By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Lauren Boebert’s decision to share a photograph during congressional proceedings, which was subsequently posted by podcaster Benny Johnson to X, generated widespread criticism across the political spectrum. This action temporarily halted the legislative session, drawing ire from Democrats, Republicans, and even some of Boebert’s own supporters. Many questioned the intent behind the stunt, with some MAGA followers expressing concern that it was intended to disrupt the proceedings, rather than achieve any constructive political goal.
Read the original article here
MAGA is reportedly furious with Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, with many believing she intentionally derailed Hillary Clinton’s deposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The prevailing sentiment suggests that this action, far from being a gaffe, was a calculated move, though the exact motivations and beneficiaries of this derailment are a subject of much discussion and speculation. Some comments imply that Boebert was acting on instruction, specifically from Donald Trump, to prevent any potentially damaging testimony from Bill Clinton, suggesting a strategic effort to protect him by disrupting his wife’s deposition.
The idea that Boebert deliberately interfered seems to be the core of the MAGA outrage, with many accusing her of being a “shill” or a “useful idiot” serving a larger agenda. The notion that this was planned, rather than a moment of unadulterated incompetence, is widely held. The comments paint a picture of a Republican party, particularly the MAGA wing, that is more concerned with protecting its allies and potentially digging up dirt on opponents than with genuine justice or oversight. This perceived betrayal of a potentially significant investigation has evidently struck a nerve with some within the MAGA base, leading to their alleged fury.
There’s a strong undercurrent of disbelief and derision regarding the competence of those involved, with multiple commenters pointing to Boebert’s personal history and perceived intelligence as reasons for her actions. The allegations about her past conduct in a movie theater are frequently brought up, seemingly to bolster the argument that her actions are consistent with a lack of judgment and a penchant for disruptive behavior. This personal criticism is often linked to a broader commentary on the quality of individuals elected to Congress, suggesting that electing “dumbass people” leads to “dumbass things.”
The narrative suggests that the derailing of the deposition was an attempt to score political points or to advance a specific agenda, rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. Some believe that Boebert, in her attempt to appear as an insider and deliver a perceived victory, has inadvertently created a hurdle for those who sought to obtain information from Hillary Clinton. The implication is that her actions might backfire, potentially leading to more scrutiny or even legal repercussions for those involved in orchestrating the disruption. The frustration stems from the belief that this tactic, while perhaps intended to benefit certain figures, has been executed with amateurish ineptitude.
The outrage also appears to be fueled by a perception that this incident, and Boebert’s role in it, reflects poorly on the entire MAGA movement. Critics argue that the headline proclaiming MAGA’s fury is misleading, suggesting that MAGA is not a unified front with clear principles, but rather a chaotic amalgamation of discontented individuals driven by negative emotions. This perspective posits that the alleged fury is not about principles, but about the perceived failure of a tactic and the embarrassment of being associated with such a poorly executed maneuver.
Furthermore, there’s a persistent theme that this incident is part of a larger pattern of behavior, with Boebert repeatedly engaging in underhanded tactics or making embarrassing mistakes. The comparison to a child misbehaving, perhaps deserving of detention, is used to highlight the perceived immaturity and lack of seriousness attributed to her. The comments suggest that this latest escapade is just another example of her tendency to act impulsively and without considering the consequences, further solidifying the image of incompetence.
The suggestion that Hillary Clinton had “nothing to do with Epstein in the first place” also colors the perception of the event. If this is true, then Boebert’s actions, and the alleged MAGA fury, are seen as a desperate and misguided attempt to manufacture a scandal or to create a distraction. The commentary implies that the MAGA movement is so eager to find fault with the Clintons that they will resort to any means necessary, even if it involves sabotaging a deposition that, according to some, would have revealed nothing incriminating about Hillary Clinton anyway.
The commentary also touches on the idea that this incident, while ostensibly about Hillary Clinton’s deposition, is ultimately linked to Donald Trump and his allies. The assertion that Trump specifically instructed Boebert to disrupt the deposition points to a deliberate strategy to control the narrative and to prevent any information that could potentially implicate Bill Clinton. The alleged fury of MAGA, therefore, isn’t about Boebert’s actions in isolation, but about the perceived failure of this broader strategy to achieve its intended outcome. The belief is that this poorly executed derailment might have unintended consequences for Trump and his circle, thus sparking the supposed anger.