You know the Democrats are desperate to make a case for the January 6 Commission when they have to stoop to tampering with evidence.
Which is one of the many reasons why Fox News host Tucker Carlson has epically shredded Democrats for their remarkably slipshod performance over the course of their so-called “investigation.”
And what a performance it is …
After all, Representative Cheney, ever the Democrat sycophant, has opted to read text messages publicly in some lame bid to make a case.
Needless to say, the texts reveal no crime whatsoever, yet Cheney decided to read them in public anyway, shortly before Mark Meadows was held in contempt.
Tucker Carlson called out Cheney’s behavior for exactly what it was: a grand performance of childish vindictiveness.
“The point is to harm and humiliate the people you disagree with politically, and that is what they are doing …
Those texts showed no evidence of any crime whatsoever, but since she had them, Liz Cheney thought they might be embarrassing to conservatives, so she read them on television. Some of those texts it turns out were from anchors here at Fox News. Liz Cheney took special delight in reading those.” [Source: Newsmax]
Carlson remains nonplussed, however, given that the texts from Fox News anchors hardly revealed anything different than what they state publicly anyway. Same certainly couldn’t be said for Emperor Biden or King Obama, along with all their sycophants, Cheney included.
“These are principled people. What they say in public is not that far from what they say over text message … If you get a text from Brian Kilmeade, it sounds pretty much identical to Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends. These are not phonies. We can personally confirm that. Whether you like them or not, they are real …
So, Fox anchors on TV and in private opposed the BLM riots in the summer of 2020. Fox anchors opposed the riots on Capitol Hill in January of 2021. It turns out that anchors opposed riots. All riots. No matter who is rioting.” [Source: Newsmax]
You know what isn’t principled? Tampering with text messages, otherwise known as the committee’s “evidence.”
That’s right: The Democrats actually had the gall to “reformat” communications between top Trump officials, which was designed to imply that Meadows wanted Pence to overturn the results of the election.
Even worse? The Democrats claimed that the doctored text message was from Representative Jim Jordan, though as it turns out, the message was lifted from a legal brief drafted by lawyer Joseph Schmitz.
In other words, the Democrats attempted to put words in Rep. Jordan’s mouth, and on top of that, tampered with existing texts in order to do so.
How did they do it? Well, they sliced a sentence in half, and they also removed multiple paragraphs of content, reducing the total number of messages to exactly one doctored paragraph, a paragraph that was read out loud as evidence in the name of “transparency.”
In their typically incompetent fashion, Democrats made the tampering so obvious that they recently had to admit publicly to their nefarious activities.
After all, had the Democrats done their homework, they would have learned that Rep. Jordan sends texts that tend to be all of one or two words, never mind entire paragraphs.
Which is exactly why the Democrats were promptly caught as people who actually know Rep. Jordan know that he did not write the message in question, a message that had already been tampered with by Democrats anyway.
Check out the Democrats’ doctored text below (i.e., the Democrats’ idea of “transparency”).
“On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid’ …
The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916) … Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.” [Source: Washington Examiner]
Nice work, Democrats. Next time, find out the texting style of the person you’re attempting to smear …
Amazing how they manage to screw things up so epically while simultaneously breaking the law.
Author: Jane Jones