The hearings broadcast

[Horace]

There was an NYT op ed and a book written by a whitehouse insider stating that there was a coalition of high level government operatives who were actively subverting the will of the president. This was framed as a group of "adults in the room" that, thank god, were there to protect America and the world from the worst tendencies of the Infant In Chief. This was, literally, bragging about a subversion of the institution of the presidency, and a subversion of the will of the voters who put Trump there, fair and square.

There was no backlash from the mainstream in response to this. Because they were so sure that righteous reasons existed for this absolutely fundamental destruction of the institution of the presidency. I found zero "principled" people on the left, or TDS sufferers in general, who had any issue with that op ed and that book.

[Catseye3]

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

that book.

What was the title?

[Horace]

@Catseye3 said in The hearings broadcast:

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

that book.

What was the title?

A Warning. Apparently the author of that book and the op-ed is no longer anonymous. Miles Taylor. I'd never heard of him. After writing that book, he parlayed his public service job in the Dept of Homeland Security into an equally philanthropic role as a head of government interaction at Google. His social climbing is right on schedule, and was only hastened by his 'courageous' role in the Trump resistance. Glad he's looking out for all of us.

[Axtremus]

Link to video

Statements by William Barr and Ivanka Trump.

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in The hearings broadcast:

Link to video

Statements by William Barr and Ivanka Trump.

That aligns with my conclusions as well.

[Mik]

You will notice she did not say she agreed with Barr, only that she respected him and accepted what he was saying.

The editing was done to imply that she did. Just as Jim Jordan's text was tortured to give another false impression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Trump here. I believe he bears great responsibility for Jan 6. I'm just pointing out that the commission is no more honest than he was.

[Jolly]

@Mik said in The hearings broadcast:

You will notice she did not say she agreed with Barr, only that she respected him and accepted what he was saying.

The editing was done to imply that she did. Just as Jim Jordan's text was tortured to give another false impression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Trump here. I believe he bears great responsibility for Jan 6. I'm just pointing out that the commission is no more honest than he was.

1. A hand-picked, Select Committee with predisposed outcome.
2. Edited testimony and documents.
3. No cross examination of witnesses. Not really.
4. Primetime public whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was. It certainly didn't present facts.
5. Collusion by MSM to provide primetime airtime. Consider it free advertising for the DNC.
6. No mention of the FBI findings, stating that there was NO insurrection. An FBI that has been documented as having lied to make Trump look bad.

[Horace]

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

@Mik said in The hearings broadcast:

You will notice she did not say she agreed with Barr, only that she respected him and accepted what he was saying.

The editing was done to imply that she did. Just as Jim Jordan's text was tortured to give another false impression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Trump here. I believe he bears great responsibility for Jan 6. I'm just pointing out that the commission is no more honest than he was.

1. A hand-picked, Select Committee with predisposed outcome.
2. Edited testimony and documents.
3. No cross examination of witnesses. Not really.
4. Primetime public whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was. It certainly didn't present facts.
5. Collusion by MSM to provide primetime airtime. Consider it free advertising for the DNC.
6. No mention of the FBI findings, stating that there was NO insurrection. An FBI that has been documented as having lied to make Trump look bad.

This sort of cultural domination by a political party, with the kangaroo courts and public displays of force to put fear into hearts, is exactly what the left spent so much time warning us about when we elected Donald Trump.

[Axtremus]

@Mik said in The hearings broadcast:

You will notice she did not say she agreed with Barr, only that she respected him and accepted what he was saying. ...

Yeah, but what do you think of William Barr's testimony?

[89th]

@George-K said in The hearings broadcast:

Got a direct quote for that, or is it "an unnamed person, said that POTUS said that?"

I think my first or second post was asking if there was evidence of him saying it since I didn't watch the hearings. Later it shifted to a sadness that the reaction of "lol that's just Trump being Trump" is how low the bar as been lowered if indeed he did say that Pence deserves to be hanged.

BTW what's the point? I think Congress has a duty to provide a very clear and accurate picture of what happened that day. I'd say that if it was Obama or Biden at the microphone that day telling his supporters that they should march and confront Congress, that they need to fight like hell, that they can't let an illegitimate president be sworn in, etc.

[Horace]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@George-K said in The hearings broadcast:

Got a direct quote for that, or is it "an unnamed person, said that POTUS said that?"

I think my first or second post was asking if there was evidence of him saying it since I didn't watch the hearings. Later it shifted to a sadness that the reaction of "lol that's just Trump being Trump" is how low the bar as been lowered if indeed he did say that Pence deserves to be hanged.

It's not coherent or fair to hold people to some standard of outrage over an event that may or may not have occurred. There is plenty of factual common ground we can use to explore differences of opinion and reaction to Jan 6. It's not fair to take this salacious hypothetical, which happens make it sound like there really was an insurrection afoot, and judge people for their reactions to it.

[Mik]

@Axtremus said in The hearings broadcast:

@Mik said in The hearings broadcast:

You will notice she did not say she agreed with Barr, only that she respected him and accepted what he was saying. ...

Yeah, but what do you think of William Barr's testimony?

You posted both. You tell me.

[Jolly]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@George-K said in The hearings broadcast:

Got a direct quote for that, or is it "an unnamed person, said that POTUS said that?"

I think my first or second post was asking if there was evidence of him saying it since I didn't watch the hearings. Later it shifted to a sadness that the reaction of "lol that's just Trump being Trump" is how low the bar as been lowered if indeed he did say that Pence deserves to be hanged.

BTW what's the point? I think Congress has a duty to provide a very clear and accurate picture of what happened that day. I'd say that if it was Obama or Biden at the microphone that day telling his supporters that they should march and confront Congress, that they need to fight like hell, that they can't let an illegitimate president be sworn in, etc.

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

[89th]

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

[Horace]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

[Mik]

More of a tantrum than an insurrection.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Mik said in The hearings broadcast:

More of a tantrum than an insurrection.

Yeah, he acted like a whiny little spoiled brat who's had his teddy bear confiscated.

Sadly, rather than hoicking his underpants over his head and pushing him in the lake where he so richly deserved to be, his little gang of followers went right along supporting his childish outburst.

[89th]

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

[Horace]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

I would go with riot. "Insurrection" implies a plan in the heads of real people, connected to any plausible reality, where the government would be taken over.

[89th]

Yeah that makes sense to me too.