lose the plot. Gabbard said that Obama had been behind the Russia interferes with elections investigations, right? Does she have something that Durham didn't come up with? (as special counsel, Durham was charged by AG Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.) Does Gabbard have something that the Republicans on the the Senate and House committees, plus all the staff for all this members, didn't comneup with? I'm genuinely interested in seeing what it is.
I'm not denying what I originally posted: What Gabbard has said "is inconsistent with the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2020) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (2018).
And the Durham special counsel investigation looked into the origins of the FBI investigation, didn't it? And found nothing like what Gabbard is claiming, as I recall."
