Exactly. No matter how hard the committee and DOJ come down on Trump and his immediate circle, it won’t make a difference if it doesn’t paint the entire Republican party as complicit in giving those people power to begin with.
It will be far too easy for voters to think that, once the rotten apples have been punished, they can vote GOP with a clean conscience.
I don’t think we would ever see any significant change in positions regarding guns and abortion as a result of these hearings, so I consider these developments to be irrelevant in that regard.
The point isn’t to get Republicans to stop supporting Republican wedge issues, the point is to steer Republicans away from unwittingly allowing our democracy to be threatened.
Donald Trump has nothing to do with these decisions beyond being lucky enough to have won an election. All of the nominations he made would have been made by any other Republican. There is nothing so special about Trump that would make these legal decisions excuse the illegal decisions he made regarding the election.
Gun control and women’s rights can be fixed as long as we still have the democratic process in place. It’s the democratic process itself that is in the most dire need of protection now.
This explains a lot of the Republican anger at Liz Cheney.
Because many Republicans see the goals of the Committee much as you describe, and Cheney as being an accomplice to those goals.
The goals of the committee are to bring to light potential crimes committed up to and including Jan. 6. Full stop.
The committee wasn’t convened to spotlight the GOP’s complicity – but that complicity should be obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a functioning brain.
That’s not really what I’m saying, though.
Assuming, arguendo, that there are some people who might possibly abandon their plan to vote for Trump again if he is on the ballot in the General (ie, vote for the nominee of another party or do not vote at all).
Assuming that some of those people may be questioning a preference for Trump based on what they are learning from the J6 hearings.
My argument is that some % of those people may simply snap back to “any Republican that gets the nomination, including Trump” based on the recent decisions regarding guns and abortion. For them it brings home that Trump and the Republicans represent me and my values and are the only thing standing between me and … well … I laid it out here.
IOW: I believe that some people may have been swayed, if only a little by the J6 hearings thusfar. I also – sadly – believe that they may be coming “back home to their party” based on a solid gun victory (as they see it) and a solid pro-life victory (as they see it).
And while I agree with the logic of the arguments that a couple of you have made, I would also argue that it’s irrelevant. IMHO, anybody who’s still leaning heavily toward voting for Trump – should he be the nominee – is simply not operating on anything even remotely resembling logic – at least not as I understand it.
IMHO, we’re back to “you cannot use reason to talk somebody out of something that they didn’t use reason to believe in the first place.”
I can’t help but wonder if the Committee had a heads-up that the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade ruling was coming down today.
If they did, then apart from needing the time to sort through all the new evidence coming to them, they would have known this ruling was going to interrupt their momentum.
Good call to defer further hearings for a few weeks, if true. I think folks will tune back in when they resume.
Iirc, the timeline was the USSC added today as an opinion day on Thursday morning…
And the decision to delay the hearings and add extra days was also made Thursday morning:
So… maybe. But not likely.
Internet lag - I switched to Hulu from Google TV (because Google TV was wonderful (if pricey) and so Google dropped it). Watching the Chiefs vs Bengals while on a Zoom call with the family, and the ones not watching on Hulu were a good 20 seconds in front of me - I knew we’d lost before it showed up on the screen.
I generally use (and see) “Clueless and/or criminal” to cover the formal logic “or”.
Can’t you take them on a drive and get lost, or break down, until the polls have closed? Vote first thing in the morning yourself, of course.
Listen…that’s just crazy enough to work!
There’s always an exception. 
I don’t like the “Hon. Rosen” name-card convention either.
(Possibly they did it that way to maximize the size of the font, so that it would show up for people watching the hearings on their phones…?)
I suggested in another recent thread that we should use the Japanese honorifics: Rosen-san, Donoghue-san, Engel-san, Thompson-san, Cheney-san, etc.
That is brilliant, Senegoid-san!
The subject of discussion in that other thread was the problem of gender-specific honorifics, and I pointed out that these Japanese honorifics are gender neutral. That’s why we need to adopt them.
ETA: Although, for purposes of the immediate point, note that “Hon.” is gender neutral too.
I would suggest the ‘O’ honorific be used but then they would sound Irish – O-Rosen. O-Donoghue, O-Engel…
The problem is that any “Hon.” tag on a Republican would be a blatant lie.
New hearing scheduled on 24 hours’ notice for tomorrow, June 28th, at 1:00 p.m. EDT. Sounds pretty explosive, from what’s being speculated about on the news.
Well, not ALL Republicans apparently. Some Republicans involved in this committee (e.g., Liz, Kinz, and many of the witnesses) behaved honorably, at least in the end, politically conservative though they may be.
Take Rusty Bowers, for example. He voted for Trump, and said he would vote for him again, yet the refused to cheat for Trump and was willing to testify about it. I think that’s sufficiently “Honorable”, and more so than a lot of Repubs these days.