My dad and I went to a local chain for dinner. To my surprise they were showing the hearing on a couple of the TV screens. We watched that and NCAA track and field.
I work nights so I slept through January 6. Some of that previously seen footage was new to me.
I found Caroline Edwards very believable.
Can someone take one for the team and tell us how FAUX is reporting this-- tonight, tomorrow, hereafter, per omnia saecula saeculorum? Surely they can’t just ignore the fact of the proceedings completely.
Moderating:
Don’t junior-mod, please.
Dial back on the personal attacks, please.
No warnings issued.
I’m curious. If you can, will you watch additional presentations by the Committee?
Watching the after-hearing on CNN. Jake Tapper is interviewing Mr. Thompson.
I was curious that Quested made clear that he was there on subpoena. Not sure if it’s that he doesn’t like being put in the position or if his sympathies are off.
Yes. I think it’s important.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am in complete agreement with you about how important this is. I’m just interested to learn if tonight’s hearing “grabbed” people enough for them to want to see and learn more.
C-SPAN? That’s where I’ve been watching it, because they don’t have diarrhea-of-the-mouth commentators.
I used to think the web version of Fox News was OK compared to the broadcast, but even they aren’t focused on this. What’s the big news over on the Fox News website?
My guess is that, as a filmmaker covering controversial subjects, he knows that if he voluntarily testified against the people he’s filming it would make it difficult to get the access he needs to make good documentaries.
Has anyone REALLY taken one for the team, and checked out the footage on OANN or Newsmax?
They should have started with the video of the storming of the Capitol intermixed with the timestamps and Trump’s speech. (I wasn’t aware that the match had started even before the speech.) The first twenty or thirty minutes should have been devoted to capturing an audience, instead of talking heads. I thought Liz droned on too much about what was to come in future hearings; that could have been at the very end.
I can’t answer your question as regards Fox, but I just had a quick took at a RWNJ message board. It was obvious that they were watching the proceedings, via whatever source, even if the hearing wasn’t on Fox.
Reactions posted were about what you’d expert: “partisan witch hunt,” “a joke,” “BLM/Antifa riots were worse, and they’re not being investigated,” and so on.
And they were actually trying to read something into the color of Liz Cheney’s suit! Apparently, she wore a blue suit, which apparently symbolizes that she’s really a Democrat. Typical comment on this matter: “… it’s funny to see an alleged Republican [i.e. Liz Cheney] wearing blue, the color of the DNC, during her interview for a position at MSNBC after she gets bounced out of politics in a few months.”
From what I am given to understand from the New York Times; mr Carlson had a commercial free hour to go on about: how it wasn’t an insurrection, belittling the committee’s findings, and mocking the members of the committee.
Now, Jake Tapper has Nick Quested (the filmmaker), on CNN, on the broadcast. Maybe, we’ll find out about that subpoena remark.
I really want to hear about these several Republican congresspeople who tried to get pardons. I want them to stand before the cameras and their electorate and explain.
Their electorate won’t hear about it. Their electorate’s main news source isn’t carrying this.
Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania was named by Cheney.
Yes, he was fine. But he could have been much better and much more compelling while still being calm and collected.
I guess I think we need better than “fine”.