First, I don’t think you’re supposed to see them as the good guys. This was a chance for them to do public penance, not a chance to hold them up as heroes.
Second, absolutely: their speaking about experiences as ex-cultists is crucial for other cultists. For years, Trump’s had a circular-firing-squad cult, where everyone has guns pointed at one another ready to fire at anyone who leaves, or even at anyone who doesn’t fire at the folks who leave. He relies on mass intimidation and recruits others into his mass intimidation. For Trump cultists to see the folks who’ve walked away, and to hear them voice narratives that are so much like their own, makes it possible for them to imagine walking away themselves.
That’s not a narrative that a non-cultist can carry.
Putting this all into a single narrative would be:
My underlying anger and resentment was manipulated by Trump and social media to lead my to a conclusion that I now recognize as stupid. This could have happened to anyone.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion and lays heavy blame at Trump’s feet.
I think it’s ok in either place, because Cheney raised the issue in her tantalizing closing statement. But I do think it would be better if we carry on the discussion in the Adjacent thread. I don’t want to start a new career in moving posts from one thread to the other, so thanks for recognizing it is speculative at this point.
No, this is fine in this thread. You’re offering an opinion about testimony that was heard at today’s hearing. But thanks for considering it carefully.
Not really. I mean yes, some of it is kowtowing to lobbies, but in general those arent bad for the populace, just better for the lobby “(What’s good for General Motors is Good for the Nation!”). And do you think other democratic nations are so different? Did you note the Boris Johnson thing?
About 60% of Americans disapprove of trump, and about 38% still approve, per 538.
You may have heard the phrase the plural of anecdote is not data. It turns out that this is a misquote. The original aphorism, by the political scientist Ray Wolfinger, was just the opposite: The plural of anecdote is data.
I heard only the last hour of today’s hearings, and boy was it damning.
I’m thinking it will be some White House or campaign staffer that we haven’t heard from yet. Or a rally organizer, like Katrina Pierson or Amy Kremer. Outside chance it’s Mo Brooks. Probably a relatively unknown staffer, though. Or maybe the guy that had to sweep up the broken dishes and clean the catsup off the walls.
Fun fact - when Trump tried to smear Ted Cruz during the 2016 primaries by having the National Enquirer run a story claiming Cruz had affairs with 5 women. All clues pointed to Pierson as one of them, Pierson denied it.
It didn’t happen in this Committee (that we know of), but there are a variety of articles at various on-line sources on this subject. Google: “January 6 mob psychology” to find a bunch.
Could perhaps be Kevin Brady (R-TX-8) maybe? Not a name I’m familiar with either. (I just found that by looking through a list of Congresscritters at Ballotpedia.)
Could one of the next witnesses be the fellow that made the documentary? And some of his audio and video? Seeing Trump get excited and happy about the attack on the Capitol, would be good stuff.
That occurred to me, too. But I doubt Trump would have felt comfortable to call the guy and bully him. Plus his most important evidence is on tape and that’s already been turned over. So I kind of doubt it.
I think discussion on this point is fine in either thread, because it was Liz Cheney’s cryptic closing statement in this hearing that generated all the curiosity. But I’ll just mention we’re having a lively discussion about it in the Adjacent thread, linked above.
