We’re still talking about Donald Trump, right? He would never try to bully someone like Putin, a documentary filmmaker? He’d have no problem with that.
And it would be pro-shot in HD), not some crappy phone footage.
This is like having the election worker from Georgia testify. It puts a human face on the stories we’ve only read about in the abstract. Sure, that might not be great evidence in a court of law, but these hearings are more about convincing those in the public who still think it was no big deal, and who still love Trump and everything he did, to change their minds. In the court of public opinion, one good story can change everything. We’re human, after all, and storytelling means a lot to us.
Texas representative Brian Babin, first time I’ve heard the name.
Well put.
I was also surprised that the oath keeper showed up with whatever he found to put on. Who knows what he has been going through. The other fellow tried to look a bit better, but certainly wouldn’t expect more.
I think this might make some think “that could be me”.
Don’t really give one damn about what they where wearing.
I just caught a brief interview with him.
He explained that he got caught up in this oath keeper stuff because he first went to the Amon Bundy stand-off with dreams of journalism, inspired by “his hero, Hunter S. Thompson.”
He also identified himself as “openly queer”.
Make of it what you will. I think this is just his look. And he doesn’t own anything else, or care enough to go shopping.
Thank you! That’s the one. I thought I heard ‘Br,’ but I do remember the ‘B-a’ sound. Thanks again for tracking it down. @Senegoid was close!
Whichever way you read the quote, the fact of the matter is that data is the plural of datum. Mr. Ayres came and gave testimony under oath (I presume, I actually do not recall hearing those guys being sworn in). An anecdote might not be factual, just a story told to make a point. In this case this man is telling his experience and I have no doubt it is a true accounting of his experience. I also believe the man sitting next to him told his absolute truth and these are two datum points that are far from conclusive of the whole, but easily (to me) serve as examples of what others who participated on 6 January 2021 may be experiencing (or evolving into).
I had to wait to make any comments because the actual schedule did not match my expectation and a conflict developed so I only now have seen the entire hearing. I found it compelling – but I was already convinced before this hearing started.
It was less legally conclusive than I had hoped, in fact I believe it might be the least conclusive of any of the hearings so far. I do not think it will convince any of my Republican associates of anything at all. It gives lots of points of information- but does not draw any line through those points. One has to want Trump to be guilty to conclude that he is. I thought the first four hearings did a much better job of . . . . leaving no doubt of Trump’s guilt, than this one did. In addition, I believe the fifth hearing was much more moving and emotionally compelling (if less than ideally indicting Trump).
Please understand, there is no doubt in my mind that Trump has been guilty of everything mentioned and likely much more. But today’s hearing would be the last one I begged a Trump supporter to please, please watch for their own good. To go further, I was disappointed to learn last week that even some of my more moderate Republican associates who did not vote for Trump in 2020 (but did in 2016) “know” Trump is more or less guilty - - but refuse to consider it important UNLESS it can be proven beyond any doubt that he is caught with not only a smoking gun, but with gunshot residue on his hands and clothing (and maybe a signed and notarized confession).
My point is that lacking criminal capacities, these hearings can only inform the electorate and potentially lead to better safeguards for future elections. Today’s hearing failed to prove to even me (a sympathetic observer) that Trump “ordered the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to…” I certainly believe he somehow caused it, but I believed that before I tuned in. I was hoping for more is all I can really say. That and that it seems to me that today’s hearing is not going to move even the most (prepare yourselves for this phrase) reasonable Trump supporters one bit.
My first response was: “He already testified??” Please remind me, there are so many documentaries going on that I have a hard time keeping them straight. There is one on exclusively the Proud Boys, correct. Then there is the British guy who was documenting the Trump family. Those are the two major ones as I recall, which has already testified? I have heard many interviews with both of them so they kind of run together for me. Then there is a Roger Stone documentary and others which seem less professional (but might not be). Can someone please straighten me out with regard to all the documentaries?
(Almost afraid to visit the other thread, those could be some scary rabbit holes for a guy like me!)
Sorry, one more observation from today’s testimony:
It seems that Cipollone and Herschmann pretty much saved the nation from “team crazy” seizing the voting machines and Sydney Powell being given really, really unwise authority and clearance. It also sounds like someone (probably Giuliani) nearly earned an ass kicking by pushing the idea further.
I know these guys enabled Trump more than half of forever, but sometimes I get the shakes thinking how close we got to a much worse situation. If they got their hands on just one of those machines there would be no telling anyone the election was fair and honest after those yahoos put their spin on the matter. Hearing that testimony again on the news just now lets me know that I am going to have nightmares about standing on a very narrow ledge over a very high cliff tonight.
If they seized those machines we would have a split empire with an Eastern and Western Pope I fear.
Especially after today’s hearing, I think that the Committee is proceeding slowly and carefully. Mr. Raskin’s long narrative today, describing step-by-step, the events of the day, had me, at times, saying to my TV, “Fercryingoutloud, get to the good stuff!” But like I said, he slowly and carefully built the narrative to the point where there could be neither quibble nor quarrel with his conclusion.
I liken today’s hearing, and previous ones, to what happens in a cave. Drip, drip, drip; and over a few hundred; hell, a few thousand years, beautiful stalactites and stalagmites form. It takes time, and if today, only a dozen Trump supporters turned, or at least started questioning their beliefs, it’s worth it. Just like previous hearings, and more will turn as a result of future hearings. Not all at once, but gradually, over time.
That’s why Mr. Raskin went slowly and carefully today. Like a cave formation, it’s “drip, drip, drip,” not expecting anything sudden, but just letting things build until they cannot be denied.
I hope the dripping speeds up enough to get beautiful stalagmites formed to inform people how stupid the GQP is before next election in ‘24. 
But I agree. Raskin laid it out carefully so the DOJ feels the have something (hopefully) solid to expand on. My hope is that today’s testimony lays out enough for at least some Magats reason to walk away, GOP decides O-Anus can’t run on their ticket and… probably support DeSantis instead. 
(Hey, most likely!)
I was talking about Holder’s ‘Unprecedented’. But reading about it, it doesn’t sound like there is any there there.
You know, I guess I get it. They are methodically presenting a long, involved argument. with the idea that the cumulative story adds up to something actionable. Hopefully that works well in spurring official action - either by Congress, DoJ, the states… But I feel frustrated by my perception that such an approach will have little effect on the populace - whatever their inclination.
My personal confusion stems from the fact that pretty much everything they are presenting is either what I already suspected happened, or at least, is consistent with my exceedingly low opinion of the main players and their supporters. So having it presented in such tedious (to me) detail, just sorta relives a horrible past few years 0 and will be even more disappointing if it does not result in something major.
As others, I fear what can happen with the elections at the end of this year and 2 yrs hence, in terms of short-circuiting any meaningful results.
At the end of the day, if a large enough percentage of the US population is okay with believing lies, and allowing grifters, con artists and conspiracy theorists to run the country, the US is doomed no matter what you do. The particular details of exactly how and when you will fail don’t matter so much as the fact that you will fail.
If you don’t think the approach of this committee will work, what approach would you use? Because someone, somewhere, needs to figure out how to reach these people.
Through Trump’s presidency, we had lots of reports - citing anonymous sources - to the effect that Trump was a criminally inclined, cheeseburger-eating moron who could be turned onto almost any idea, depending on who walked into his office and spoke to him for two minutes. Republican media consistently asserted that this was all rubbish, created and propagated by the left wing media. There’s no law to say that the Republican media was lying and the left wing media was telling the truth. For the most part, there was no one 1) close to Trump, 2) who spoke under their own name, publicly, and 3) confirmed these reports during the Trump presidency.
(Though, saying “for the most part”, in reality there were quite a number, but there was so much anonymously-sourced noise that it hid most openly sourced accounts, and Fox censored most of that to help hide it even more.)
You chose to believe the left wing media. Nearly half of the country did not. For most of them, this is the first time that they’re having what they assumed was nonsense propaganda, manufactured by the left wing media, shown to have been accurate all along.
If Fox doesn’t start to take a bit, it will only be because their customers are refusing to watch the hearings.
To reach those people, it should have more passion and excitement. The hearings are appropriate from an academic and legal sense, but they are objectively boring to watch if you don’t care about the subject matter. I doubt if the type of people who believe all the lies are going to be watching these hearings because the format doesn’t seem like the type of presentation they would respond to. If the committee members spoke with in a more fiery and impassioned manner, then it would attract those people due to that being a more exciting format to watch. They believe all the lies in the first place because they aren’t really able to connect long, logical sequences of facts to reach a conclusion. They need short, strong, emotional soundbites that they immediately and passionately relate to.
I see the committee much more about building a strong legal foundation for potential charges to be brought, as well as making it very uncomfortable for future politicians to support this kind of election interference. I doubt if too many Trumpers are going to be swayed by the hearings, but these hearing should mitigate their effect going forward by weakening their support in the general population.
So, needs to be more like Maury or Jerry Springer?
I personally don’t think it should be like that. I like the format and think it is how it should be. But if they wanted to appeal to Trumpers and people who believe the election was stolen, then yes, Maury’s and Springer’s shows are good templates to use.
I didn’t think of those. That format would certainly draw the audience of Trump supporters. When I read that post, I was thinking about Perry Mason or Law And Order. (Full disclosure: I’ve never seen the latter.)
As I understand it, the target audience isn’t the hard core Trump supporters. Those people are lost. Gone. Beyond reach.
These hearings are being held for the 10-15% in the middle: People who haven’t really paid much attention, are vaguely disturbed but need a reason to vote for Democrats in the upcoming elections. They’re often busy, distracted and rarely spend a lot of time staying informed. They have an idea that something pretty bad happened, but they’re not clear on what it was. They fall into the squishy suburban Republican, the independent and don’t-really-care-if-it-doesn’t-affect-me categories.
According to reporting I’ve heard and read, the needle is moving. So I guess the Committee is doing something right.