There still are Republicans with courage and integrity.

Both Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have risked their political careers to defend the Constitution and its core principle of the peaceful transfer of power. Exactly the sort of people with integrity needed for the Select Committee on the January 6th attack on Congress. If there is any temptation by the Democrats to hide uncomfortable facts, these two will not stand for it.

42 thoughts on “There still are Republicans with courage and integrity.

  1. McCarthy and Trump scrubbed the bipartisan commission and tried to ambush the House investigation.

    However, we now have a bipartisan investigation with 2 conservative Republicans. I wonder if the phone calls from Mar a Lago are burning up the lines.

    “When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’” According to witness hearing the conversation between McCarthy and the president.” Herrera-Beutler, R-Wash

    “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump, (to) accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term.” McCarthy on House floor 1/13/21

    Oops. What could possibly have changed from 1/13 to the other day when McCarthy pulled his lackeys out? Or a few months earlier when he also squashed a bipartisan commission that agreed with his and Republican wishes point by point on a 1/6 investigation.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Just because they are Republicans you do not like does not make them anything other than Republicans. In fact, those who don’t kiss the ring of Trump are better people all around. Trump was lost to many when he started and refused to call off the attack. Or continues the Big Lie.

        Sorry, but your unending hatred of Democrats is certainly affecting your bias to the nth degree.

        Doesn’t mean you are a bad person, just a bit misguided.


        Liked by 2 people

        1. Did McCarthy get to reject 2 Democrat choices? Why not?

          Why do Democrats get to pick those who will represent them but Republicans must be represented by those selected by Pelosi?

          When McCarthy is allowed to exclude Adam Schiff, who leaked and lied extensively during the Russia Collusion hoax then you might be able to claim some degree of legitimacy but until then it’s just a lynch mob.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Did McCarthy get to reject 2 Democrat choices? Why not?


            Because he is not responsible for managing this particular Select Committee. Pelosi is. And she was right and within her rights to reject these two shitheads who have no agenda but sabotage. Read Banks’s press release. ANYBODY would say “You’re Fired” after such an outburst.

            “Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”


            Liked by 1 person

          2. The only lynch mob we’ve had is the assault on 1/6.

            If Republicans are not interested in what happened, why, and how to prevent that from happening again, then Democrats will go forward.

            McCarthy is just following orders from a civilian who is not even his constituent or even lives in his state.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. But you did not address the question at all.

            Pelosi has 8 of 13 seats for Democrats, now she wants to choose the 5 GOP seats too.

            Why should Republicans contribute any air of legitimacy to a partisan lynching?


          4. First, it is Pelosi who makes the rules for a House investigation. There is no requirement for Republicans to be on the committee at all. Yet, we still have two Republican conservatives and that makes it bipartisan by any definition.

            Second, how often does Pelosi have to accede to McCarthy’s demands? He already reneged once on a truly bipartisan.independent commission that he set the rules for for his participation.

            So here we are. Don’t like it? Then the issue is with McCarthy, not Pelosi.

            In addition, the only lynching attempt was 1/6. Gallows, zip ties, weapons, beatings, cries of “hang Pence”,… most Americans I know, left and right would like an understanding as to how this happened as related by the people who were there. And that means the ex-president, staff, Congress, police, rioters and gang members.

            If it turns out that the assault was truly a tourist event, we may have to tighten guidelines for behavior so tears while visiting are for a great nation not bear spray.

            Hey, it is the right wing that is tossing out the idea that Pelosi set the whole thing up to embarrass Trump (2 months after the election, but hey…). If that is the case, let’s find that out too.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Pelosi appointing 2 Republican ringers does not make it bipartisan.

            It is true she CAN set up the committee any way she wants, but she cannot claim it is bipartisan unless the GOP chooses it representatives.

            Ghe people won’t be fooled.


          6. “Pelosi appointing 2 Republican ringers does not make it bipartisan.”

            Your view of what is actually bipartisan is so skewed by your hatred for all things Democratic, you can’t see how idiotic it is to call two REAL Republicans “ringers”. The two have stood their ground from the jump and did not cave to the fanatical rantings of some disgraced, twice impeached, two-time loser in the popular vote former President.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. When there are Republicans on the committee it is bipartisan by definition. Just because you don’t like the picks is kind of moot.

            Those two folks don’t lose their principles of conservatism or the Republican Party (sans Trump, perhaps, but he has never been a Republican) just because they were not in agreement that the assault was a good thing or the election was a bad thing.

            The GOP is a mess. If two conservatives, particularly Cheney, lose their “cred” on principle, then the party is a sewer.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. The two are not conservatives. Cheney is a neo-con, and Kinzinger is conservative only by Illinois standards. Neither is cooperating with party leadership.


          9. The NEW definition of “conservatives”” Those who kiss the ring of the Mar-a-Lago Don, ignore the Constitution and fear for their political loves because they just don’t plant their lips high enough on the Orange-rumped de facto leader of their party.


          10. Oh, so because Schiff denies leaking, that should settle the matter? Never mind his year long claim of evidence of collusion that did not exist.

            Schiff is a systematic and continuous liar, who knows the MSM will never call him on them.


          11. Unless I read the Fox News article wrong, there is no evidence Schiff lied. Perhaps Nunes lied with his committee results, but nothing about Schiff doing the same except that he contradicted Nunes.

            The final report said there was no planned conspiracy. Collusion is another, non-legal term. Considering all the help Trump got, or wanted to get, collusion is still very viable.

            I think your bias is fogging your glasses.


            Liked by 2 people

          12. “Did McCarthy get to reject 2 Democrat choices? Why not?”

            TO be honest, if he really wanted some level control over who was on any panel, he would not have shot down the original commission.

            There is your true answer to “why not”.

            That and he ain’t in charge; The Speaker of the House is.

            And it is McCarthy who has ZERO bipartisan interest in getting to the truth. At least Ms. Pelosi is actually being bipartisan by putting Cheney and Kinzinger on the committee. And not to mention talking with Denver Riggleman who’s only sin was to be there for his friends.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “Schiff denies leaking, that should settle the matter?”

            Yes, it should. I know it is an alien idea to you people but the word of an honorable man carries a lot of weight when there is no evidence that he is wrong.

            The dishonesty and the lies are coming from people who say there was no collusion (“secret cooperation”) with the Russians. We know that there was. The infamous Trump Tower meeting is just one part of it. There were many more contacts and interactions of dubious legality. The sharing of polling data so that Russian misinformation could be better targetted is another. Mueller found insufficient evidence of conspiracy to prosecute but made a point of the fact that this did not mean there was no evidence.

            You know as well as anyone that there was collusion (“secret cooperation”) between the campaign and the Russians. An honorable man would stop saying that people telling the truth about it are lying.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “Why should Republicans contribute any air of legitimacy to a partisan lynching?”

            It is clear that they would much rather sell the idea that the Select Committee will be a “partisan lynching” to their clueless enablers than actually help get to the truth of what happened. Since that is the tack they are taking we can be pretty confident that they are deathly afraid of the truth which they are in position to know. Fortunately, there are at least two Republicans with integrity who will scream to the high heavens should the inquiry turn out to be anything but objective. Their presence makes your fake story line quite a bit harder to sell.

            Pro tip : “Lynch mob” and/or “lynching” is a poor choice of metaphor. The ugly reality is so much worse than any possible outcome of a hearing. And it is a doubly poor choice from someone who calls the mob out to hang Mike Pence “trespassers.”

            Liked by 1 person

          15. WSJ is paywalled but I got the beginning.

            The Rupert Murdoch empire (Fox News / WSJ) can say that Schiff was lying until Hell freezes over. If they do, they have to prove it.

            This was the simple truth quoted from Schiff that they cite as a lie in the part that I could read . . .

            “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.”

            When I see a true statement called a lie, I lose interest.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. “Odd that Mueller with subpoena power . . .”

            Nothing odd at all when the principle witnesses lie, stonewall or go back to Russia. Trump was unwilling to be deposed under oath and the fight over subpoenaing him would STILL be going on had it been tried.

            The public record contains massive documentation of collusion (“secret cooperation”) between the Trump campaign and Russian agencies. Did the campaign go rogue (unlikely) or did Trump guide them? That is the only important question that Mueller could not find evidence to answer.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “The two are not conservatives.”

            That is milk out the nose funny. Both of them are far closer to any grounded in reality definition of what “conservative” means than you or anyone else who unquestioningly support the insanity of Donald Trump.

            What is particularly laughable is that both have impeccable credentials as representatives of those people that you keep saying coastal elites disrespect. Let them take a principled stand against the con man and you start piling on. Really, really funny.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. RINO’s are conservative Republicans? And people with integrity?
    This is a high-level trolling.


    1. You with all your racist conspiracy theories – such as Birtherism – are the troll around here, Bruce, not me. You prove it every time you parachute in with your name-calling and nonsense.

      “RINOS” as you call them are the last gasp of decency in a decadent, corrupt and moribund party that is withering in the cold, dead grasp of a con man, traitor and gangster.

      That you would question the integrity of such people as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger only shows how little of it you have or, at best, how little you understand what it is.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Liz Cheney is now a RINO? Wow. I bet her Dad is pretty surprised by that.

      RINO’s in today’s vernacular are those who do not show fealty to the Mar-a-Lago Mafia Don. That is what is pitiful.

      Further proof that the GOP should be renamed as the TOP (Trump Owned Party).

      Liked by 2 people

  3. So all poor baby Pelosi can do is wrap herself with yes men and can’t dare to have to respond to opposing views or facts, how quaint. Her phony “report” has already been written, she just needs some rubber stamps to complete it before the election to babble about. More left wing trash…


    1. Your silly remarks about Pelosi – one of the smartest and toughest people to ever hold her very high office – marks you as a very silly, very partisan parrot.

      I have no idea what facts this Select Committee is going to find and neither do you. And neither do they until they get people speaking under oath. The idea that their report is already written is nonsense.

      If you think Liz Cheney is there to play the role of “Yes man” or “rubber stamp,” you are very ignorant of her character and record. Same for Kinzinger. The “conservative” problem with both of them is that they will not lie down and play dead for your favorite con man.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh, hogwash. You only like them and that hag is because they will say what you want to hear. The “report” was written 6 months ago. Go figure….


        1. If you think there is some point in name calling and baselessly denigrating an obviously very talented woman then knock your self out. It just reminds everyone of the level of intellect of today’s “conservative.”

          As a matter of fact, what I want to hear are the facts. Something that you DON’T want to hear. Obviously.

          I am particularly interested in the roles of public officials in organizing and facilitating the insurrection. For example, I would like to know why Jim Jordan and others provided the insurrectionists with detailed guided tours of the Capitol on January 5th. Those tours smack of reconnaissance to anybody with an open mind.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. This keeps coming up. The name caller in chief calling others name callers. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.


    2. …” wrap herself with yes men and can’t dare to have to respond to opposing views or facts”

      Calling Cheney and Kinzinger “yes men is just another idiotic comment form someone who brings ZERO to the discussion everytime he approached his keyboard.

      And there is a difference between “opposing views and facts” and ALTERNATIVE facts. Like they were just a rowdy tour group or a bunch of trespassers full of love for the police defending the building and its occupants, INCLUDING McCarthy and Gosar and the rest of the TOP caucus barricading the doors to their chamber.

      Your consternation is noted with beer out the nose laughter. Go back to your box of whine and deal with reality for a change.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s