Scott Adam’s take on Jan Committee

Twitter – unintended outcomes

Adam’s has often turned out to be right about the way people’s opinions are formed, and it is often not at all what was intended.

“Five things no Democrat wanted, yet the #Jan6thHearings delivered:

1. Kept Trump the most relevant figure in politics.

2. Made us think about election rigging until it seemed true.

3. Made all Republicans feel hunted.

4. Made Congress look useless.

5. Debunked own narrative.”

I really don’t want Trump to run, but if Adams is right, Democrats have handed Trump 2024

77 thoughts on “Scott Adam’s take on Jan Committee

  1. ” Democrats have handed Trump 2024″

    Your prognostication skills aren’t what you think they are. Thank you for dooming Trump’s election.

    And I am worried about Adams. The tragedies in his life are affecting the way he sees life now. Scott needs to look at how his OWN opinions are formed before calling out how others are. He is entitled to his opinions, no matter how pessimistic they are.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s not my prediction. It’s Adam’s.

      But I will point out that back in 2016, when I was sure Trump would not get the GOP nomination, and when he did that it doomed us to 4 years of Hillary, Adam’s asserted Trump would win.

      He even wrote a book on why, WINNING BIGLY


      1. He seems to be ignoring the fact that the truth about what happened leading up to and on Jan 6th is starting to resonate with REPUBLICAN voters nationwide. Independents as well.

        Besides, I thought everyone was watching NETFLIX?

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Or, another possibility is, Scott Adams, like you, does not want Trump to win. But, if he does win, neither of you will blame Republican voters for the disaster. You will tell yourselves, “Democrats made them do it.” That’s the oldest wife-beater excuse in the book. “I didn’t want to beat her, but she made me!” Cowardly little weasels need to take responsibility for their own actions.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. RE: “I really don’t want Trump to run, but if Adams is right, Democrats have handed Trump 2024.”

    I not super-excited about a Trump run in 2024, but if he puts out a plan for deconstructing the deep state, I’ll jump on the bandwagon. In my view, the FBI, the CIA and the civil service are all ripe for wholesale replacement.

    Scott Adams is probably correct that the Jan. 6 hearings have had the opposite effect from the one intended. I tend to think that Trump is uniquely qualified and positioned to capitalize on the discrepancy. His main demerit is that he didn’t drain the swamp when he had the chance, but the levels of corruption are so much more obvious now that effective messaging on Trump’s part could make for a winning campaign.


      1. What Trump should do is to fire all of the Civil Service emplyees in policy making positions, and replace them with no one.

        Congress should set policy, not bureaucrats. If the Congress doesn’t have the time to make the regulations themselves, they are regulating too much.


    1. “Scott Adams is probably correct that the Jan. 6 hearings have had the opposite effect from the one intended.”

      Sorry, but the inaccuracy in that is GLARING. People who CARE and PAY ATTENTION are changing their minds about things simply because the commission is telling the story of what happened, who knew what, when, and it is being told by those who were there. Not the committee members, but the witnesses who were part of the administration and with close ties to TFG.

      Winds are shifting, and you are whistling past the graveyard if you believe they aren’t.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The people who are still listening to the committee were already Democrats.

        Those outside the bubble are sick of it and the more the committee flails around and delivers nothing indictable, the more people think Trump was on to something.


        1. “Those outside the bubble are sick of it “…

          You are not ALL of those outside the bubble. You may want to pay attention to the shifting views of the American Middle, not to mention those who ID as Republican who are seeing the truth for what it is.


  4. Well it is the kangaroo committee after all. It would have had some legitimacy if Pelosi hadn’t insisted on her deciding what Republicans would sit on it so there would be no one to ask opposing questions to muddy the narrative.


    1. Why can’t you admit that Pelosi’s have was forced to do what she did when Spineless Kevin said NO to a bipartisan commission (a la 9/11) and then tried to put those who were INVOLVED in the election lies on the panel.

      This is further proof, IMO, that the GOP did not want any kind of look into what happened, nor identify steps to prevent another 1/ from happening.

      The GOP hates Democracy because when people exercise their voices they LOSE. BIGLY!!!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The Minority leader has traditionally been able to appoint HIS CHOICE of committee members. Those he appointed have not been indicted for anything, and wild speculation by partisan hacks is not justification for blocking them.

        When the Russia Collusion Hoax hearings get going, it would be impossible to find Democrats not involved. Does that mean they get no seats on the committee?


        1. Trump and his fans are so proud of his mantra of “hit me and I’ll hit you ten times as hard” ethic.

          Well, he hit Pelosi by reneging on the bipartisan commission, so she returned the favor with a bipartisan committee of her choosing.

          Fair or not, he begged for a slap and got punched.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. I really don’t think there are many Republicans that want to rehash the Mueller Report. A lot of it was squashed, poo pooed and kind of overlooked to boot. Durham couldn’t find squat after how many years of investigation?

          And there is that Manafort connection…

          Liked by 2 people

        3. The Minority Leader had the opportunity and BLEW IT, by wanting those involved in the attempted autoglope to be on the committee. Fox/Hen house ring a bell?

          Why do you insist on repeating the same thing over and over again, only to be told over and over again why you are misplaced in your ire?

          “Those he appointed have not been indicted for anything”….

          But it is OK to include them if they are being INVESTIGATED by the Committee (and the DOJ)? And if they answered the subpoenas that wee issued, they could have had their say. But they don’t WANT to say anything for fear of the Orange-Haired G-d King of Mar-a-Lago.


          1. After the GOP takes the House, they will be investigating the Russia Collusion Hoax. which nearly all the Democrat leadership was part of. Will it be OK with you to deny them a chance to defend themselves too?


          2. …” they will be investigating the Russia Collusion Hoax.”

            Seriously? What is there to investigate that isn’t already being investigated by Durham that has found so little as most people don’t even notice .. or remember.

            And they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, so governing will disappear.

            They will testify if subpoenaed. Can you say the same of the GOP members who HAVE been subpoenaed already?

            Yeah, that’s what I thought.


      2. Horse poop. So you believe the prosecution gets to choose your lawyer, evidence and witnesses? You are cracking me up with this pathetic line.


        1. Didn’t know this was a trial.

          Most of us realize that this is a Congressional hearing created because Republicans first agreed then reneged on a bipartisan commission that gave them all they wanted. Alas, Mar a Lago belched and that was the end of that.

          Now Mar a Lago hath spoken again by saying McCarthy was a dummy because he didn’t bother to negotiate for more Republicans on the committee.

          Just can’t please some folks, you know.

          Look at this as more of an investigation. Or, if you prefer, a grand jury.

          When and if trials come later, defense and prosecution can proceed.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You too? Pelosi is the one who reneged on a bipartisan commission not republicans. She coul dn’t let common sense interfere with her Jan 7 declaration she wrote for the “commie”ission.


          2. The first commission was bipartisan and independent from Congress. Subpoena power was equally distributed and so was questioning. McCarthy made demands and they were all met and agreed to. Trump through Mitch squashed it.

            “Despite the deal, the leader of the House Republicans, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, opposed the bipartisan commission, coming out against its formation after the right-wing House Freedom Caucus and Trump opposed it.”


            Liked by 2 people

          3. Both the commission and the committee were bad ideas, They are parallel inquires with the FBI investigation.

            This is a repeat of the problems with Iran Contra, in which deals made with Congress in obtaining testimony resulted in adverse rulings in criminal proceedings.

            Any Congressional inquiry should have waited until the FBI investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings were completed.

            So, after the Senate quite properly stopped the commission, Pelosi formed her committee that did not need Senate approval, and repeated the errors of Iran Contra because it suited her political advantage. This was never an inquiry, it is a publicly funded, dishonestly scripted, campaign commercial.

            But people are beginning to see through it.


          4. The Senate stopped it only after Trump ordered it stopped.

            You have no idea what the 1/6 committee has done except through your right wing filters.

            Congress is the people and the people have a right to know why 2000 people breached their Capitol, 140 police were hospitalized and some people died. And why Congress had to stop the certification and evacuate. And who was behind this attack and why.

            We also have a right to know why election workers and office holders, many Republican, have been living under security arrangements long after the election because of threats to them and their families.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “Democrat Kangaroo Court ”

            Three words: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. those words are actually listed in some dictionaries in the definition of Kangaroo Court.

            And by the way, it came up with BUPKES!

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Have you not been paying attention all this time.

            I have repeatedly pointed out that Benghazi was what the Clinton’s wanted investigated as a distraction for her arming ISIS with Libya’s conventional weapons, via Sydney Blumenthal.

            The Clintons have a long history of distracting their foes with the lesser scandal.


          7. So it is the Clinton’s fault the GOP spent 11 hours questioning Hillary, UNDER OATH?

            Drivel. And if Benghazi hearings were to distract from Libyan arms sales, then maybe the malfeasance is on the GOP for not bringing it up during her testimony.

            Such a stretch that even Mr. Armstrong would take a pass.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. That is, what in fact, happened.

            Not that it led directly to the attack on the consulate, but that the question of adequate response to the attack was a useful distraction from the parallel scandal of transferring Libya’s arms to ISIS.


          9. “But people are beginning to see through it.”

            No. People are starting to see through the Trumpists and their lies, dangerous rhetoric and threat to democracy.

            Ask Dick Cheney wehre he stadns on the entire episode.


          10. When an individual takes a stand that is right and proper, no matter the party, you admire the individual. His daughter led the way on that.

            He is STILL a heartless Satan. He just realized the truth concerning TFG and shared it with the rest of us. I believe the next move will be the Wyoming GOP drumming HIM out of thier ranks.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Once again you are WRONG. Your blind hatred for Democrats in general is preventing you from admitting the truth.

            No matter how many times you say it, it is still WRONG. Kind of like TFG’s continued repetition of the Big Lie.


          1. Yes, I absolutely believe those being accused be able to confront their accusers. And to cross examine witnesses, and present witnesses of their own.

            That’s how honest investigations work.


          2. “Trial or investigation, unchallenged testimony is worthless.”

            In an investigation, there is no rebuttal. Other interviews are held to either corroborate or debunk testimony or evidence. To this point, a preponderance of the evidence shows the guilt of MANY in TFG’s orbit, including the center of that orbit.

            You see it as propaganda. You are blinding yourself to reality.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Which makes this neither trial nor investigation, just propaganda.”

            Like you post about Luria? Just propaanda with NO PROOF cited in the articles.


          4. So who would you like to testify under oath? Trump said he wanted to. Then he could confront his accusers with a battery of lawyers. But he bailed out.

            Meadows? Ignored his subpoena.

            Bannon? Ignored his subpoena.

            If a trial comes after the Congressional investigation, you can bet he will have plenty of opportunities to cross examine.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Trump would do better with testifying to Congress than professional interrogators and prosecutors in depositions and investigations.

            Remember, he loves publicity, good or bad, as he as oft stated. The media coverage of a hearing is more to his liking that a conference room with video and transcribers as prosecutors question him under oath.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. You continue to mistakenly believe that the Committee is a trial. Congress also has a responsibility uphold and defend the Constitution. They can do that while LE does the criminal investigation. If some of the evidence and/or testimony crosses over, then so be it.


    1. Much to their disgrace, the GOP are the ones keeping Trump as the most relevant figure in their politics. (They could have dumped him long ago but (a) they can still fund-raise off of him and (b) they have precious few alternatives.)

    2. MAGATs have always believed election rigging was true and nothing will ever change their minds. (They are like O.J Simpson defenders… the perp himself could go on live TV and say “I fooled you all” and they’d say he was lying.)

    3. The only Republicans who feel hunted are the ones with guilty consciences. (I doubt Mitt Romney is worried about being indicted.)

    4. If the hearings were making Congress look “useless,” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    5. I’m not even sure what you think the “narrative” is, much less how it is being “debunked.” The narrative is: The nation needs to find out why the US Capitol was ransacked, who did it, and make sure it never happens again. The narrative is NOT to deny the Capitol was ransacked, let the whole thing slide, and pretend it will never happen again.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Funny. You say that 1/6 is keeping the ex-president in the spotlight.

        Yet, GOP primaries around the country can’t stop talking about, praising and signing blood oaths of fealty to the same ex. They all yammer on about the Big Lie, satellites, Venezuela, and election fraud without evidence. It is all Trump all the time because if they lapse, Mar a Lago will pounce.

        Or at least that is what it looks like from outside the bubble.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Mark Twain quipped that ‘A man who doesn’t read a newspaper is uninformed, a man who reads one newspaper is misinformed.’

          My dad took that to heart, and we had 2 newspaper subscriptions, the Times Picayune which was conservative and the Advocate, which was Democrat. He believed balancing lies were necessary to understand reality.

          The same applies to any inquiry. If you only hear from one side, you know less than if you hear nothing at all.


          1. The “one side” you are referring is all from Trump’s hand picked loyalists. He did not have a lot of Democrats in his inner circle of confidants and advisors.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Where was the cross examination?

            Who were the contrary witnesses?

            What was the testimony given in private that was never released to the public?

            If you think you are informed on the issue by what has been presented, you are the man Twain was talking about, and you know less of the truth than someone who heard nothing at all.


          3. Well, if I am misinformed, you must be the

            You are proud of not having seen any testimonies, so what more can we say? At least I can balance what I have seen with a cross section of media reporting and pontificating from various sources.

            Here is a hint, however. 1/6 was not discount day for Capitol tour tickets. And our president, sworn to defend our nation, was AWOL.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “Where was the cross examination?”

            Not a trial, so no cross exam is required. Same as a Grand Jury investigation.

            “Who were the contrary witnesses?”

            There are no truth telling contrary witnesses. The lies and those who have told them are clear. Unless your vision is blocked by orange colored glasses.

            “What was the testimony given in private that was never released to the public?”

            Irrelevant and a distraction. If it had any traction it would be included.


          5. No, if the withheld evidence is contrary to the narrative, it will be buried. That’s one of the reasons for a contrary point of view in any investigations.

            When the Catholic Church considers a dead person for sainthood, a priest is assigned to oppose the beatification. That’s where the term Devil’s Advocate comes from.

            That’s not a trial either, but the church learned over hundreds of years that a Devil’s Advocate is necessary to find the truth.


          6. No, comparing investigative processes in which an outcome is desired, The Devil’s Advocate is intended to prevent the desired outcome of adding a Saint from overriding the evidence


          7. Cheney is still a despicable, corrupt person. He sidestepped Iranian sanctions to effectively trade with the enemy when he was chief of Halliburton. He lied about Hussein.

            He was also a very right wing Republican, and still is.

            Sometimes it take a scoundrel to call out another one for what he is.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. A better use of time would be used to find out who rioted in multiple cities, who burned city, state and federal buildings to the ground, who looted billions of private merchandise, who torched private and police cars, who violently took over large portions of cities and who used their power and position to incite them. It’s not hard to find the inciters. They are ALL Democrat congressmen/women on video and social media.


  5. “A bunch of Trump Loyalists would be worse than anything your imagined deep state is, or ever will be.” Got that right! We’re still struggling with the last batch of Trump appointees!

    Louis DeJoy has almost destroyed the US Post Office… but then, that was his goal. No Post Office = no mail-in ballots = not so many sick, old, poor people, or minorities voting.

    So far this week, I have received emails saying I should get at least one piece of mail every day. This morning, I got one piece of mail. My Ring doorbell caught my neighbor putting one letter into my mailbox that had been delivered to the wrong house. The rest of my mail is still missing.

    So, yeah, let’s have Trump do some more appointing.

    Liked by 2 people

          1. Mr. Smith, let me see if I can put this in words you can understand:

            I don’t give a flying CENSORED what you believe.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. A thought.

    Trust in elections was not great, but it really tanked after 2018 particularly by Republicans.

    One has to wonder why? Was there anyone who told Americans that our elections were always rigged since 2016? That our democracy was a fraud?

    And has said so almost daily for 7 years.

    The fact is the Republican voters only had confidence when they won. That is like saying you are a great fisherman because you caught an occasional trout…at the seafood store.

    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