Brit Hume is usually fairly mild-mannered on Twitter. He will occasionally ‘snark’ at someone stupid but for the most part, his tweets are pretty factual and mellow, and he doesn’t argue with stupid people.
Until he DOES argue with stupid people and then … look out. Although he’s not really arguing, he’s just explaining to them in great detail why they’re wrong.
Case in point:
I’ve covered Washington for more than 50 years, including 11 years covering Congress specifically. I’ve never seen a committee all of whose members were chosen by one party, and where there is no cross-examination or any attempt to present both sides. https://t.co/7bjCm3O9Ez
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 1, 2022
This is the Nance Pelosi show and we all know it. She deliberately chose two Republicans she knew would push her narrative so they and the media could push the notion that it’s a BIPARTISAN committee.
And Americans can see it is anything but …
Cue the January 6 Committee defenders:
.@brithume could have covered Washington for 240 years and not seen a president challenge the lawful transfer of power in this way, nor seen members of Congress let institutional responsibilities be so eclipsed by devotion to/fear of a cult of personality. https://t.co/jhTzRhpR2T
— John F. Harris (@harrispolitico) July 1, 2022
Recommended
SO IT’S OK FOR CONGRESS TO DO THIS OR SOMETHING.
Wow.
Brit responded.
What a poor justification for discarding all Congressional precedent and norms in investigating Trump’s disgraceful post-election behavior. https://t.co/JEoP8esFnV
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 1, 2022
In a way, this committee is matching this so-called ‘disgraceful post-election behavior.’
If you want to compare it to a trial, this is the prosecution’s opening argument. That’s it.
— Danny Deck (@DannyDeck68) July 1, 2022
Ummm, so when does the defense get a shot?
So how and when will the defense get to make its opening statement? https://t.co/BDJJbxvqZA
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 1, 2022
See, we’re almost as smart as Brit.
Almost.
Heh.
You may have forgotten that republicans had the opportunity to be represented but chose not to be serious about their representation!
If this needs to be compared to a legal proceeding to be accepted than it is t is like a grand jury where their is no adversarial representation!— Steve McPartlin (@thesaloonguy) July 1, 2022
Oh boy.
Being “serious about their representation” is a lovely euphemism for being allowed to appoint only members acceptable to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. https://t.co/87ywOMETGe
— Brit Hume (@brithume) July 1, 2022
Yup.
What Brit said.
All freakin’ day.
This is really nothing more than a taxpayer-funded ad for the DNC.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member