I'm shocked....

[HALL85]

https://www.newsnationnow.com/on-ba...1-6-committee-focuses-on-narrative-not-truth/

Interesting....presenting only the testimony that supported the narrative....go figure. Hollywood on the Hill.

 

[Merge]

We saw plenty from Sund in the Senate hearings and had discussed here at the time.

Republicans will have the ability to release anything they want from the 1/6 panel so Dems have committed to releasing all information before republicans gain control of the house.

 

[HALL85]

We saw plenty from Sund in the Senate hearings and had discussed here at the time.

Republicans will have the ability to release anything they want from the 1/6 panel so Dems have committed to releasing all information before republicans gain control of the house.

I didn't watch the made for TV hearing, but clearly there are those that felt the narrative/theatre was shaped for the public spectacle. NN reports down the middle, so more credible.

 

[Merge]

I didn't watch the made for TV hearing, but clearly there are those that felt the narrative/theatre was shaped for the public spectacle. NN reports down the middle, so more credible.

But they are leaving out the testimony and context we already have here from the senate hearings.

"Sund makes the case that Irving was doing Pelosi’s bidding, and that she didn’t like the optics.

Of course, Pelosi and/or Irving’s testimony before the committee could help clear these things up, but the committee won’t release it."

^ That part is just not true. We have the context. It was cleared up in the senate hearings... and Dems have committed to releasing all information and if they don't, republicans can in a little over a month.

You may find that to be credible because it's on a site you trust but that is really poor journalism if we're being honest here.

 

[HALL85]

But they are leaving out the testimony and context we already have here from the senate hearings.

"Sund makes the case that Irving was doing Pelosi’s bidding, and that she didn’t like the optics.

Of course, Pelosi and/or Irving’s testimony before the committee could help clear these things up, but the committee won’t release it."

^ That part is just not true. We have the context. It was cleared up in the senate hearings... and Dems have committed to releasing all information and if they don't, republicans can in a little over a month.

You may find that to be credible because it's on a site you trust but that is really poor journalism if we're being honest here.

Didn't realize you were a journalism critic. And yes, I do find centrist news sources to be more credible.

“(Stenger) said Irving had called him and told him I would be coming his way to request the Guard. According to Stenger, Irving told him, ‘Sund just came here requesting the National Guard. We have to come up with another idea. Pelosi is never going to go for that.'”

 

[Merge]

Didn't realize you were a journalism critic.

When it deserves criticism, yes.. You would do the same. You have blinders on here because you want to agree with the premise though.

“(Stenger) said Irving had called him and told him I would be coming his way to request the Guard. According to Stenger, Irving told him, ‘Sund just came here requesting the National Guard. We have to come up with another idea. Pelosi is never going to go for that.'”

Sund and Irving have both testified publicly to the senate and were asked about this topic.
The fact that this article makes no mention of that testimony at all is very poor journalism.
Either intentionally or intentionally misleading about the facts here.... Take your pick, but neither are good options.

 

[Pirata]

I assume your thread title was tongue in cheek