Perhaps this list is the "short list" that Yossarian asked about.
I already commented on the least smarmy ones. I'll comment on each one, although I've already been told it won't be read for various smarmy reasons.
Truth claims made by William in the above post:
1) In order for what Congress distributes to be reliable, the GOP has to be involved in the selection of items to distribute.
Of course. Everything most be open to counterargument and exclusionary evidence. It's n the Constitution, and one of the reasons we had a War of Independence.
2) Implicitly, the GOP was either not permitted to be involved or was not interested in ensuring the reliability of distributed information.
Both. Pelosi, on her own, decided not to let the GOP select its own members to ensure any reliability. We know that was the right call because Cheney has already been caught in several outright lies. Since she and her GOP cohort on the unselect committee voted to impeach Trump - but once their reasons for that vote had been proved wrong, they never apologized for doing so.
3) Implicitly, editing sound over unrelated visuals means you cannot trust what is shown.
Correct. Video and audio can both be edited. That is why the original material must be vetted by the opposition, and other exculpatory clips must be examined for value.
4) Liz Cheney lied through her teeth. Specifics not provided.
BPR Business and Politics posted:
...Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission’s ranking member. Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans’ choice to be their top investigator on the committee, but he has been prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. However, it’s Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting herself as the ranking member — that is, the top Republican — on the committee…
“John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses, before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives and the position of the person questioning them,” said Banks, who has continued leading Republicans’ investigation of the federal government’s handling of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol…
Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to multiple requests for comment.
“If this was a real investigation, that’d land you in jail for prosecutorial misconduct,” Banks said of the false representation. “Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham investigation,” he added.
She also lied about facts.
5) Presentations cannot be trusted when they are made without room for cross-examination or objections.
Since they were threatened to answer in the way the questioner instructed, without counsel, any thing said is not to be admitted.
6) The January 6th insurrectionists came without weapons.
I guess you didn't see the hearing. The Committee's witnesses said that.
7) Only one person was killed on January 6th.
Unarmed Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by a Pelosi security guard who was off to the side and not endangered. He was hidden away and unnamed for months and given an award.
8 ) The only person who was killed was not threatening.
This was one position that could have been sealed off because of the doorway and number of guards defending the area against those without any weapons.
9) There has never been a committee like this House Investigative Committee.
there is no question here. This is a new precedent. No such unselected one-party committee in 138 years.
10) No matter what the committee releases, it will not be accepted (by persons unidentified; presumably includes William).
What about unselected one-party kangaroo court don't you understand?
11) William found the ironic audio editing at the end of the video to be rhetorically effective, but felt it distorted Trump's meaning.
I don't know about which edit at the end you are so interested in - but you must know it isn't right. As a professional producer/director for many years, I can tell you the editing was heavy-handed and unable to resist any legal challenge had there been anyone there to do so.
12) It is unnecessary to psycho-analyze something (target unknown) to know why this presentation was released.
Everyone knows there are two targets to this travesty. One is the American public to sway public opinion against Trump and the oncoming Red Wave. The other is aimed at the Democrat complicit swamp monsters in the the Justice Department to indict Trump and charge him with a non-existent felony to block him from Federal ballots.
