It would seem that you're the one whose arguments aren't tethered to reality.
You say the committee was duly formed, but it doesn't have the requisite thirteen members.
Your statement that McCarthy "threw a tantrum" seems to be your delicious fantasy.
You fantasize that two of McCarthy's picks were "conspirators." Are you a conspiracy …
It would seem that you're the one whose arguments aren't tethered to reality.
You say the committee was duly formed, but it doesn't have the requisite thirteen members.
Your statement that McCarthy "threw a tantrum" seems to be your delicious fantasy.
You fantasize that two of McCarthy's picks were "conspirators." Are you a conspiracy theorist?
Underlying all this is the absurd assertion in the House resolution that the January 6 riots were "terrorism."
You have already openly admitted that you lie boldly.
You say that "everything about the committee is legal," but without the requisite thirteen members, it was never duly formed, so it lacks subpoena power.
[Of course that is a matter for (politicized) courts to decide.]
It would seem that you're the one whose arguments aren't tethered to reality.
You say the committee was duly formed, but it doesn't have the requisite thirteen members.
Your statement that McCarthy "threw a tantrum" seems to be your delicious fantasy.
You fantasize that two of McCarthy's picks were "conspirators." Are you a conspiracy theorist?
Underlying all this is the absurd assertion in the House resolution that the January 6 riots were "terrorism."
You have already openly admitted that you lie boldly.
You say that "everything about the committee is legal," but without the requisite thirteen members, it was never duly formed, so it lacks subpoena power.
[Of course that is a matter for (politicized) courts to decide.]