January 6 Committee Admits It Doctored Text Message Between Meadows And

[Hang on Sloopy]

"Breightbart"

meh

Go WASH YOUR DIRTY FUCKING FILTHY HANDS PLEASE

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

nothing shocking here my friends!

BUSTED: Adam Schiff Appears to Fake Evidence in Text Messages at January 6 Committee

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) appears to have doctored evidence that he cited in Monday evening's hearing at the January 6 committee.

www.breitbart.com

Total score

Trump- 5458

Democraps Libturds- ZERO POINT ZERO

 

[Care4all]

Does he get prosecuted for lying? Probably not but should be.

Trump would have been jailed his first day in office, if people are charged with lying. Unless you are under oath, there is no such crime!!!!

 

[Burgermeister]

Does he get prosecuted for lying? Probably not but should be.

Lying to Congress is a crime punishable by various degrees of fines and imprisonment. That it was a Congressman should double the penalty.

 

[jc456]

The House January 6 committee admitted on Wednesday that it doctored a text message from Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows, as was first reported by The Federalist.
DECEMBER 15, 2021 By Sean Davis
Following reporting by The Federalist that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his staff doctored a text message between Rep. Jim Jordan and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the House Jan. 6 committee admitted over email that it did, in fact, doctor the text message.
As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded to Meadows a three-paragraph legal summary from attorney Joseph Schmitz, summarizing a four-page legal memorandum Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count.

In a statement provided to The Federalist via email, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee confessed that the committee doctored the text message.
“The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,” the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”
“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”
The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, “a lawmaker,” rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.
As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, the original Jan. 5 text to Jordan was written by Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz and included an attachment of a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting that Pence had the constitutional authority to object to the certification of electoral votes submitted by a handful of states. The piece that Schmitz had sent to Jordan was published at the website everylegal.vote the next morning and even included the same “DISCUSSION DRAFT” heading and timestamp as the document that Schmitz sent to Jordan.
In his statement, Schiff erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph of the text message before inserting punctuation that was never there, all without disclosing what he was doing. The graphic displayed by Schiff, which was doctored to look like an exact screenshot, was similarly doctored, as it contained content that was never in the original message and eliminated content that was.
“Good luck tomorrow!” Schmitz texted Jordan on the evening of Jan. 5, including the Word document as an attachment. Schmitz then texted to Jordan a three-paragraph summary of his Word document, which Schiff sliced and diced and then attributed to Jordan.
The Jan. 6 committee has been roundly criticized for refusing to allow any Republicans appointed by House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to sit on the committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., banned McCarthy from appointing any Republican members and instead hand-picked her own troops to run the chamber’s inquisition. According to a source familiar with the matter, Schiff never bothered to contact Jordan to ask about the text or confirm its contents, authorship, and veracity.
Multiple lawmakers contacted by The Federalist mocked Schiff for peddling an obviously doctored text, and said anyone even remotely familiar with Jordan would know that he was forwarding an analysis without comment given that he rarely, if ever, sends texts that span more than a word or two.
“That’s just not Jim’s style,” one lawmaker close to Jordan told The Federalist. “Long, nerdy paragraphs might be my style, but that’s not Jim’s style at all.”
“Plus, you have to remember what was going on at that time,” the lawmaker noted. “People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”
Another lawmaker close to Jordan laughed out loud when asked if Jordan would ever write out his own lengthy legal analyses via text.
“If he texts at all, it’s usually something like ‘yes’ or ‘call me,’” that colleague said.
“The idea that Jordan would sit down and punch out a long-winded legal argument via text is absurd,” one individual who regularly talks to Jordan told The Federalist. “That’s just not how he works.”

BREAKING: J6 Committee Admits It Doctored Text Between Jordan And Meadows

The House Jan. 6 committee admitted on Wednesday that it doctored a text message from Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows, as was first reported by The Federalist.

thefederalist.com

again, cheating is the only thing a demofk is good at.

 

[jc456]

Trump would have been jailed his first day in office, if people are charged with lying. Unless you are under oath, there is no such crime!!!!

not one lie exposed. still waiting. come on sister post one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lying to Congress is a crime punishable by various degrees of fines and imprisonment. That it was a Congressman should double the penalty.

Hmm, no, sorry, you are being silly.

 

[hadit]

Already corrected. Facts are facts. And there is plenty of other info. The coup is what it is. The whining over this one text won't change that. The only people making a big deal out of this are cultists who are written off as deplorable and unreachable already.

You're proving my point. Instead of wanting to hold accountable to the truth those who wield power to destroy lives, you seek to excuse them because, well, Orange Man Bad, and reasons, and stuff, and just shut up! The problem with that, of course, is that they lied and that throws doubt on everything they say. Case in point, when TRUMP! brags about having the biggest inaugural crowd ever when it's easily proven that he didn't, are you more or less inclined to believe him when he makes other claims?

Obviously, none of us knows for sure, but the question inevitably is, why lie about something if there's really no need to? If it's such a slam dunk, open and shut case, there should be no need to lie about anything, but they do. I have my own thoughts on that.

 

[OKTexas]

Already corrected. Facts are facts. And there is plenty of other info. The coup is what it is. The whining over this one text won't change that. The only people making a big deal out of this are cultists who are written off as deplorable and unreachable already.

Are you dizzy from all that spinning. The fact is adumb shitt should be charged with the obstruction of an official proceeding via perjury and falsifying evidence. And he should be locked up in solitary for 23 hours a day until his trial. Let's see if you support the equal application of the law commie.

.

 

[hadit]

With what we have witnessed over the last 5 years with the lies from Schiff with the blessings from the democrats.
Just how can anything be taken as fact from the party of liars. Impeachments, dossiers and investigations committees,
one thing they all have in common is the lies.

With Schiff's track record, why would anyone put him on any case that has any visibility? At this point, he has zero credibility. Personally, I think he knows where a few skeletons are buried.

 

[Burgermeister]

Hmm, no, sorry, you are being silly.

LOL. Denying fact. What a shock.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're proving my point. Instead of wanting to hold accountable to the truth those who wield power to destroy lives, you seek to excuse them because, well, Orange Man Bad, and reasons, and stuff, and just shut up! The problem with that, of course, is that they lied and that throws doubt on everything they say. Case in point, when TRUMP! brags about having the biggest inaugural crowd ever when it's easily proven that he didn't, are you more or less inclined to believe him when he makes other claims?

Obviously, none of us knows for sure, but the question inevitably is, why lie about something if there's really no need to? If it's such a slam dunk, open and shut case, there should be no need to lie about anything, but they do. I have my own thoughts on that.

Oops, non sequitur. I didn't seek to excuse anyone. I said your notion that the entire I vetsigation is now not credible is stupid and wrong. That's all. Then you invented yet another strawman.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL. Denying fact. What a shock.

Living a fantasy, what a shock.

 

[Burgermeister]

Living a fantasy, what a shock.

Dummy. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...elim-title18-section1001&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[marvin martian]

Oops, non sequitur. I didn't seek to excuse anyone. I said your notion that the entire I vetsigation is now not credible is stupid and wrong. That's all. Then you invented yet another strawman.

The fact that your fellow DemoKKKrats had to fabricate evidence, again, isn't a very good sign they have a strong case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dummy. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...elim-title18-section1001&num=0&edition=prelim

Oh look, a link you never read

 

[hadit]

Oops, non sequitur. I didn't seek to excuse anyone. I said your notion that the entire I vetsigation is now not credible is stupid and wrong. That's all. Then you invented yet another strawman.

Perhaps you should read again what I actually wrote instead of substitution what you wish I had. I said using falsified information is not credible and casts doubt on the rest of the investigation, something that is not even controversial. When a liar says the sun is shining, you don't say he's not credible and refuse to believe him, you look out the window to see he's telling the truth. Same now with this bunch. If they're willing to lie about something like this, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt and verify it. Schiff's a liar and when he's involved you have to verify.

And I also pointed out that it is a mystery as to why did Schiff lie, again, if he had no need to do so? Some possibilities:

1. He wants a big, sexy, narrative and doesn't lose any opportunity to spice it up.
2. He's simply a habitual liar who falsifies everything in his life and doesn't think twice about it.
3. It's not a real solid case and he knows if he can get the usual suspects who don't think critically about anything all jazzed up on the story, they won't care if it comes out that he lied, again, they'll just spout the narrative as usual.
4. Orange Man Bad.
5. Reasons.

 

[RodISHI]

Trump would have been jailed his first day in office, if people are charged with lying. Unless you are under oath, there is no such crime!!!!

If you make up false evidence in an attempt to make someone else be convicted that is a criminal office. Piss on you and your attempt to pass off this shit as is it were no big deal.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump would have been jailed his first day in office, if people are charged with lying. Unless you are under oath, there is no such crime!!!!

What about falsifying evidence in an official proceeding?

.

 

[hadit]

What about falsifying evidence in an official proceeding?

.

But, but, but, narrative. Orange Man Bad. Reasons. Just shut up!