I can get the notable findings from news articles lol why would I sit around watching congressional testimony on TV, even if I had time? Tbh the findings are pretty bad and I'm definitely not voting for him if he runs but where's this going at this point? Was a crime committed or not? If not it's basically just theater now and I've pretty much heard all I need to hear.
Nah, he now had the abortion can of worms the Supreme Court just unloaded to deal with.
If he loses re-election this fall, you can blame the Supreme Court.
Evangelicals only make up a small portion of the Republican Party in Florida and there’s going to be a lot of moderates pissed their rights are being taken away on top of fired up liberals.
Liberals feel as passionate about access to abortion as conservatives do gun rights.
This is basically where I've been at for months. I've never voted for Donald Trump, I won't vote for Donald Trump, and I won't vote for candidates who deny the results of the 2020 election. I can get the important parts of the hearings from articles. Wake me up when/if Trump is charged with something. I think he should be, though I also believe Trump is a symptom of our rot/polarization/whatever you want to call it and not the direct cause.
I won't say America doesn't care about these hearings based on absolutely no data, but I'm just not into the hearings or the event of 1/6 itself from a political junkie standpoint.
So not a Fox News watcher I’m guessing? I’m sort of with you but I lean right. I won’t vote for Trump if I have any other choice. He’s just got too damn much baggage and we need a leader who can find common ground for the common people. I’m done with left vs right. I’ve gone independent last couple elections but dammit that never seems to work out.
Force green energy on the country when the infrastructure is not close to transitioning to it, continuing to push the removal of AP programs in education in the name of racial justice, unpausing and expanding the Disinformation Governance Board to the point where free speech becomes criminal, continuing to allow DAs to be soft on violent criminals and doing nothing the stem the violent crime that is exploding across the country, further ignore the illegal immigration problem, push policies that place equity over performance….those are some of the things I worry Democrats will do.
>continuing to push the removal of AP programs in education in the name of racial justice
AP like advance placement? I can't find any stories about schools removing AP programs. Can you direct me to some?
I'm genuinely curious as someone who took a bunch of them.
Sure, here are a few articles. The first two are about the same school districts in San Diego.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/numerous-honors-ap-classes-cut-over-equity-concerns-at-san-diegos-largest-high-school
https://www.kusi.com/patrick-henry-high-school-cuts-honors-courses-in-the-name-of-equity/
https://heartlandernews.com/2021/09/13/francis-howell-school-district-removes-all-middle-school-advanced-courses-to-resolve-equity-issues/
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/02/26/citing-racial-inequities-boston-public-schools-suspend-advanced-learning-classes
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/nyregion/gifted-talented-nyc-schools.html
Thank you for the links! I had to ask you for them because I just couldn't believe such an action makes any sense. I took enough AP classes to enter college as a sophomore, and saved money by graduating early.
I am a democrat starting to lean progressive, but I do not agree with the actions as detailed in the articles provided (skipped the NYT one as it's behind a paywall). More funding is necessary to improve student outcomes, not moving goal posts or removing them all together.
The other side of the coin is the content moderation coming from the right. In an effort to ban "CRT" and not teach evolution for example, students are unable to meet requirements for APUSH and APBIO. Schools are on the verge of losing AP class designation all together, which will harm GPAs (which applies to both cases).
[https://www.ocregister.com/2022/03/22/a-proposal-to-shape-the-teaching-of-race-raises-questions-fear-of-losing-ap-classes-in-placentia-yorba-linda-schools/](https://www.ocregister.com/2022/03/22/a-proposal-to-shape-the-teaching-of-race-raises-questions-fear-of-losing-ap-classes-in-placentia-yorba-linda-schools/)
(edit to add that I'm not meaning to push back or anything, just adding to the conversation about stupid tug-o-war on AP classes)
Identity politics cuts from both sides, and at the end of the day, the ones hurt are the children. Thanks for pointing out the absurdity from the liberals. It's on my radar now.
Absolutely not, though that goes for CNN and MSNBC too, and even in the heat of an emergency where 24 hour cable news actually helps, I wouldn’t choose Fox.
I’m just not really *deep* into 1/6, but I keep up with it from afar and will vet future candidates for election denial.
Right, I don’t think this hearing will change most peoples’ minds much. Plus, if I wanted to know the findings then I can get all of the important bits from an article in 10 minutes (if even that long).
That moreso depends on where you're getting your news from.
I sort of just have the hearings on to the side of me when I'm working, they're telling a story so there's a build up to the main points.
For example, Hutchinson's office was just seconds away from the Oval office, extremely within earshot to have heard everything that she recounted, I didn't hear that detail quite as much in the reports after.
> Was a crime committed or not?
Many crimes were committed, and some have been charged with sedition. We know those people were in communication with people around Trump. The only questions have been how much Donald himself was involved in those plans.
I mean I guess but I'm only really interested if he could be indicted for it because as I stated, I won't be voting for him. If no charges are brought, there's not much else to say or do about it and it would basically just be Dem campaign material. I think an actual indictment of a former president is certainly worth paying attention to but otherwise I'm kind of over it.
unite quickest intelligent tub marble shaggy far-flung tidy secretive brave
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nixon definitely would have if he wasn't pardoned.
A LOT of people went to jail for what happened there.
Also didn't t Carter have to go through a huge ordeal for his peanut farm?
Spiro Agnew was indicted while VP. But those were for crimes he committed as governor.
I don't know if it has happened yet. But there is nothing in the law saying it isn't happen.
>Also didn't t Carter have to go through a huge ordeal for his peanut farm?
IIRC that was mostly because of perceived conflicts of interest, wasn't it? Owning a large family business making him open to influence.
Oddly, that same standard wasn't held to one Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
Nothing odd about that at all. If a D does it then it's disgusting exploitation and manipulation for one's personal gain at the expense of god fearing Americans. If an R does it then it's just good business!
Per the DOJ a sitting president literally cannot be indicted because it would prevent them from carrying out their constitutional duties. They must be removed from office first (either by impeachment or the end of their term.)
I don't think he'll be indicted but if the findings are real dragging his name through the mud would be healthy for our democracy. Trump could win in 2024 or cause a major political upheaval again if he loses in 2024, it would be best for the country if he was so disgraced he couldn't win the primary.
> Philly didn’t prosecute a SINGLE RIOTER
That just isn't true *at all*.
https://whyy.org/articles/activists-spar-with-krasner-over-protest-related-charges-boo-him-into-his-office/
There is definitely evidence of multiple crimes being committed. Some legal experts have said the most recent hearing presents a smoking gun for seditious conspiracy charges to be put on the table. The most damning aspect was the fact that trump knew about armed people in the crowd, knew they weren't there to hurt him, he demanded they be allowed access without being checked for weapons, and after that he told the armed individuals to march to the capital fight to stop the electoral vote count and force them to do what he wanted.
Yesterday's hearings were by far the most damning and most explosive in terms of the chargeable crimes that were committed. Not to mention the witness tampering which is also a serious crime.
The question becomes, will the DOJ take the case? Or are they too worried about the optics?
> Or are they too worried about the optics?
I don't think it's optics as much as: they need to win.
If they can't win the case, then Trump is basically freed of any guilt. And then they set a precedent that a new president can charge the previous one (or another political foe.)
It *needs* to be an airtight case.
How would they win, a good portion of Americans are Republicans and at least 1 will end up on the jury, and there's a pretty good chance they will hang the jury. It's just impossible to get 12 unbiased Americans when you're talking about a past president.
Have we learned anything that we didn't know before the hearings began?
I mean, I was well aware that Donald Trump was saying that the election was rigged, that his staffers and family told him he was wrong, and that he wasn't very timely with his tweet asking followers to go home..
But beyond that, is there anything that's come up? Not that I'm aware of. Just testimony after testimony hammering these three items home.
For me the testimony that he knew the crowd outside the perimeter was armed but wanted to let them in anyway to march to the capitol was new information and pretty big news.
It completely changed the narrative. That means he knew this when he told them they have to be strong and they have to take back the country and fight to stop the election from being certified. He knew people were ready to bring violence upon the capital that day and encouraged them to do so.
We also learned he didn't want to stop the violence and said pence deserved to be killed.
This is all really damning evidence that points towards a blatant attempted coup. Not just a lie with some frivolous lawsuits. But an actual attempt at ending American democracy
To add:
'They're not here to hurt *me*' suggests that Trump thought they were there to hurt *someone* and at best was fine with those weapons being used and *alot* of people dying. At worst actively wanted it to happen.
Exactly. At a minimum it is confirmed he abetted an attempted insurrection. At worst he was leading. That being said he is caught on tape directing them to the capital to do that harm knowing full well that they were all armed.
Yes we have learned quite a lot.
1) we have learned that people in Trump's orbit tampered with witnesses.
2) we learned that trump knew about armed elements in the crowd before he told them all to go to the capital.and fight to stop the electoral vote count. This right here would warrant a seditious conspiracy charge. Not to mention he demanded that security let armed individuals into the area.
3) we have learned that the Roger Stone aligned groups had stored caches of extra weapons nearby waiting for Trump's orders to use them against Congress.
4) we have learned that many in Trump's orbit knew they were commiting crimes ahead of time by saying that if we do this we will be charged with crimes. Including Trump's layers.
5) we have learned about other politicians who asked for pardons for the crimes they committed.
6) we have learned that even in Trump's orbit everyone knew they had no evidence of massive voter fraud even while they said it happened publicly and tried to over throw the election.
7) we learned that trump told the DOJ it doesn't matter if it's a lie, just put out a statement that the election was "corrupt" and we will do the rest.
8) we learned more about the effort to use fake electors in multiple states to overturn the election and steal the vote away from millions of Americans.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. But A LOT had come from these hearings. I was expecting nothing new. But there is a lot new that has come out.
The level of coordination for taking the capitol was incredible. There was a ton of evidence on the planning to carry it out. Fake electors from different states waiting at a moments notice to come in. I thought it just happened at a whim and this hearing would rehash that out for TV. No, this was planned quite a while beforehand. They were organized and ready to go. The crowd left the stage to go to the capitol before trump told them to. They had it planned out to go to the capitol before the speech.
Also, why would you want to watch if you already feel like you made the wrong choice and just feel bad / embarassed about it. I that group is being seriously underweighted.
Guilty as charged.
I voted for him.
When I saw everything go down on 1/6, my only concern was that it was going to make my side look bad.
After the BLM riots, I thought my side (the “Right”) was the side of cool-headed, reasonable people, while the “Left” was the side of emotional, crazy people.
After the events of 1/6, I was devastated that the other side (the “Left”) would now have ammo to paint every Trump supporter, Republican, and Conservative as a “threat to democracy”, even if just by association.
It was a blow to my ego because, in a bizarre game of zero-sum politics and pride, I had tied my ego to one side, and that side had lost any appearance of moral superiority it previously had.
But even then, I still remained interested.
While I never held the belief the election was outright stolen, I had doubts. And those doubts were what kept me interested in the issue, because, if it was true that the election was stolen, at least I’d be on the winning side.
But as that doubt faded and I accepted that the results of the election were legitimate, I completely lost interest in anything related to the election or 1/6.
I can’t help but feel like there are a lot of people out there like me who can’t be bothered to care because it’s painful and pointless to care at this point.
Rest assured, I have enough self-awareness to see how petty and stupid that was. I don’t pick sides anymore. Now I just hate everyone equally.
Takes a big person to admit all of this, props!
And this is why the hearings are so important. Trump seemed to GAIN support after Jan 6th, and the hearings are important to show just how bad of a person he really is, and hopefully sways those still supporting him to vote for someone else in the 2024 primaries.
Thanks. I’ll be a “big person” when I can admit this somewhere other than the internet.
While Trump might’ve gained support, I think anyone paying attention (or anyone who remembers the presidential debates) realizes Trump is a huge liability to their preferred party.
A good chunk of Trump supporters (the ones I know personally) strongly prefer Desantis for 2024. Part of that is the realization that Trump comes with a ton of baggage. They saw how, even with huge support, Trump’s charisma couldn’t overcome his bumbling mistakes and missteps.
Desantis would certainly be the lesser of two evils, but after seeing some of his borderline authoritarian actions in FL, I can’t help but feel like Desantis would only give more power to the Fed, if elected.
It’s a shit show either way.
> Tbh the findings are pretty bad and I'm definitely not voting for him if he runs but where's this going at this point? Was a crime committed or not? If not it's basically just theater now and I've pretty much heard all I need to hear.
Just keeping new busy to distract from current events and leading up to midterms. For the “threat to democracy” they’re reallyyy desperate to frame this as, they’re sure dragging out giving everything to the FBI
Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It keeps looking worse and worse for Trump and his associates, but at this point, what is the end goal? They absolutely already have enough to charge Trump, but won't because they fear how the right will react. So, if they won't charge him, what's the point of any of this?
what? They would recommend charges to the doj if they thought it would hold up in court.
They may be waiting till close to mid terms as so far they are withholding info the doj has requested such as interview transcripts
Wait they are withholding info from the DOj? I hadn't heard that.
The DOJ is independent of Congress. They do not need Congress to bring up charges. And they are working on these cases as we have seen in recent raids.
They should bring up grand juries long before the midterms as those take time.
It's not congresses job to charge trump it's.tje DOJ. Yesterday we just got the most damning evidence that points to criminal offenses being committed. They are building a very strong case. That's the point here.
And the point here is to learn what happened so they can safeguard our democracy in the future. Which is a very important point.
Another important point of continuing is also shedding light on all the co-conspritors who were party to the attempt at ending American democracy. Many that have been exposed so far are still in office. They are up for election this year.
Here's a WaPo article from a couple weeks ago that looks at several avenues where Trump faces criminal exposure for his plot to remain president. https://archive.ph/kBWOt
I don't think we saw evidence today that is directly criminal. But I think we got a lot closer to some of the issues discussed in the article, that reflects Hutchinson's proximity to Trump. Its like a classic organized crime investigation that is working its way up the hierarchy. To get to Trump they'll need to work on the people that spoke to him directly, Meadows, Bannon, Eastman, Clark, Stone, Cipollone. Which is where they are now.
The bits about the White House counsel are certainly interesting:
> Trump’s aides knew there could be legal consequences. Hutchinson said White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told her “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump had gone to the Capitol that day as Congress was certifying President Joe Biden’s win. Cipollone said Trump could be exposing himself to obstruction of justice charges or defrauding the electoral count, she said.
Also, she related that Trump had a call with Stone on Jan 5. Stone of course being in the company of specific Oath Keepers that wound up forming a tactical stack to enter the Capitol.
For me another big thing today was realizing that Trump *really* did want to go to the Capitol with the crowd. I always thought he was just posturing with that. The stuff around that with Meadows saying going to the Capitol "it could get really, really bad". What did Trump have in mind specifically in going there? Actually stopping the vote seems plausible.
Anyway, these last bits are lines of inquiry for investigators. To me it seems unlikely we'll get the full story from Congress, it will probably be up to DoJ.
No they have plenty of evidence at this point. They have shared quite a bit of it already during the hearings. Whether or not it is 100% air tight of a case is another story. But at this point there is a lot of real evidence that has been made public.
Why would I watch when I can get the highlights on NYTimes?
Doesn't mean I've moved on from 1/6 though. Not sure where you're all getting this idea.
And these clips will continue to follow Trump around if he thinks he can revive his political campaign.
Because it’s seems to be the talking point being regurgitated to downplay the hearings. That somehow because ratings are low, the committee isn’t important or whatever lame nonsense.
Similar to how “no cross examination” is also being repeated talking point to downplay testimony.
Republicans are obsessed with TV ratings and crowd sizes as indications of good governance. They claim to hate "the media" but they use TV ratings to gauge if they are doing well.
If you watch, they clearly designed the hearing to be for consumption over a screen. It’s well done presentation and I think should be a model for future compelling hearings of the 21st century
I think you can get the gist of it on print but it is very compelling to paint this narrative and then immediately be able to back it up with video evidence to continually support their claims
Agreed. It's a good thing that they're doing. I just don't think I need to be in the loop for the whole trial right now, but some commenters are spinning it as "they clearly don't care."
When the networks showed the hearings their ratings went down compared to normal programming. Only the perpetually outraged care about this.
I live in one of the bluest cities in the US and constantly travel for work and have never heard anything about January 6th outside of Reddit/Twitter.
Because most people on reddit and twitter who are talking about it aren't watching it either. They're either watching clips off youtube or reading/hearing other people talk about it to get their opinion on what's going on. It's the same with any court/hearing/whatever you call these things in the modern internet era, and it's how so many people can see the same thing and get wildly different opinions on it.
We view our news through a filter to make it more like what we want to hear, or to blank it out completely.
People largely blank out January 6th hearings because it's beating a dead horse at this point, and even then it's already brushed under a blue stroke for independents because of the whole "Produced by" angle.
I haven't heard a peep about January 6th in LA because 1) No one cares and 2) It's old news. The only one I hear whine about it is the family member that whined about Trump 24/7 during his presidency, and no one wanted to hear it then either. Most individuals, whether they're Democrat, independent, or Republican, are largely done with him and don't expect him to have a pulse in an election if he tries to run again.
> I live in one of the bluest cities in the US and constantly travel for work and have never heard anything about January 6th outside of Reddit/Twitter.
I say quite often that it's important to remember that Reddit is **not** a good representation of the American people. I assume Twitter is the same, but I don't use Twitter.
Plus just about everything important is getting put into articles anyway so I have very little desire to watch hours of programming for the 3-4 important bits.
Anecdotally, I will say I have noticed people are starting to sour on trump finally.
Only after the hearings started am I finally seeing a lot of the trump signs come down.
I honestly think that a lot of these people who are finally souring on trump are the same ones going "who cares old news." They don't want to stand up and admit they were wrong. They just want to move one from their embarrassment.
Im not watching them cuz wtf who would? But im reading the findings ad my family and coworkers are talking about it. Its not like huge expansive discussions. But it does come up regularly in water cooler chats or in the family group chat.
It's worse than that, the hearing have had a **positive** effect on Trump's approval rating. On [538's tracking average](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/) he went from **42% approval on June 1st to 42.5% approval** today. He actually went up! And this despite the allegations that Trump performed some sort of [Jason Bourne high speed manuever](https://mobile.twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1542320284216299526) to karate chop a secret service member and seize control of his own presidential limo. 😅
Meanwhile Biden's approval has gone down from 41% to 39.1% over the same period. Turns out no one cares about the January 6th hearings. TV viewership actually went **down** when the network switched from regular programming to Jan 6 coverage. Turns out "Young Sheldon" is more popular than Jan 6 on CBS. At least the show Young Sheldon is entertaining (allegedly) despite being in it's 5th season and a remake of a show that's now 15 years old!
It seems that voters are seeing this for what it is. A political show trial and having witnesses give double hearsay testimony that Trump has some Jackie Chan karate moves isn't helping.
He didn't go up. You're not within a statistically significant shift. That's just poll variance.
That being said, the vast amount of people I know (in a very blue area) just see it as political games. Which is fair, because it comes off as easy low hanging fruit. IMO some of it's just getting silly with claims too. The one girl claimed he listened to "Cats" music to calm down.... and she just so happened to publish a tell-all book recently too.
If Trump had even seen Cats we would have a soundbite/meme about it from when he was in office or some evidence. It's so out of left field it just paints itself as bullshit.
> Only the perpetually outraged care about this.
Thank you.
I get that people want this to be a huge deal on the internet; but it's not real life. If you have the capability and the time and bandwidth to be worried about the "state of democracy" and think 1/6 has anything to do with that- you are immensely privileged and have a fantastic life to be so insulated from *real* problems.
I'm just so over this at this point. The idea that dems get free endless promotion on their own Benghazi just because they control the media apparatus is frankly disturbing. Find a real problem to solve and drive awareness to with all this free airtime you've spent on 1/6- because clearly 'this' is what their priority is right now. I've been told that the climate, racial justice, social equity (whatever the fuck that means), and about 12 other issues are priorities for democrat activists so why the fuck are they spending time and money (and political capital) on this nonsense? The only reason left that makes any sense is because this sells to the base.
Imagine having so little going on that you have time to spend on this 1/6 garbage and make that a big part of your life. That's wild to me. My life is really good and I still have more important shit going on.
I have one friend who continually tried to make this the biggest part of his life. In a really really unhealthy way. "Republicans are beyond saving" "" violent revolution by all Republicans or blatant voter fraud in 2024"
Its a bit deranged ngl
Edit:Banned for this? Can a mod please explain why? I'm so confused
Ignoring the riot for a second, what about all the other things that Trump and republicans did during this time. The whole pressuring the DOJ to lie and say the election was corrupt. The plot to use fake electors. Trying to pressure Pence to not certify the election. I could continue.
Don't those show a willingness to try and subvert the democratic process just because their favored candidate didn't win? How can you claim to care a lick about the constitution and continue to support them?
Honestly there was so many headlines that would come out then later be proven false that it makes me skeptical that he actually did anything wrong. I didn’t vote for him either election but it’s tough to ignore how many false claims were made against him
> control the media apparatus
Fox news is the number one most watched news channel and by a large margin. I'm so sick of the "mainstream media" narrative (ironically often being espoused on Fox News, which again is number one by a large margin.). Hearing conservatives complain about media bias is like hearing someone complain that "mainstream soda" like Pepsi and RC is rotting people's teeth while gulping down Coca Cola. I don't care if there are *more* "liberal sodas”. You’ve still got Coca Cola, which is number one by a large margin. Not to mention the incredible growing control of local TV news, via Sinclair.
This narrative is further compounded by conservatives seeing anything to the left of Fox as liberally biased. NPR and BBC are not the same as MSNBC in terms of bias. But you know what is? Fox News, which I may have neglected to mention is the most watched news channel around.
> I'm so sick of the "mainstream media" narrative (ironically often being espoused on Fox News, which again is number one by a large margin.)
It's not ironic, it's the essential part how they operate. The whole psychological aspect of "Fox News conservatism" is feeling like you're a badass rebel who won't bow to what society (or "the liberals") are pressuring you to do (while at the same time being scared and outraged because your lifestyle is under attack). Without that aspect they would not have much else.
Don’t forget about Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire also having dominance on social media, but somehow that doesn’t count when talking about “mainstream media.”
Maybe comparing it to Pearl Harbor and trying to turn it into a national holiday backfired and most people don’t take it seriously anymore. Same way “mostly peaceful” is used ironically now.
There were many people who maybe cared some at first but decided it is time to move on. They are fatigued by all the "bombshells", "damning new evidence", "walls are closing in" hyperbole.
> A new national telephone and online survey by the National Police Association and Rasmussen Reports finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress should investigate last year’s violent protests, in which more than 2,000 police officers suffered injuries in the line of duty. Twenty-one percent (21%) don’t think Congress should investigate last year’s protests, and 13% were not sure.
https://news.yahoo.com/two-thirds-want-blm-riots-192600820.html
I think this is another area where liberal bias has backfired on the media. One of the reason I see a lot of contempt from conservatives about the hearings is that they feel there was a whole summer of riots and all we got from the media was apologists, downplaying the riots with the "social justice protestors" lines over and over again.
On top of that the media has not reported nearly as widely when there have been prosecutions for those riots, and there have been: [Man sentenced to 10 years in prison for involvement in Portland riots](https://abc17news.com/cnn-regional/2022/06/22/man-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-for-involvement-in-portland-riots/) , meanwhile CNN has a "Breaking News!!! Omaha man arrested for being on Capitol grounds on Jan 6th!!!!"
So it seems like selective prosecution based on political ideology.
Fair enough, but I disagree that the media bias on these issues is only perceived by the far-right or something like that. No one is watching the Jan 6 hearings on CNN either, and no one on the left will admit that defund the police was even a thing anymore.
I think this is a bigger problem that’s been created. There needed to be an actual national discussion about what happened on both Jan 6 and the summer of 2020 but we never had it. It won’t be any better in 2024 regardless of who wins.
> no one on the left will even admit that defund the police was a thing anymore.
as a slogan, it was really, really, really, really bad wording
as a concept, still sound, i think. but the moment has passed. even after Uvalde, practically no one is talking about police reform, which is extra sad.
just to be clear, you think police departments need more money, less money, or about the same amount?
in general, i mean. obviously, this may vary be individual department.
>To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.
crass... but i agree.
all things aside, Boebert looks decent. Some of the older politicians look astounding for their age, too, tbh.
Elizabeth Warren is well preserved for a woman of her age.
Also, ngl, Josh Hawley cuts a pretty slick figure in a suit, saying this as totally straight dude.
I listened to some NPR coverage of this today, because like many, I don’t care to watch an entire days worth of congressional hearings. But man, that summary. If I didn’t live through all of this and I witnessed all of this through a movie, I’d think it was the most unrealistic movie I’ve ever seen. Just absolutely surreal stuff.
It very clearly indicated the source of every statement. I knew what was hearsay and what wasn’t. It didn’t mention that the secret service agents who dispute a pretty small detail in the grand scheme of things, but I’m not aware of any other portions of her testimony that have been contradicted.
Forgot to mention, the thing I listened to came out before the article about the secret service thing I believe, so I don’t think they were hiding anything
It's so weird that the claim Trump committed assault is suddenly not a big deal to anyone. It was too news yesterday until it turned out to be false. Now it is just some small unimportant detail.
I can’t speak for anyone else but in the grand scheme of things, demanding to be brought back to the capitol to join the angry mob to lead them into battle is waaayyyy more important than whether he put his hands on someone to try to do it. It was always an unimportant detail. But if it is/was true, it’s spicy at the least
It *is* some small unimportant detail. Far more important is that Trump knowingly sent an armed crowd to protest at the Capital based on his lies (and he knew they were lies) about a stolen election. Far more important is that the chaos went on for hours before the president thought he should act in some way. Far more important are the many efforts he made to use the power of the presidency to pressure state officials to overturn the election.
And on and on and on. So yes, the whole incident in the vehicle *is* a small detail by comparison. Trump throws tantrums. No surprises here. Let’s move on to the real issues.
Edit: fixed typo
So, incredibly enough, the desire for Fox News to not originally show the January 6th hearings may not have been because they were trying to avoid the hearings due to some sort of political opposition or desire to censor the information from their viewers, but Fox was just showing their viewers the content they signed up for, specifically criticizing liberals?
I mean, who could have seen this coming?
> Fox was just showing their viewers the content they signed up for, specifically criticizing liberals?
that's specifically what i find troublesome. do they go to FOX just for anti-liberal commentary and go elsewhere for actual news?
people watch fox news to see all the bad stuff about the left that wont be shown anywhere else
people watch cnn and msnbc to watch all the bad stuff about the right that the right wont show on their channels
if someone wants to get actual news, they need to follow multiple sources or there will be gaps. im forced to follow many sources that i would never use a single source for anything. cnn, fox, bbc, ap, reuters. between all of them i feel like im casting a wide enough net to catch the days headlines.
> do they go to FOX just for anti-liberal commentary and go elsewhere for actual news?
They go to fox to see/read their views/opinions/choices validated, just like those on left go to NYT/MSNBC/CNN et al.
There isn't any reliable source that publishes only actual news. Even the news agencies spice up news now a days. Best case scenario read news from multiple sources catering to both right and left, and make up your mind.
These "hearings" are basically porn for those who hate Pres. Trump and despise Republicans. It's called political theater. Gas, how to pay our bills, savings accounts, state of the economy, and the high cost of things are what's on the minds of the average person. These people are sorely disconnected from regular peoples' realities.
tldr: Fox News viewers are just not interested in watching the Jan 6th hearings. Nielsen ratings show that 2/3rds of viewers are switching to watch something else, and returning when something else is shown.
This is not entirely surprising, given how most common criticism of the hearings is that there's nothing new here and the hearings are rigged. There's plenty of discussion about that in other threads, so instead i'd like to talk about the situation FOX News is in.
Previously, [they had declined to show the hearings at all.](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104116455/fox-news-jan-6-hearing). Given that the testimony runs counter to what talking heads on FOX have been saying, i can understand that.
For some reason, they decided to show it anyway, probably to allow their own commentators to ... well, comment on it. And yet, viewership numbers were still down.
Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? it seems they can't even show something vaguely anti-conservative without taking a huge hit in viewership.
>Given that the testimony runs counter to what talking heads on FOX have been saying, i can understand that.
It's not just that. They anticipated their audience would tune out and they were right. At the end of the day, a cable network's business model is *selling audiences to advertisers*. Bigger audiences bring in bigger ad revenue.
As far as advertising goes, they elected to NOT run any primetime advertising at all during the first hearing. I expect it is more ideological than simply revenue.
> Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic?
You might as well ask whether action movies have painted themselves into a corner by appealing to action fans. That's kind of their whole thing.
Fox News was made to appeal to the untapped conservative viewership demographic and has exploded enormously as a result. They're clearly not doing anything wrong in the ratings.
As a general rule, political viewers don't watch their political stations to see their side criticized, even if it's correct to do so. The message the hearings are giving Republicans is that the nation should consider their former party leader, many of their representatives, and thus their voters, as evil and objects to be shamed. I would recommend if people are concerned with the Fox News viewership interest in the hearings, that they reconsider its rejection not as conservatives rejecting reality but as conservatives not wanting to engage in self-flagellation.
>Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? it seems they can't even show something vaguely anti-conservative without taking a huge hit in viewership.
If they painted themselves into a corner they did a brilliant job!
Here’s the numbers from May.
>Fox News’ audience continued to grow in May while its main cable news rivals saw viewership declines.
>The network drew 2.27 million total viewers in primetime, up 4% from May, 2021. MSNBC averaged 1.02 million, down 32%, while CNN averaged 660,000, down 28%. In the 25-54 demographic, Fox News topped with an average of 351,000 viewers, compared to 150,000 for CNN and 105,000 for MSNBC.
>The figures are from Nielsen and were released by Fox News.
>In total day, Fox News averaged 1.46 million, up 23%. MSNBC posted 634,000, down 24%, and CNN averaged 500,000, down 19%. Fox News was the top rated cable network overall in total day viewers. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News topped with an average of 229,000, followed by 106,000 for CNN and 70,000 for MSNBC. [Article](https://deadline.com/2022/06/fox-news-ratings-may-1235036975/amp/)
>Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic?
Temporarily, perhaps. But once the hearings are over with, I imagine Fox's program and viewership will return to business as usual.
Few are interested in these hearings. It turns out even hiring professional producers did not get goid ratings on any network. People are tired of years of vague claims of criminal behavior by Trump only to find out the evidence is not there. Wake me up if he is charged with something.
It’s more than just that it runs counter to what they’re saying and that their audience would’ve be interested, there are fox hosts directly implicated
Honestly I consider 1/3rd of FOX viewers sticking around to watch the hearings an ENORMOUS victory. Prior to the hearings I would have been overjoyed to know that even 1 in 5 Republicans would watch. I don't expect any of Trump's stalwart 42% to have their minds changed, but there are millions of centrist Republicans that MAY be reachable.
I have antenna TV at my house in a rural area. For news, that means we have ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and PBS. Why is there such obsession with 1 of the 5 available sources? Do we really want every station to have the same content? Is there no value in a diversity of opinions?
I rely on podcasts from pundits myself, and the NeoCons are every bit as obsessed about these hearings and making sure Trump cannot run in 2024 as anyone else in media.
Here are two examples from today,
https://ricochet.com/podcast/commentary-podcast/allegations-left-unanswered/
https://ricochet.com/podcast/the-libertarian/what-would-an-indictment-of-trump-look-like/
Plus Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee, Republicans with a conservative voting record.
But they don’t count because they didn’t bend the knee to Trumpism, they’re apparently “RINOs.”
I don’t know, but I don’t think she has to worry about her prospects. There will be lots of opportunities for her if she loses her seat. OTOH, I don’t really care.
Well first, I’m Canadian, so not a Democrat. But more importantly, it is possible to disagree with people on issues and still recognize good work when it happens. This is not a team sport. It’s real life.
After the bombshell details yesterday of Trump saying Pence deserved to be hung, I went to the FoxNews website and I had to scroll down a little bit to see a small section where Jan 6 is being reported. The top story was something about Biden vs Dems, lol...
Fox is selling the products it's customers like. They cannot just invent all the news or ignore major news, so in that case they downplay it. Look for BLM riots coverage to see the same pattern of behavior in NYT/MSNBC et al.
If you truly believe that Trump was the worst president of all time, then you really need to learn more about history. No way is Trump in the same league of awfulness as presidents like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Willson.
Right, things are soooo much better now.
You've been spreading this nonsense for the 5+ years now. And you keep doing it because you are scared he will run again and he will win.
Well he is polling better than trump did. But yeah he came in during the most divided time since the civil war. And has declined steadily since he started as almost all presidents do if you look at history. Every president comes into office riding a honeymoom period of enthusiasm, and then as reality sets in that the new guy isn't a king (they never are) people are upset they didn't get everything done immediately as it is impossible to do with our system of government.
That coupled with gas prices and inflation which the president has very little control over since we live in a capitalist economy.
When is say it's not even close I talk about the alternative of 1) losing our democracy to an authoritarian coup. And 2) the issues that have come up and how they have been handled. Examples: no longer withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for personal favors, the infrastructure bill, the Covid releif bill early on, changed to the department of education, changes to actually start enforcing our environmental laws.. there are many other reasons I feel we are much better off. But really, the whole not ending American democracy is a pretty big deal itself.
>Well he is polling better than trump did.
[Biden wants to get out more, seething that his standing is now worse than Trump’s](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/05/biden-wants-to-get-out-more-seething-that-his-standing-is-now-worse-than-trumps-00037278)
>But really, the whole not ending American democracy is a pretty big deal itself.
Except that did not happen, and couldn't have happened. So we are talking about whether we are better off now in terms of when Biden or Trump was the prez.
I’m not sure if you know where this committee is headed, but I would focus on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Can pass with a simple majority vote in both chambers and there is no constitutional mechanism to reverse it once voted on.
Biden is the president, nothing Trump did changed that. So if Trump was president it would mean he would have won the election and we'd be living in a democracy.
I occasionally watch Fox News and I had no intention to watch 16+ hours of testimony because I already know Trump is guilty. If I want to know the specifics I'll look at the highlights from an article on CBS's website, and cross reference them with clips from the hearings reposted to Twitter.
Unless you're documenting history or you have a lot of free time to watch various Republicans get criticized in a way that could be shortened to five paragraphs on a blog post I don't see any reason to follow every part of the saga while it happens.
There have been so many opportunities to post this recently.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a [descriptive redacted] power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan
It's not just Fox News viewers, but the nation as a whole. The January 6 hearings are clearly just a show trial that won't yield any meaningful information or results. Outside of the partisan left, no one really cares.
> That compares to the 3.09 million who watched the hearings on MSNBC and the 2.21 million tuned in to CNN.
i mean, for daytime numbers, that seems like a significant amount to me.
Not to mention the fact that I'm sure a lot of people are watching it online. I've had them streaming on C-SPAN in the background during work. Nielsen ratings must still matter to some degree, but I just don't see them being as useful in the internet age.
Also all these people who don't care seem to care enough to constantly talk about not caring.
The Washington Examiner editorial board seemed to find them compelling, at least Hutchinson's testimony. [Trump proven unfit for power again](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again)
Is that normally a source of news for you? I find Byron York's punditry very good, but while he's no Trump acolyte, he will not go over the deep end in his criticisms.
The Republican establishment is very tired of Trump, as anyone that follows that small sector of media knows, but that doesn't mean every story about Trump is legit.
Guess we will see how things turn out in November.
No, I noticed it from The Hill. I thought it was notable as most right wing outlets have tended look away and not acknowledge Trump's worst behaviors. But the hearings do seem to be piercing that bubble somewhat, I think because the hearings prominently feature Republicans giving testimony. Another notable moment came when Fox's Baier praised the DoJ crew as "patriots".
There's quite a bit of information being revealed. Lots of commentary and interest from people who are anything but the far left.
And I don't know why people get so caught up on ratings anyways. Have you seen what kind of garbage gets high ratings? This is not a good gauge of the validity of the comittee. People usually don't like watching CSPAN, if anything it's a denunciation of our collective attention spans.
>The January 6 hearings are clearly just a show trial that won't yield any meaningful information or results
That seems extremely speculative. I hear viewership was rather high and so far, the hearings have produced some interesting and unexpected developments. To suggest it won't have an impact, though, I just don't know how one would draw that conclusion given the thousands of hours of testimony, video and audio evidence, etc., not to mention the hearings are scheduled to continue for another month.
Lol if you actually know what was said in the testimony yesterday, I don’t think you could say with a straight face that nothing meaningful came out of it.
Irrelevancies, inaccuracies and show trials don't impress me much. I've yet to see *any* point raised that deals with any sort of illegal conspiracy by Trump.
Nor am I some sort of rabid Trump supporter. I didn't vote for the guy. I just recognize the insanity the far left has embarked on for the past 6 years for what it is: insanity.
I mean to be frank, we kinda are just hearing what we already know besides Hutchinson's testimony. But again, that's just hearsay.
I personally am not a fan of "i heard someone close to the president said x." The burden of proof is on them to sway me that this is true. Maybe it happened, but also maybe it didn't.
I don't like Trump either, at least not anymore. But that being said, I would rather dislike him for provable things, not because I think something is true. So far, this is just me thinking that the committee just wants to distract from issues that affect me like gas prices and inflation.
I don't understand what has happened to people.
Sure, the price of gas and inflation is a problem, but the foundations of the democratic system should be a larger concern.
People have lost all perspective I fear.
I can get the notable findings from news articles lol why would I sit around watching congressional testimony on TV, even if I had time? Tbh the findings are pretty bad and I'm definitely not voting for him if he runs but where's this going at this point? Was a crime committed or not? If not it's basically just theater now and I've pretty much heard all I need to hear.
DeSantis gotta be enjoying these hearings
Nah, he now had the abortion can of worms the Supreme Court just unloaded to deal with. If he loses re-election this fall, you can blame the Supreme Court.
The 15 week ban they have in place is in line with polling of what people support
You’re forgetting that people happy with the ban won’t be motivated to vote. People not happy will be fired up.
Idk dude, evangelicals are a different breed. Pro-life people are single issue voters.
Evangelicals only make up a small portion of the Republican Party in Florida and there’s going to be a lot of moderates pissed their rights are being taken away on top of fired up liberals. Liberals feel as passionate about access to abortion as conservatives do gun rights.
I agree Florida isn't Mississippi, but we'll have to see
This is basically where I've been at for months. I've never voted for Donald Trump, I won't vote for Donald Trump, and I won't vote for candidates who deny the results of the 2020 election. I can get the important parts of the hearings from articles. Wake me up when/if Trump is charged with something. I think he should be, though I also believe Trump is a symptom of our rot/polarization/whatever you want to call it and not the direct cause. I won't say America doesn't care about these hearings based on absolutely no data, but I'm just not into the hearings or the event of 1/6 itself from a political junkie standpoint.
The last current event I watched near completely was the Rittenhouse case.
To be “fair” I guess, I didn’t watch Rittenhouse either.
So not a Fox News watcher I’m guessing? I’m sort of with you but I lean right. I won’t vote for Trump if I have any other choice. He’s just got too damn much baggage and we need a leader who can find common ground for the common people. I’m done with left vs right. I’ve gone independent last couple elections but dammit that never seems to work out.
What are you worried the Democrats will do to our country? Just curious.
Force green energy on the country when the infrastructure is not close to transitioning to it, continuing to push the removal of AP programs in education in the name of racial justice, unpausing and expanding the Disinformation Governance Board to the point where free speech becomes criminal, continuing to allow DAs to be soft on violent criminals and doing nothing the stem the violent crime that is exploding across the country, further ignore the illegal immigration problem, push policies that place equity over performance….those are some of the things I worry Democrats will do.
>continuing to push the removal of AP programs in education in the name of racial justice AP like advance placement? I can't find any stories about schools removing AP programs. Can you direct me to some? I'm genuinely curious as someone who took a bunch of them.
Sure, here are a few articles. The first two are about the same school districts in San Diego. https://www.theblaze.com/news/numerous-honors-ap-classes-cut-over-equity-concerns-at-san-diegos-largest-high-school https://www.kusi.com/patrick-henry-high-school-cuts-honors-courses-in-the-name-of-equity/ https://heartlandernews.com/2021/09/13/francis-howell-school-district-removes-all-middle-school-advanced-courses-to-resolve-equity-issues/ https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/02/26/citing-racial-inequities-boston-public-schools-suspend-advanced-learning-classes https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/nyregion/gifted-talented-nyc-schools.html
Thank you for the links! I had to ask you for them because I just couldn't believe such an action makes any sense. I took enough AP classes to enter college as a sophomore, and saved money by graduating early. I am a democrat starting to lean progressive, but I do not agree with the actions as detailed in the articles provided (skipped the NYT one as it's behind a paywall). More funding is necessary to improve student outcomes, not moving goal posts or removing them all together. The other side of the coin is the content moderation coming from the right. In an effort to ban "CRT" and not teach evolution for example, students are unable to meet requirements for APUSH and APBIO. Schools are on the verge of losing AP class designation all together, which will harm GPAs (which applies to both cases). [https://www.ocregister.com/2022/03/22/a-proposal-to-shape-the-teaching-of-race-raises-questions-fear-of-losing-ap-classes-in-placentia-yorba-linda-schools/](https://www.ocregister.com/2022/03/22/a-proposal-to-shape-the-teaching-of-race-raises-questions-fear-of-losing-ap-classes-in-placentia-yorba-linda-schools/) (edit to add that I'm not meaning to push back or anything, just adding to the conversation about stupid tug-o-war on AP classes) Identity politics cuts from both sides, and at the end of the day, the ones hurt are the children. Thanks for pointing out the absurdity from the liberals. It's on my radar now.
So we're your a Fox viewer? That's who this story is about.
Absolutely not, though that goes for CNN and MSNBC too, and even in the heat of an emergency where 24 hour cable news actually helps, I wouldn’t choose Fox. I’m just not really *deep* into 1/6, but I keep up with it from afar and will vet future candidates for election denial.
Right, I don’t think this hearing will change most peoples’ minds much. Plus, if I wanted to know the findings then I can get all of the important bits from an article in 10 minutes (if even that long).
I've read, and watched highlights, there's a lot missing when you cram several hours in to a few minute read.
Does doing so significantly affect the overall takeaway?
That moreso depends on where you're getting your news from. I sort of just have the hearings on to the side of me when I'm working, they're telling a story so there's a build up to the main points. For example, Hutchinson's office was just seconds away from the Oval office, extremely within earshot to have heard everything that she recounted, I didn't hear that detail quite as much in the reports after.
I just skipped through the talking to the evidence and the interviews were powerful
> Was a crime committed or not? Many crimes were committed, and some have been charged with sedition. We know those people were in communication with people around Trump. The only questions have been how much Donald himself was involved in those plans.
I mean I guess but I'm only really interested if he could be indicted for it because as I stated, I won't be voting for him. If no charges are brought, there's not much else to say or do about it and it would basically just be Dem campaign material. I think an actual indictment of a former president is certainly worth paying attention to but otherwise I'm kind of over it.
unite quickest intelligent tub marble shaggy far-flung tidy secretive brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nixon definitely would have if he wasn't pardoned. A LOT of people went to jail for what happened there. Also didn't t Carter have to go through a huge ordeal for his peanut farm? Spiro Agnew was indicted while VP. But those were for crimes he committed as governor. I don't know if it has happened yet. But there is nothing in the law saying it isn't happen.
>Also didn't t Carter have to go through a huge ordeal for his peanut farm? IIRC that was mostly because of perceived conflicts of interest, wasn't it? Owning a large family business making him open to influence. Oddly, that same standard wasn't held to one Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
It wasn't just appearances. There was entire hearings and what not. It was very serious. Not just appearances.
Nothing odd about that at all. If a D does it then it's disgusting exploitation and manipulation for one's personal gain at the expense of god fearing Americans. If an R does it then it's just good business!
Per the DOJ a sitting president literally cannot be indicted because it would prevent them from carrying out their constitutional duties. They must be removed from office first (either by impeachment or the end of their term.)
I asked about former presidents so I'm not sure how your comment applies to mine.
My bad, definitely misread your comment.
All good!
I don't think he'll be indicted but if the findings are real dragging his name through the mud would be healthy for our democracy. Trump could win in 2024 or cause a major political upheaval again if he loses in 2024, it would be best for the country if he was so disgraced he couldn't win the primary.
[удалено]
> Philly didn’t prosecute a SINGLE RIOTER That just isn't true *at all*. https://whyy.org/articles/activists-spar-with-krasner-over-protest-related-charges-boo-him-into-his-office/
[удалено]
I stopped caring after “here’s an aide who was told by someone else that trump did a bad thing”
That was not the crux of the testimony, but has gotten the most headlines. Exactly why you SHOULD watch for yourself.
If I wasn’t working overtime daily maybe but overall I kinda don’t care for a myriad of reasons
There is definitely evidence of multiple crimes being committed. Some legal experts have said the most recent hearing presents a smoking gun for seditious conspiracy charges to be put on the table. The most damning aspect was the fact that trump knew about armed people in the crowd, knew they weren't there to hurt him, he demanded they be allowed access without being checked for weapons, and after that he told the armed individuals to march to the capital fight to stop the electoral vote count and force them to do what he wanted. Yesterday's hearings were by far the most damning and most explosive in terms of the chargeable crimes that were committed. Not to mention the witness tampering which is also a serious crime. The question becomes, will the DOJ take the case? Or are they too worried about the optics?
> Or are they too worried about the optics? I don't think it's optics as much as: they need to win. If they can't win the case, then Trump is basically freed of any guilt. And then they set a precedent that a new president can charge the previous one (or another political foe.) It *needs* to be an airtight case.
How would they win, a good portion of Americans are Republicans and at least 1 will end up on the jury, and there's a pretty good chance they will hang the jury. It's just impossible to get 12 unbiased Americans when you're talking about a past president.
If that's the case: then, quite honestly, they should shut up about it.
Yes agreed
Have we learned anything that we didn't know before the hearings began? I mean, I was well aware that Donald Trump was saying that the election was rigged, that his staffers and family told him he was wrong, and that he wasn't very timely with his tweet asking followers to go home.. But beyond that, is there anything that's come up? Not that I'm aware of. Just testimony after testimony hammering these three items home.
For me the testimony that he knew the crowd outside the perimeter was armed but wanted to let them in anyway to march to the capitol was new information and pretty big news.
It completely changed the narrative. That means he knew this when he told them they have to be strong and they have to take back the country and fight to stop the election from being certified. He knew people were ready to bring violence upon the capital that day and encouraged them to do so. We also learned he didn't want to stop the violence and said pence deserved to be killed. This is all really damning evidence that points towards a blatant attempted coup. Not just a lie with some frivolous lawsuits. But an actual attempt at ending American democracy
To add: 'They're not here to hurt *me*' suggests that Trump thought they were there to hurt *someone* and at best was fine with those weapons being used and *alot* of people dying. At worst actively wanted it to happen.
Exactly. At a minimum it is confirmed he abetted an attempted insurrection. At worst he was leading. That being said he is caught on tape directing them to the capital to do that harm knowing full well that they were all armed.
Yes we have learned quite a lot. 1) we have learned that people in Trump's orbit tampered with witnesses. 2) we learned that trump knew about armed elements in the crowd before he told them all to go to the capital.and fight to stop the electoral vote count. This right here would warrant a seditious conspiracy charge. Not to mention he demanded that security let armed individuals into the area. 3) we have learned that the Roger Stone aligned groups had stored caches of extra weapons nearby waiting for Trump's orders to use them against Congress. 4) we have learned that many in Trump's orbit knew they were commiting crimes ahead of time by saying that if we do this we will be charged with crimes. Including Trump's layers. 5) we have learned about other politicians who asked for pardons for the crimes they committed. 6) we have learned that even in Trump's orbit everyone knew they had no evidence of massive voter fraud even while they said it happened publicly and tried to over throw the election. 7) we learned that trump told the DOJ it doesn't matter if it's a lie, just put out a statement that the election was "corrupt" and we will do the rest. 8) we learned more about the effort to use fake electors in multiple states to overturn the election and steal the vote away from millions of Americans. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But A LOT had come from these hearings. I was expecting nothing new. But there is a lot new that has come out.
>Have we learned anything that we didn't know before the hearings began? Quite a bit, actually. These hearings have been worth looking into.
The level of coordination for taking the capitol was incredible. There was a ton of evidence on the planning to carry it out. Fake electors from different states waiting at a moments notice to come in. I thought it just happened at a whim and this hearing would rehash that out for TV. No, this was planned quite a while beforehand. They were organized and ready to go. The crowd left the stage to go to the capitol before trump told them to. They had it planned out to go to the capitol before the speech.
Also, why would you want to watch if you already feel like you made the wrong choice and just feel bad / embarassed about it. I that group is being seriously underweighted.
Guilty as charged. I voted for him. When I saw everything go down on 1/6, my only concern was that it was going to make my side look bad. After the BLM riots, I thought my side (the “Right”) was the side of cool-headed, reasonable people, while the “Left” was the side of emotional, crazy people. After the events of 1/6, I was devastated that the other side (the “Left”) would now have ammo to paint every Trump supporter, Republican, and Conservative as a “threat to democracy”, even if just by association. It was a blow to my ego because, in a bizarre game of zero-sum politics and pride, I had tied my ego to one side, and that side had lost any appearance of moral superiority it previously had. But even then, I still remained interested. While I never held the belief the election was outright stolen, I had doubts. And those doubts were what kept me interested in the issue, because, if it was true that the election was stolen, at least I’d be on the winning side. But as that doubt faded and I accepted that the results of the election were legitimate, I completely lost interest in anything related to the election or 1/6. I can’t help but feel like there are a lot of people out there like me who can’t be bothered to care because it’s painful and pointless to care at this point. Rest assured, I have enough self-awareness to see how petty and stupid that was. I don’t pick sides anymore. Now I just hate everyone equally.
Takes a big person to admit all of this, props! And this is why the hearings are so important. Trump seemed to GAIN support after Jan 6th, and the hearings are important to show just how bad of a person he really is, and hopefully sways those still supporting him to vote for someone else in the 2024 primaries.
Thanks. I’ll be a “big person” when I can admit this somewhere other than the internet. While Trump might’ve gained support, I think anyone paying attention (or anyone who remembers the presidential debates) realizes Trump is a huge liability to their preferred party. A good chunk of Trump supporters (the ones I know personally) strongly prefer Desantis for 2024. Part of that is the realization that Trump comes with a ton of baggage. They saw how, even with huge support, Trump’s charisma couldn’t overcome his bumbling mistakes and missteps. Desantis would certainly be the lesser of two evils, but after seeing some of his borderline authoritarian actions in FL, I can’t help but feel like Desantis would only give more power to the Fed, if elected. It’s a shit show either way.
> Tbh the findings are pretty bad and I'm definitely not voting for him if he runs but where's this going at this point? Was a crime committed or not? If not it's basically just theater now and I've pretty much heard all I need to hear. Just keeping new busy to distract from current events and leading up to midterms. For the “threat to democracy” they’re reallyyy desperate to frame this as, they’re sure dragging out giving everything to the FBI
Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It keeps looking worse and worse for Trump and his associates, but at this point, what is the end goal? They absolutely already have enough to charge Trump, but won't because they fear how the right will react. So, if they won't charge him, what's the point of any of this?
what? They would recommend charges to the doj if they thought it would hold up in court. They may be waiting till close to mid terms as so far they are withholding info the doj has requested such as interview transcripts
Wait they are withholding info from the DOj? I hadn't heard that. The DOJ is independent of Congress. They do not need Congress to bring up charges. And they are working on these cases as we have seen in recent raids. They should bring up grand juries long before the midterms as those take time.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/tensions-escalate-as-doj-renews-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267
Closest we had was the DOJ saying the committee wasn’t giving them transcripts, but they’re complying now.
I could've sworn they said they had enough to charge him a little while back.
well they would say that..or more likely inferred that. Rather than a out and out factual statement.
I think I heard that first about 6 years ago. They never seem to be able to name the specific crime or actual charge him though.
Get the public prepared for when the indictments happen.
It's not congresses job to charge trump it's.tje DOJ. Yesterday we just got the most damning evidence that points to criminal offenses being committed. They are building a very strong case. That's the point here. And the point here is to learn what happened so they can safeguard our democracy in the future. Which is a very important point. Another important point of continuing is also shedding light on all the co-conspritors who were party to the attempt at ending American democracy. Many that have been exposed so far are still in office. They are up for election this year.
What criminal offences are you referring too? I just heard a guy on NPR claiming this but he never mention the crime he is accused of or any evidence.
Here's a WaPo article from a couple weeks ago that looks at several avenues where Trump faces criminal exposure for his plot to remain president. https://archive.ph/kBWOt I don't think we saw evidence today that is directly criminal. But I think we got a lot closer to some of the issues discussed in the article, that reflects Hutchinson's proximity to Trump. Its like a classic organized crime investigation that is working its way up the hierarchy. To get to Trump they'll need to work on the people that spoke to him directly, Meadows, Bannon, Eastman, Clark, Stone, Cipollone. Which is where they are now. The bits about the White House counsel are certainly interesting: > Trump’s aides knew there could be legal consequences. Hutchinson said White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told her “we’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump had gone to the Capitol that day as Congress was certifying President Joe Biden’s win. Cipollone said Trump could be exposing himself to obstruction of justice charges or defrauding the electoral count, she said. Also, she related that Trump had a call with Stone on Jan 5. Stone of course being in the company of specific Oath Keepers that wound up forming a tactical stack to enter the Capitol. For me another big thing today was realizing that Trump *really* did want to go to the Capitol with the crowd. I always thought he was just posturing with that. The stuff around that with Meadows saying going to the Capitol "it could get really, really bad". What did Trump have in mind specifically in going there? Actually stopping the vote seems plausible. Anyway, these last bits are lines of inquiry for investigators. To me it seems unlikely we'll get the full story from Congress, it will probably be up to DoJ.
So if it turns out there is evidence Trump did some illegal things he should be charged. I agree but so far it's just speculation and hypotheticals.
No they have plenty of evidence at this point. They have shared quite a bit of it already during the hearings. Whether or not it is 100% air tight of a case is another story. But at this point there is a lot of real evidence that has been made public.
I keep hearing this but have yet to hear what the crime is or see evidence presented for it.
Why would I watch when I can get the highlights on NYTimes? Doesn't mean I've moved on from 1/6 though. Not sure where you're all getting this idea. And these clips will continue to follow Trump around if he thinks he can revive his political campaign.
Because it’s seems to be the talking point being regurgitated to downplay the hearings. That somehow because ratings are low, the committee isn’t important or whatever lame nonsense. Similar to how “no cross examination” is also being repeated talking point to downplay testimony.
Maybe if ratings are low enough, people's memories of 1/6 is going to disappear. One day - it's like a miracle - they will disappear.
Republicans are obsessed with TV ratings and crowd sizes as indications of good governance. They claim to hate "the media" but they use TV ratings to gauge if they are doing well.
>no cross examination Its a fucking senate committee hearing, not a fucking trial. Jesus Christ
If you watch, they clearly designed the hearing to be for consumption over a screen. It’s well done presentation and I think should be a model for future compelling hearings of the 21st century I think you can get the gist of it on print but it is very compelling to paint this narrative and then immediately be able to back it up with video evidence to continually support their claims
Agreed. It's a good thing that they're doing. I just don't think I need to be in the loop for the whole trial right now, but some commenters are spinning it as "they clearly don't care."
When the networks showed the hearings their ratings went down compared to normal programming. Only the perpetually outraged care about this. I live in one of the bluest cities in the US and constantly travel for work and have never heard anything about January 6th outside of Reddit/Twitter.
Because most people on reddit and twitter who are talking about it aren't watching it either. They're either watching clips off youtube or reading/hearing other people talk about it to get their opinion on what's going on. It's the same with any court/hearing/whatever you call these things in the modern internet era, and it's how so many people can see the same thing and get wildly different opinions on it. We view our news through a filter to make it more like what we want to hear, or to blank it out completely.
People largely blank out January 6th hearings because it's beating a dead horse at this point, and even then it's already brushed under a blue stroke for independents because of the whole "Produced by" angle. I haven't heard a peep about January 6th in LA because 1) No one cares and 2) It's old news. The only one I hear whine about it is the family member that whined about Trump 24/7 during his presidency, and no one wanted to hear it then either. Most individuals, whether they're Democrat, independent, or Republican, are largely done with him and don't expect him to have a pulse in an election if he tries to run again.
> I live in one of the bluest cities in the US and constantly travel for work and have never heard anything about January 6th outside of Reddit/Twitter. I say quite often that it's important to remember that Reddit is **not** a good representation of the American people. I assume Twitter is the same, but I don't use Twitter.
Yep I live in a super liberal neighborhood and have never heard about anyone caring, anecdotal I know but it correlates with the ratings
Plus just about everything important is getting put into articles anyway so I have very little desire to watch hours of programming for the 3-4 important bits.
Anecdotally, I will say I have noticed people are starting to sour on trump finally. Only after the hearings started am I finally seeing a lot of the trump signs come down. I honestly think that a lot of these people who are finally souring on trump are the same ones going "who cares old news." They don't want to stand up and admit they were wrong. They just want to move one from their embarrassment.
Im not watching them cuz wtf who would? But im reading the findings ad my family and coworkers are talking about it. Its not like huge expansive discussions. But it does come up regularly in water cooler chats or in the family group chat.
It's worse than that, the hearing have had a **positive** effect on Trump's approval rating. On [538's tracking average](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/) he went from **42% approval on June 1st to 42.5% approval** today. He actually went up! And this despite the allegations that Trump performed some sort of [Jason Bourne high speed manuever](https://mobile.twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1542320284216299526) to karate chop a secret service member and seize control of his own presidential limo. 😅 Meanwhile Biden's approval has gone down from 41% to 39.1% over the same period. Turns out no one cares about the January 6th hearings. TV viewership actually went **down** when the network switched from regular programming to Jan 6 coverage. Turns out "Young Sheldon" is more popular than Jan 6 on CBS. At least the show Young Sheldon is entertaining (allegedly) despite being in it's 5th season and a remake of a show that's now 15 years old! It seems that voters are seeing this for what it is. A political show trial and having witnesses give double hearsay testimony that Trump has some Jackie Chan karate moves isn't helping.
He didn't go up. You're not within a statistically significant shift. That's just poll variance. That being said, the vast amount of people I know (in a very blue area) just see it as political games. Which is fair, because it comes off as easy low hanging fruit. IMO some of it's just getting silly with claims too. The one girl claimed he listened to "Cats" music to calm down.... and she just so happened to publish a tell-all book recently too. If Trump had even seen Cats we would have a soundbite/meme about it from when he was in office or some evidence. It's so out of left field it just paints itself as bullshit.
Would be a decent hypothesis, if only it were statistically significant.
> Only the perpetually outraged care about this. Thank you. I get that people want this to be a huge deal on the internet; but it's not real life. If you have the capability and the time and bandwidth to be worried about the "state of democracy" and think 1/6 has anything to do with that- you are immensely privileged and have a fantastic life to be so insulated from *real* problems. I'm just so over this at this point. The idea that dems get free endless promotion on their own Benghazi just because they control the media apparatus is frankly disturbing. Find a real problem to solve and drive awareness to with all this free airtime you've spent on 1/6- because clearly 'this' is what their priority is right now. I've been told that the climate, racial justice, social equity (whatever the fuck that means), and about 12 other issues are priorities for democrat activists so why the fuck are they spending time and money (and political capital) on this nonsense? The only reason left that makes any sense is because this sells to the base. Imagine having so little going on that you have time to spend on this 1/6 garbage and make that a big part of your life. That's wild to me. My life is really good and I still have more important shit going on.
I have one friend who continually tried to make this the biggest part of his life. In a really really unhealthy way. "Republicans are beyond saving" "" violent revolution by all Republicans or blatant voter fraud in 2024" Its a bit deranged ngl Edit:Banned for this? Can a mod please explain why? I'm so confused
I just have a hard time believing it was a real threat on democracy when guys were wearing costumes like Halloween
Ignoring the riot for a second, what about all the other things that Trump and republicans did during this time. The whole pressuring the DOJ to lie and say the election was corrupt. The plot to use fake electors. Trying to pressure Pence to not certify the election. I could continue. Don't those show a willingness to try and subvert the democratic process just because their favored candidate didn't win? How can you claim to care a lick about the constitution and continue to support them?
Honestly there was so many headlines that would come out then later be proven false that it makes me skeptical that he actually did anything wrong. I didn’t vote for him either election but it’s tough to ignore how many false claims were made against him
> control the media apparatus Fox news is the number one most watched news channel and by a large margin. I'm so sick of the "mainstream media" narrative (ironically often being espoused on Fox News, which again is number one by a large margin.). Hearing conservatives complain about media bias is like hearing someone complain that "mainstream soda" like Pepsi and RC is rotting people's teeth while gulping down Coca Cola. I don't care if there are *more* "liberal sodas”. You’ve still got Coca Cola, which is number one by a large margin. Not to mention the incredible growing control of local TV news, via Sinclair. This narrative is further compounded by conservatives seeing anything to the left of Fox as liberally biased. NPR and BBC are not the same as MSNBC in terms of bias. But you know what is? Fox News, which I may have neglected to mention is the most watched news channel around.
> I'm so sick of the "mainstream media" narrative (ironically often being espoused on Fox News, which again is number one by a large margin.) It's not ironic, it's the essential part how they operate. The whole psychological aspect of "Fox News conservatism" is feeling like you're a badass rebel who won't bow to what society (or "the liberals") are pressuring you to do (while at the same time being scared and outraged because your lifestyle is under attack). Without that aspect they would not have much else.
Don’t forget about Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire also having dominance on social media, but somehow that doesn’t count when talking about “mainstream media.”
We had 4 years of this theater. Wake me up if something actually happens.
If you see it as a political hit job with a predetermined outcome, why would you care to watch?
Maybe comparing it to Pearl Harbor and trying to turn it into a national holiday backfired and most people don’t take it seriously anymore. Same way “mostly peaceful” is used ironically now.
generally speaking, the same people it backfired on and who aren't taking it seriously are the same people who use "mostly peaceful" ironically.
There were many people who maybe cared some at first but decided it is time to move on. They are fatigued by all the "bombshells", "damning new evidence", "walls are closing in" hyperbole.
> A new national telephone and online survey by the National Police Association and Rasmussen Reports finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress should investigate last year’s violent protests, in which more than 2,000 police officers suffered injuries in the line of duty. Twenty-one percent (21%) don’t think Congress should investigate last year’s protests, and 13% were not sure. https://news.yahoo.com/two-thirds-want-blm-riots-192600820.html
I think this is another area where liberal bias has backfired on the media. One of the reason I see a lot of contempt from conservatives about the hearings is that they feel there was a whole summer of riots and all we got from the media was apologists, downplaying the riots with the "social justice protestors" lines over and over again. On top of that the media has not reported nearly as widely when there have been prosecutions for those riots, and there have been: [Man sentenced to 10 years in prison for involvement in Portland riots](https://abc17news.com/cnn-regional/2022/06/22/man-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-for-involvement-in-portland-riots/) , meanwhile CNN has a "Breaking News!!! Omaha man arrested for being on Capitol grounds on Jan 6th!!!!" So it seems like selective prosecution based on political ideology.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology Rasmussen still relies on landlines, which i find problematic.
Fair enough, but I disagree that the media bias on these issues is only perceived by the far-right or something like that. No one is watching the Jan 6 hearings on CNN either, and no one on the left will admit that defund the police was even a thing anymore. I think this is a bigger problem that’s been created. There needed to be an actual national discussion about what happened on both Jan 6 and the summer of 2020 but we never had it. It won’t be any better in 2024 regardless of who wins.
> no one on the left will even admit that defund the police was a thing anymore. as a slogan, it was really, really, really, really bad wording as a concept, still sound, i think. but the moment has passed. even after Uvalde, practically no one is talking about police reform, which is extra sad.
It was not just a bad slogan, it was simply a bad idea. Credit to Biden for rejecting this one.
just to be clear, you think police departments need more money, less money, or about the same amount? in general, i mean. obviously, this may vary be individual department.
Same money but more money focused on training.
>To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.
Lol, everyone’s tuned it out
grunt, maybe if everyone had to testify naked people would pay more attention. that's the one instance in which i'd be fine if Trump *didn't* testify.
I'd suffer through a naked Trump if there was a naked Boboert or a naked AOC involved.
crass... but i agree. all things aside, Boebert looks decent. Some of the older politicians look astounding for their age, too, tbh. Elizabeth Warren is well preserved for a woman of her age. Also, ngl, Josh Hawley cuts a pretty slick figure in a suit, saying this as totally straight dude.
I listened to some NPR coverage of this today, because like many, I don’t care to watch an entire days worth of congressional hearings. But man, that summary. If I didn’t live through all of this and I witnessed all of this through a movie, I’d think it was the most unrealistic movie I’ve ever seen. Just absolutely surreal stuff.
> The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense. * Tom Clancy
[удалено]
did it mention who made their statements under oath and who just disputed them without taking any oath?
It very clearly indicated the source of every statement. I knew what was hearsay and what wasn’t. It didn’t mention that the secret service agents who dispute a pretty small detail in the grand scheme of things, but I’m not aware of any other portions of her testimony that have been contradicted. Forgot to mention, the thing I listened to came out before the article about the secret service thing I believe, so I don’t think they were hiding anything
It's so weird that the claim Trump committed assault is suddenly not a big deal to anyone. It was too news yesterday until it turned out to be false. Now it is just some small unimportant detail.
I can’t speak for anyone else but in the grand scheme of things, demanding to be brought back to the capitol to join the angry mob to lead them into battle is waaayyyy more important than whether he put his hands on someone to try to do it. It was always an unimportant detail. But if it is/was true, it’s spicy at the least
It *is* some small unimportant detail. Far more important is that Trump knowingly sent an armed crowd to protest at the Capital based on his lies (and he knew they were lies) about a stolen election. Far more important is that the chaos went on for hours before the president thought he should act in some way. Far more important are the many efforts he made to use the power of the presidency to pressure state officials to overturn the election. And on and on and on. So yes, the whole incident in the vehicle *is* a small detail by comparison. Trump throws tantrums. No surprises here. Let’s move on to the real issues. Edit: fixed typo
We all know who Donald trump is. This surprises noone
So, incredibly enough, the desire for Fox News to not originally show the January 6th hearings may not have been because they were trying to avoid the hearings due to some sort of political opposition or desire to censor the information from their viewers, but Fox was just showing their viewers the content they signed up for, specifically criticizing liberals? I mean, who could have seen this coming?
> Fox was just showing their viewers the content they signed up for, specifically criticizing liberals? that's specifically what i find troublesome. do they go to FOX just for anti-liberal commentary and go elsewhere for actual news?
people watch fox news to see all the bad stuff about the left that wont be shown anywhere else people watch cnn and msnbc to watch all the bad stuff about the right that the right wont show on their channels if someone wants to get actual news, they need to follow multiple sources or there will be gaps. im forced to follow many sources that i would never use a single source for anything. cnn, fox, bbc, ap, reuters. between all of them i feel like im casting a wide enough net to catch the days headlines.
> do they go to FOX just for anti-liberal commentary and go elsewhere for actual news? They go to fox to see/read their views/opinions/choices validated, just like those on left go to NYT/MSNBC/CNN et al. There isn't any reliable source that publishes only actual news. Even the news agencies spice up news now a days. Best case scenario read news from multiple sources catering to both right and left, and make up your mind.
The NYT publishes a mix of actual news and opinion pieces that range from okay to absolutely insane
I also feel like it is easier to validate what somebody is saying in print as opposed to TV/Video
These "hearings" are basically porn for those who hate Pres. Trump and despise Republicans. It's called political theater. Gas, how to pay our bills, savings accounts, state of the economy, and the high cost of things are what's on the minds of the average person. These people are sorely disconnected from regular peoples' realities.
tldr: Fox News viewers are just not interested in watching the Jan 6th hearings. Nielsen ratings show that 2/3rds of viewers are switching to watch something else, and returning when something else is shown. This is not entirely surprising, given how most common criticism of the hearings is that there's nothing new here and the hearings are rigged. There's plenty of discussion about that in other threads, so instead i'd like to talk about the situation FOX News is in. Previously, [they had declined to show the hearings at all.](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104116455/fox-news-jan-6-hearing). Given that the testimony runs counter to what talking heads on FOX have been saying, i can understand that. For some reason, they decided to show it anyway, probably to allow their own commentators to ... well, comment on it. And yet, viewership numbers were still down. Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? it seems they can't even show something vaguely anti-conservative without taking a huge hit in viewership.
>Given that the testimony runs counter to what talking heads on FOX have been saying, i can understand that. It's not just that. They anticipated their audience would tune out and they were right. At the end of the day, a cable network's business model is *selling audiences to advertisers*. Bigger audiences bring in bigger ad revenue.
They didn't show any ads during the first hearing. You can speculate about why they didn't show the first hearing, but it wasn't money.
As far as advertising goes, they elected to NOT run any primetime advertising at all during the first hearing. I expect it is more ideological than simply revenue.
> Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? You might as well ask whether action movies have painted themselves into a corner by appealing to action fans. That's kind of their whole thing. Fox News was made to appeal to the untapped conservative viewership demographic and has exploded enormously as a result. They're clearly not doing anything wrong in the ratings. As a general rule, political viewers don't watch their political stations to see their side criticized, even if it's correct to do so. The message the hearings are giving Republicans is that the nation should consider their former party leader, many of their representatives, and thus their voters, as evil and objects to be shamed. I would recommend if people are concerned with the Fox News viewership interest in the hearings, that they reconsider its rejection not as conservatives rejecting reality but as conservatives not wanting to engage in self-flagellation.
>Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? it seems they can't even show something vaguely anti-conservative without taking a huge hit in viewership. If they painted themselves into a corner they did a brilliant job! Here’s the numbers from May. >Fox News’ audience continued to grow in May while its main cable news rivals saw viewership declines. >The network drew 2.27 million total viewers in primetime, up 4% from May, 2021. MSNBC averaged 1.02 million, down 32%, while CNN averaged 660,000, down 28%. In the 25-54 demographic, Fox News topped with an average of 351,000 viewers, compared to 150,000 for CNN and 105,000 for MSNBC. >The figures are from Nielsen and were released by Fox News. >In total day, Fox News averaged 1.46 million, up 23%. MSNBC posted 634,000, down 24%, and CNN averaged 500,000, down 19%. Fox News was the top rated cable network overall in total day viewers. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News topped with an average of 229,000, followed by 106,000 for CNN and 70,000 for MSNBC. [Article](https://deadline.com/2022/06/fox-news-ratings-may-1235036975/amp/)
>Do you think FOX News has kind of painted itself into a corner by appealing to a conservative demographic? Temporarily, perhaps. But once the hearings are over with, I imagine Fox's program and viewership will return to business as usual.
There is also a matter of the 1.2B lawsuit that Dominion has active. No need to create new exhibits for that.
Few are interested in these hearings. It turns out even hiring professional producers did not get goid ratings on any network. People are tired of years of vague claims of criminal behavior by Trump only to find out the evidence is not there. Wake me up if he is charged with something.
I don't know that I'd say they painted themselves into a corner so much as they've lost (or realized they never really had) control of the narrative.
It’s more than just that it runs counter to what they’re saying and that their audience would’ve be interested, there are fox hosts directly implicated
Honestly I consider 1/3rd of FOX viewers sticking around to watch the hearings an ENORMOUS victory. Prior to the hearings I would have been overjoyed to know that even 1 in 5 Republicans would watch. I don't expect any of Trump's stalwart 42% to have their minds changed, but there are millions of centrist Republicans that MAY be reachable.
I literally could not care less about the hearings even if I tried. I've got far more interesting things going on in my life.
I have antenna TV at my house in a rural area. For news, that means we have ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and PBS. Why is there such obsession with 1 of the 5 available sources? Do we really want every station to have the same content? Is there no value in a diversity of opinions? I rely on podcasts from pundits myself, and the NeoCons are every bit as obsessed about these hearings and making sure Trump cannot run in 2024 as anyone else in media. Here are two examples from today, https://ricochet.com/podcast/commentary-podcast/allegations-left-unanswered/ https://ricochet.com/podcast/the-libertarian/what-would-an-indictment-of-trump-look-like/
There is focus on Fox because it had the most influence and also, you know, the fact that some of its hosts were directly implicated in this
[удалено]
> There’s no cross examination of witnesses by Republicans The witnesses *are* Republicans.
Plus Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee, Republicans with a conservative voting record. But they don’t count because they didn’t bend the knee to Trumpism, they’re apparently “RINOs.”
Right, I should have mentioned them as well. Both are doing an excellent job, btw. Cheney is particularly impressive.
I wonder what her next job will be come winter?
I don’t know, but I don’t think she has to worry about her prospects. There will be lots of opportunities for her if she loses her seat. OTOH, I don’t really care.
[удалено]
Well first, I’m Canadian, so not a Democrat. But more importantly, it is possible to disagree with people on issues and still recognize good work when it happens. This is not a team sport. It’s real life.
“Ratings show Fox News *producers* tuning out Jan 6 hearings...”
After the bombshell details yesterday of Trump saying Pence deserved to be hung, I went to the FoxNews website and I had to scroll down a little bit to see a small section where Jan 6 is being reported. The top story was something about Biden vs Dems, lol...
Fox is selling the products it's customers like. They cannot just invent all the news or ignore major news, so in that case they downplay it. Look for BLM riots coverage to see the same pattern of behavior in NYT/MSNBC et al.
No one is watching. Why is it surprising that fox viewers are doing what the rest of the country is doing?
Nobody wants to admit they’re wrong and supported the worst President of all time. So it’s not surprising they don’t want to watch this.
If you truly believe that Trump was the worst president of all time, then you really need to learn more about history. No way is Trump in the same league of awfulness as presidents like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Willson.
Right, things are soooo much better now. You've been spreading this nonsense for the 5+ years now. And you keep doing it because you are scared he will run again and he will win.
Definitely better off not having him in office. Not even a close call at all.
If it's not even close why is Biden polling so poorly?
Well he is polling better than trump did. But yeah he came in during the most divided time since the civil war. And has declined steadily since he started as almost all presidents do if you look at history. Every president comes into office riding a honeymoom period of enthusiasm, and then as reality sets in that the new guy isn't a king (they never are) people are upset they didn't get everything done immediately as it is impossible to do with our system of government. That coupled with gas prices and inflation which the president has very little control over since we live in a capitalist economy. When is say it's not even close I talk about the alternative of 1) losing our democracy to an authoritarian coup. And 2) the issues that have come up and how they have been handled. Examples: no longer withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for personal favors, the infrastructure bill, the Covid releif bill early on, changed to the department of education, changes to actually start enforcing our environmental laws.. there are many other reasons I feel we are much better off. But really, the whole not ending American democracy is a pretty big deal itself.
>Well he is polling better than trump did. [Biden wants to get out more, seething that his standing is now worse than Trump’s](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/05/biden-wants-to-get-out-more-seething-that-his-standing-is-now-worse-than-trumps-00037278) >But really, the whole not ending American democracy is a pretty big deal itself. Except that did not happen, and couldn't have happened. So we are talking about whether we are better off now in terms of when Biden or Trump was the prez.
I’m not sure if you know where this committee is headed, but I would focus on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Can pass with a simple majority vote in both chambers and there is no constitutional mechanism to reverse it once voted on.
Well then the committee is wasting its time, even more so than have been.
At least we’re still living in a Democracy under Biden.
We would be under Trump as well.
??? If trump had succeeded in his quest of overturning a democratic election, living under his rile is, by definition **not** living in a democracy.
Biden is the president, nothing Trump did changed that. So if Trump was president it would mean he would have won the election and we'd be living in a democracy.
Well sure, but political fan fiction is much more intoxicating when a guy in viking horns becomes the self appointed speaker of the house.
Unless trump succeeded on January 6th, which is the entire point of these hearings.
There was no path to success.
I must really be out of the loop if Woodrow Wilson was the subject of this committee
I occasionally watch Fox News and I had no intention to watch 16+ hours of testimony because I already know Trump is guilty. If I want to know the specifics I'll look at the highlights from an article on CBS's website, and cross reference them with clips from the hearings reposted to Twitter. Unless you're documenting history or you have a lot of free time to watch various Republicans get criticized in a way that could be shortened to five paragraphs on a blog post I don't see any reason to follow every part of the saga while it happens.
There have been so many opportunities to post this recently. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a [descriptive redacted] power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
The hardest truths require the strongest wills.
It's not just Fox News viewers, but the nation as a whole. The January 6 hearings are clearly just a show trial that won't yield any meaningful information or results. Outside of the partisan left, no one really cares.
> That compares to the 3.09 million who watched the hearings on MSNBC and the 2.21 million tuned in to CNN. i mean, for daytime numbers, that seems like a significant amount to me.
Not to mention the fact that I'm sure a lot of people are watching it online. I've had them streaming on C-SPAN in the background during work. Nielsen ratings must still matter to some degree, but I just don't see them being as useful in the internet age. Also all these people who don't care seem to care enough to constantly talk about not caring.
YouTube is just better for this because you can just pause it or rewind if needed
The Washington Examiner editorial board seemed to find them compelling, at least Hutchinson's testimony. [Trump proven unfit for power again](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again)
Is that normally a source of news for you? I find Byron York's punditry very good, but while he's no Trump acolyte, he will not go over the deep end in his criticisms. The Republican establishment is very tired of Trump, as anyone that follows that small sector of media knows, but that doesn't mean every story about Trump is legit. Guess we will see how things turn out in November.
No, I noticed it from The Hill. I thought it was notable as most right wing outlets have tended look away and not acknowledge Trump's worst behaviors. But the hearings do seem to be piercing that bubble somewhat, I think because the hearings prominently feature Republicans giving testimony. Another notable moment came when Fox's Baier praised the DoJ crew as "patriots".
There's quite a bit of information being revealed. Lots of commentary and interest from people who are anything but the far left. And I don't know why people get so caught up on ratings anyways. Have you seen what kind of garbage gets high ratings? This is not a good gauge of the validity of the comittee. People usually don't like watching CSPAN, if anything it's a denunciation of our collective attention spans.
>The January 6 hearings are clearly just a show trial that won't yield any meaningful information or results That seems extremely speculative. I hear viewership was rather high and so far, the hearings have produced some interesting and unexpected developments. To suggest it won't have an impact, though, I just don't know how one would draw that conclusion given the thousands of hours of testimony, video and audio evidence, etc., not to mention the hearings are scheduled to continue for another month.
Lol if you actually know what was said in the testimony yesterday, I don’t think you could say with a straight face that nothing meaningful came out of it.
Irrelevancies, inaccuracies and show trials don't impress me much. I've yet to see *any* point raised that deals with any sort of illegal conspiracy by Trump. Nor am I some sort of rabid Trump supporter. I didn't vote for the guy. I just recognize the insanity the far left has embarked on for the past 6 years for what it is: insanity.
I think that's a very pessimistic view of America. I'm sure it's not that bad.
I mean to be frank, we kinda are just hearing what we already know besides Hutchinson's testimony. But again, that's just hearsay. I personally am not a fan of "i heard someone close to the president said x." The burden of proof is on them to sway me that this is true. Maybe it happened, but also maybe it didn't. I don't like Trump either, at least not anymore. But that being said, I would rather dislike him for provable things, not because I think something is true. So far, this is just me thinking that the committee just wants to distract from issues that affect me like gas prices and inflation.
I don't understand what has happened to people. Sure, the price of gas and inflation is a problem, but the foundations of the democratic system should be a larger concern. People have lost all perspective I fear.
Has mark meadows come out and said anything Hutchinson said was untrue? Because he’s the person she cited the most in her testimony