Boy, I’ll say:
That’s all just attorney technique, isn’t it?
The Russkies apologized for that a couple of years ago, for all the good it did the Romanovs.
Moreover, by not including Trump, the committee gets to control the narrative by controlling who comes to the stand, how things are discussed, etc… And since it’s not a trial, they don’t have to deal with pesky stuff like cross-examinations, opposing counsel, etc…
The part that cracks me up the most about isn’t that Trump is fuming, it’s that McCarthy yanked all the Republicans off the committee, giving the Democrats free rein to do all this unopposed.
Seems pretty smart to me.
It lets them discount 100% of what happens as an unopposed hatchet job. Sorta like how we reacted to the interminable Benghazi hearings.
Nobody who matters to the R strategists care one whit about the surprises coming out. Because they already know in advance that 100% of what comes out is a lie. A lousy stinking Crypto-Socialist Democratic Lie.
It is ONLY if these hearings somehow lead to real court hearings with real prison as a potential outcome that these hearings do any good. And 100% of what they do uncover will be attacked by the R-side lawyers in those hearings as nothing but fruit of the poisoned tree of rampant D lies and trickery nd fake evidence generated during the fake congressional hearings.
Which will be persuasive to exactly 100% of their base, and 100% of any vaguely R-leaning jurors were it to be a jury trial. And some non-zero percentage of recently appointed hard right judges who might be presiding over the trial or the guaranteed certain appeals therefrom.
Maybe it is, but it seems clumsy to me. It is so obvious that they are leading the witness to making the exact same soundbite they had made during their deposition. It just seems that Cheney is better at it than any of the other presenters from the dais.
I am not even sure the way she does it would be allowed in a real courtroom. She often starts by bringing up a subject, then showing what the witness has already said on that subject, then asking a related question which provides two huge benefits.
First, the point gets mentioned twice (on tape and live) so it is more likely to be remembered.
Second, the answer can be expanded and detailed answering something no one knew to ask when the deposition was held.
Third (extra benefit), the witness knows exactly where she is going from before the question is asked-- there is no ooh, umm, well . . deliberation while the witness tries to figure out what they are trying to achieve.
The others often ask a question that could be answered in many ways, and while the witness stares back blankly, the committee member asks a more pointed question that gives them a clue what or how to answer. I believe I have even heard witnesses reply to the clarifying question with something like: "Oh that . . . Mr. So and so was in the room and he said- ‘this’.
The reason I am hyper concerned with this is because I live in a world where red hats of my acquaintance will barely watch the damn hearings at all, and if it seems even a little like the UNselect committee is actually saying: “you are getting warmer . . . warmer … No! now you are getting colder” then these viewers can dismiss the entire substance that is revealed because of how it came out. Of course their natural mindset is that if a Trumpian lawyer can keep the witness from spilling the beans through trickery – that is okay. But if an ungodly Socialistic Democrat uses so much as a little clarifying question-- well, that is dirty pool! I concede that it is biased and unfair- but it is how it is so every time it occurs I wonder if they just changed the channel to a rerun of I Love Lucy and dismissed the entire proceeding.
I am not a lawyer (thank G-d), but that surely sounds like what Perry Mason objects to as leading the witness.
If they want to call him then they would call him last.
Melania, Barron, and other daughter don’t deserve that.
Thanks for saying that for me.
IMVHO, Melania deserves to spend her golden years mucking out hourly motel rooms by the Ljubljanka airport.
This is where the Justice Dept. could step in. But the current one doesn’t seem anxious to.
And if the goal is to get the Justice Dept. to finally act, you don’t need his testimony for that.
If I had to guess (and don’t trust my crystal ball, it said the R’s would have dumped Trump after 1/6 as a quick ‘rehabilitation and reset’) the DOJ is letting Congress do it’s thing, and then will quietly follow up with everyone who is now on record as testifying, catch those now in perjury, and continue to quietly build their case to make it as air-tight as possible.
Which I’m far from alone in saying, just that it’s taking longer than we’d prefer. And that as events prove, there are plenty of people who will throw themselves under a bus, or drop their professional integrity in a heartbeat for their lord and master.
I’ll be in the minority on this one, and say that if they deliberately left Trump out of this, it was a mistake.
Two things to bear in mind:
- Most trump supporters aren’t watching the hearings (as seen in the Jordan Klepper video linked earlier), or they are seeing the FOX edits with no audio and misleading chirons.
- Republicans look set to win big in November, despite the party being very much in hock to Trump right now. Being anti-Trump or saying the election was fair are both disqualifying positions for Republicans.
Having Trump in the dock would have shaken all this up. The viewing figures would have been yuge, and just the questions alone could serve to educate Trumpist viewers. And there’s always a chance of Trump going full Jack Nicholson (though, even if he did, I still think he’d keep a majority of his supporters. But still, moving a few people is better than nothing).
I don’t think they chose not to depose trump for strategic reasons though. I think they just knew there was zero chance of him showing up. He couldn’t face the american people for his impeachments, he was hardly going to morph into someone with a sense of accountability or duty now.
Trump would love nothing more than to be on camera. The ratings would be huge, but that’s simply a point in his favor. He does better the more his face is shown. In addition, the numbers are already huge. The first, prime-time, hearing - the one conservatives said wouldn’t be watched because people have better things to do at night, somehow ignoring that the rest of the year they crow about how huge Tucker Carlson’s numbers are at the same time - drew 20 million. That number is so big that right-wing commentators have been working overtime to tell people how small it was. They’re spooked.
I assume you’re right that Trump himself would draw even more viewers. That works only for him. In a contest between him and a group of faceless Representatives, he wins 100% of the time. Democrats have been telling themselves that Trump’s lack of decorum or respect would turn people off since 2015. It doesn’t. His base lives for his stomping on their enemies.
His fury at the hearings is all the proof I need that they’ve taken the right route.
[pedantry]
It’s Chyrons with a capital ‘C’, not chirons. The term comes from the Chyron corporation, an early broadcast graphics company that still dominates the market.
Other jargon for the same thing includes: 'lower-third" (lower-third graphic) or ‘CG’ (character generator)
[/pedantry]
Thanks for correcting the spelling error. But I don’t think “chyron” needs to be capitalized in this context, as it is a genericized trademark.
I think you’re correct. Thanks for mentioning that. I had my head wrapped around the term coming from the company name and I automatically said it was capitalized because the company name is.
In all the time I’ve worked in television news I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen the word ‘chyron’ (or ‘Chyron’ 
) in a script. Every place I have worked uses ‘CG’ in script directions because it’s so short.
Bolding in reply mine. The January 6 hearings are legislative hearings being done by a Congressional committee. They are not a jury and have no judicial power, nor should they.
https://january6th.house.gov/
Ex-President Trump is entitled to executive privilege under the separation of powers. Congress has the right to scrutinise the Presidency, but that right does not extend to investigating his decision-making process nor his communications with key members of his administration related to that decision-making process. Neither Congress, or its select committees should be viewed as impartial bodies. They’re inherently political and their powers should therefore be restrained. If Trump were to be prosecuted for actions related to the January 6 incident, then the prosecutorial investigators should have greater powers to overcome executive privilege. However, they would be doing so within a framework of judicial oversight that does not apply to Congress, and with a duty to impartiality that no member of the January 6 committee would feel obligated to follow.
You misunderstood the context of my remark. I was replying to someone saying that, if indicted, Trump would use the courts to every extent possible to exonerate himself. I’m just saying that I have more faith in the justice system, and that if enough overwhelming evidence is collected, I believe that ultimately justice will be done. Unless the DOJ falls prey to some quasi-religious belief that one shouldn’t indict a former president.
Maybe Melania will decide to testify against her husband.
She open by telling the story of how he’s always talked about wanting to be President so he could loot the US Treasury, and she’ll provide the numbers of the Swiss bank accounts containing the billions he stole.
Then she’ll talk about how she participated in cocaine-fueled pee orgies with Trump and Putin and gangs of Russian hookers, and she’ll provide photos and videos.
Then she’ll lay out the details of the espionage network developed by Trump and Jared to sell our countries most sensitive secrets, including the nuclear codes, to Putin and Kim Jong Un and China.
Then she’ll open the vault on Trump’s blackmail operation, revealing all the compromising materials he’s used to keep our Republican leaders in line.
And the end of this explosive testimony, the investigators will ask her what she calls her husband, and she’ll reply:
The Aristocrat!