Jordan STILL shooting blanks

Uncategorized 1 Minute
Jim Jordan’s Weaponization Subcommittee Keeps Firing Blanks

When will Gym Jordan and his anti-Weaponization Committee stop wasting time and tax payer dollars rehashing the same old garbage? He has tried to prove twice now that the Hunter Biden story was suppressed at the order of the FBI or the Bidens themselves. He cannot prove it. His witnesses are all paid hacks of the RNC and Trump campaigns and have as much credibility as the toenail that fell off my left big toe last night.

“An unnamed Republican called Jordan’s performance “amateur hour,” suggesting that by advancing conspiracy theories in future televised hearings, Jordan “would make us look like morons.”” I would say that part has become accurate.

Published by Adam Green

A 24 year Navy vet, cancer survivor, father, grandfather, assistant caregiver for my live-in mother-in-law. Enjoys golf, football (real and fantasy), being the best grandfather I can, supporting the endeavors of my children (both involved in the education of our younger generations) and tormenting my wife of 34 years. Also prefer bourbon over scotch, but will drink both, just not at the same time. Discovering craft beers and trying trying hard to get to a consistent golf swing.

Published

24 thoughts on “Jordan STILL shooting blanks”

  1. A recent revelation about the politic in the FBI was dispelling the myth of being anti-Trump. Comey torpedoed Clinton in 2016 with his last minute findings on a server and it turned to be nothing. He was concerned, rightly so it seems, that the pro-Trump agents would spill the story if he didn’t make it public.

    Like most policing organizations, the FBI was decidedly conservative.

    I speculate that this may have something to do with the lack of intelligence communication about the threats preceding 1/6.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  2. The link was good. Partisan and biting, but still accurate.

    The good news is that as he continues he is also sliding into the “looney bin” of the Republican Party. He was close before as a Trump imitator with “fight back twice as hard”, but he is in the wrong ring. IMO

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. The Bulwark cannot be taken seriously. I recommend watching the hearing itself to form one’s own opinions about it. Here’s a transcripted recording:

    https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=eMDjfP1gk60

    The Bulwark errs in claiming that the focus of the hearing was to be Twitter’s handling of the New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop. But it is clear from the opening remarks at the hearing that the focus actually was intended to be much broader. The broader focus that Jordan, Taibi and Schellenberg described concerned the impact of government influence on free speech. Mr. Schellenberg, for example, spoke about President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address and said, “Today American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological Elite which endangers our liberties and democracy.”

    My impression of the hearing is that the Democrats played dirty, not allowing the witnesses to speak and attempting to discredit them. The Bulwark plays dirty, too. Have these miscreants no shame?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Holy smokes Batman.

      The point of his hearing was government coercion or complicity. So far, zero.

      What private companies do to protect their brand is absolutely legal.

      If you want to make social media responsible for what is posted, then remove 230. Then it’s back to recipes and baby pix.

      We have a slew of platforms, including Truth Social, that cross the ideological divide. There are probably more conservative venues, but I am not sure. Still lots of venues if you are dissatisfied with one.

      At this point Twitter is on life support because Musk wanted a free for all, then realized that might be a problem.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “So far, zero.”

        That’s ridiculous. Several of the Twitter Files documents have been shared in the Forum. There is FAR from zero evidence of “government coercion or complicity.” The hearing covered some of it:

        • Government agencies submitting lists of Tweets that that the agencies recommended for review in light of Twitter content policies.

        • Government agencies using journalists to contact Twitter to have Tweets deleted.

        • The FTC demanding that Twitter perform background checks on journalists who happen to have Twitter accounts.

        I don’t know why any citizen would choose to ignore the allegation of a “censorship industrial complex.”

        Like

        Reply

          2. RE: “Government making recommendations is no big deal. Recommending is not demanding.”

            Again, ridiculous. It is not a legitimate function of government to police Twitter’s content.

            Like

          3. If your water supply has been contaminated, and the government contacts you that they recommend bottled water, that seems reasonable.

            Not this case because you don’t like it?

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Because you say so does not make it so.

            A child sex trafficking ring should be ignored also?

            How about storing a cache of arms, like 1/6, for the next attacks?

            Russians are known for using bot storms, ignore those too?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “If your water supply has been contaminated, and the government contacts you that they recommend bottled water, that seems reasonable.”

            The government is the source of my water supply. It has an obligation to tell me if the water is contaminated. I think the point you are trying to make is that the government has an obligation to alert the public or at least media companies about “dangerous” information.

            I can’t tell how strongly I reject that idea. The whole point of the 1st Amendment is to prevent government from assuming such a responsibility.

            Like

          6. First, there are lots of private water supplies. We had a house in rural Suffolk in a small family owned development and he installed a deep well, filtration, etc. and sold the water to us. And there are of course lots of private wells.

            Often municipal water supplies have issues (think Flint or Jackson) but not the resources to repair or replace.

            The debate over speech on the internet should continue. That is a phenomenon not even considered in the 18th century. Nothing is clear cut. Like the 2nd, where its interpretation has been the subject of intense debate for decades and was really not resolved by debating grammar and comma placement, the 1st needs revisiting also.

            IMO

            Like

          1. So with all the terrorist gangs domestic and foreign communicating is various social media, Russian bot attacks, etc., I would expect my government to keep a close eye.

            Defense is often the best offense.

            Seems fine to me.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “So with all the terrorist gangs domestic and foreign communicating is various social media, Russian bot attacks, etc., I would expect my government to keep a close eye.”

            Then you are a sheep who doesn’t understand the Constitution.

            Like

        3. “There is FAR from zero evidence of “government coercion or complicity”

          Uh, no there is not any such evidence of any government coercion or complicity. Just because some doofus told you there was, you do not have to believe it. You can think for yourself, right?

          Face it. This committee is another gigantic fizzle just like the Durham investigation was. The reason is the same in both cases – the lies you tell yourselves do not actually change what is true.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. RE: “Uh, no there is not any such evidence of any government coercion or complicity.”

            You have been given the evidence. Your denials mean nothing.

            Like

    2. “The Bulwark cannot be taken seriously. ”

      You say that every time. But you are the expert in that realm because you share links that can’t be taken seriously all of the time.

      But if you would dive a little deeper you would find that the authors are veterans from the Church Committee, which Jordan claimed he was emulating.

      What the three people in your comment did was spread a facetious conspiracy that has no basis in fact. But that is another of your tactics as well. COngrats on your consistency.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. “Sounds a lot like letting the cheerleaders announce the final score after the first quarter”

      Hope springs eternal with you people. Just around the next corner all your bullshit will be vindicated. It has been just around the corner for over two years now. It will ALWAYS be just around the corner.

      Gym Jordan is a moral coward, an insurrectionist, and a dishonest, babbling jackass. Expecting someone of his caliber to organize a meaningful inquiry is a fools errand. In this case, to be fair, he has absolutely nothing to work with.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. RE: “Gym Jordan is a moral coward, an insurrectionist, and a dishonest, babbling jackass.”

        Such is the sum of your intellectual prowess. At least you do us the favor of outing your own incompetence.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment