The great weasel-word gaslight: The Jan. 6 commission finds nothing on Trump
Liz Cheney's Jan. 6 commission is starting to look stupid.
Like the clown's outfit that tried to pin impeachment articles on President Trump over utterly nothing, as well as the grotesque fabulists of the Steele dossier who invented and peddled outright lies to manipulate U.S. law enforcement into taking action against Trump, there's no there there, zero substance, and as the truth gets out, they once again look like an awfully sorry bunch.
They've been trying for years to "prove" that Trump is guilty of something, and this current Jan. 6 effort is once again demonstrating their capacity for pratfalls.
Here are two breathy headlines that ran in the last couple of days from the New York Times:
Breaking News: In a court filing, the Jan. 6 panel said there was evidence to conclude that Donald Trump may have committed crimes to try to stay in office. https://t.co/PawwQom91U— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 3, 2022
May? Did I just see the word "may" in that March 2 headline? What's the counterpart of "may"? Yes, the term is "may not" — which means they don't know for sure. Commissions like this are appointed to supposedly sort out the facts and come to a jury-like conclusion. If all they can conclude from this joke investigation, which has excluded significant witnesses and details in the interest of promoting the Democrat agenda, is the word "may" — and its invisible counterpart "may not" — then they don't have jack.
But wait, they are still trying. Here's their March 3 weasel word of the day:
In a legal filing, the Jan. 6 panel laid out a narrative aimed at showing that Donald Trump knew the 2020 election was not stolen. https://t.co/xydMJ5sEqU— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 4, 2022
Did I just see the word "narrative" — as in, tying lots of events together for the press as a thesis, to keep other events from getting out? Narrative is a weasel word, a syrup in which gamy facts float in the interest of promoting the Democrat agenda. Don't ever call that a juridical-style conclusion of actual facts. Narrative is spin. But ignore the top part of the tweet because an even bigger weasel word is below in the headline. Notice the word "suggest"? Reporters use that weasel word when they know they can't say some variant of the word "is." They do that to avoid libel lawsuits. The Times knew that it couldn't use any better word than "suggest" because once again, the Jan. 6 commission doesn't have the goods.
The Times then followed with a butt-covering story, citing "experts" to point out that there really isn't a case here at all:
The Justice Department is facing pressure to prosecute Donald Trump after the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack laid out its argument for a potential criminal case. Building such a case would be very difficult for prosecutors, experts say. https://t.co/pjnKrAMXv8— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 4, 2022
What does all this say about the Jan. 6 commission, run by a band of known liars such as Rep. Adam Schiff and fronted by Trump-hating lunatics like Rep. Liz Cheney? It says that despite their burning hate for President Trump and their dogged effort to pin something, anything, on Trump, they are failing miserably at this task because there's no there there. These people will twist any fact they can, yet they still couldn't pin what they wanted on Trump even as the Times tries to cover for them, and with its many "suggestions" that they have something when really, they don't. That's gaslighting, and it's getting very gassy indeed.
How wretched is that?
Image: Screen shot from Today video via YouTube.