well now you guys have inspired me to do a bit more digging into her dissatisfaction with the Jan 6 hearings. Here's another post from June 11 June 11, 2022 "She is our indomitable, irreplaceable, unsinkable Liz." Effuses Michael Gerson, in the final sentence "History will accept only one Jan. 6 narrative. This committee has it" (WaPo). I'm reading that only because the headline bothered me so much that I felt that I needed to know how any educated, intelligent person could say such a thing. What a static, impoverished view of history! He seems to have it mixed up with propaganda — specifically, the propaganda of a totalitarian state. But I got distracted by the gooey fawning over Cheney. "She was calm, methodical, factual and morally grounded...." Anyway... here's what Gerson says about history: "There is only one narrative about Jan. 6 that history will accept: the evidence meticulously gathered and presented by the House select committee." Huh? We will see what historians will write when they have the long perspective, see a fuller context, and it no longer has to do with the outcome of elections. What is being written now is not history. Not that history itself isn't biased, distorted, and incomplete. But it's got to be far superior to what the "select" committee is piecing together. Posted by Ann Althouse at 6:26 PM
hmmm . . . that's about it. I'm actually kind of honestly surprised she hasn't written more on the hearings
on the other hand, and getting back to the topic at that other hand, Althouse has written an astounding NINE times on ketchup . . . or at least that's how many times over the course of her blogging career she has tagged a post with "ketchup" to describe her subject: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/07/all-those-tags.html#more I don't sense there's a great amount of interest in her blogging on ketchup, but if there is, let me know and I can post some of those blog entries
Well, the usual Trump defenders have been kind of silent on the hearings. It's because the evidence isn't coming from partisan anti-Trump people, is coming from people appointed by and loyal to Trump, and is very solid evidence all the way around. There isn't much they can say.
I don't get the sense she's one of "the usual Trump defenders." I think she dislikes Trump but dislikes what she calls the "Trump resistance" more . . . or at least that's the sense I've gotten from reading her blog the past several years
well here's the link to all her ketchup posts over the years: https://althouse.blogspot.com/search?q=ketchup enjoy
Perhaps. Maybe she's been quiet because these hearings have shown more than just the typical Trump resistance. I'm probably guilty of being Trump resistance but still skeptical when people make claims that can show how Trump was going to ruin our Democracy. I always thought he was a danger to it, eroded it and certainly eroded faith in the democracy. But this committee has far surpassed the expectations. What I thought was melodrama and hyperbole turns out to have been accurate. They've shown that he absolutely intended to knowingly cast out the vote in order to stay in power. I'm not only amazed that they've shown that, but that they did it in ways that the defenders haven't been able to try and defend against. As bad and as dangerous as I thought Trump was, they've shown he was worse. I'm surprised that was possible. I will also say that I'm more impressed with some of the people on Trump's team. I thought they would all be on the party and Trump over country crowd. It turns out that enough of them weren't. So hats off to those Republicans. My opinion of them has increased due to these hearings.
I think there's a lot of evidence that "Trump's team" -- meaning people who actually worked in the White House -- included an awfully large number of people who were there in part to keep Trump's passions and proclivities in check. We are friends with someone whose brother was Trump's main speech writer. She barely talks to the brother out of rage over his politics, but she begrudgingly admits that he is motivated almost entirely from civic-mindedness and not by Trump cultism. Before Trump he was Newt Gingrich's main speech writer . . . and the same story. Although I get the sense from her description he actually admires Gingrich. Not sure how he feels about Trump, but of course I've never met him, I'm only getting this second-hand from her.
Yeah, I've always believed the civic minded people were out there. I just didn't believe they would have made it to Trump's team. I'm grateful they were there.
CNN’s Chris Cillizza roasted for touting Hillary Clinton in 2024 https://nypost.com/2022/06/29/cnns-chris-cillizza-mocked-for-touting-hillary-clinton/
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/...ions-of-key-witness-before-the-1-6-committee/ Key Witnesses Challenge Bombshell Allegations of Key Witness Before the 1/6 Committee by jonathanturley There is an old expression in the media that some facts are just too good to check. It is a recognition that journalists can sometimes be reluctant to endanger a good story by confirming an essential fact. The Select Committee on the Jan. 6th riot is facing a similar accusation this week after critical witnesses not contradicted some of the most explosive assertions of last week’s witness, Cassidy Hutchinson. Specifically, critical witnesses said that no one on the Committee reached out to confirm her account of former President Donald Trump lunging for the wheel in “the Beast” in a physical altercation with his security team on that day. The controversy highlights the failure of the Committee to offer a balanced investigation. Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process. Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence has been both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation. We have been discussing the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses are primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony is shown and they are given narrow follow up questions. They at times seem more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It has the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings. That framing has led to glaring omissions. The Committee has routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully. What is striking is that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process. Indeed, much of this evidence would have been hard to refute like the deposition of former Attorney General Bill Barr on the election fraud allegations. It would also have protected the Democrats from what occurred last week. A former top aide to Mark Meadows, Hutchinson shocked the world with her second-hand account of an unhinged and violent president trying to force the security team to drive him to the Capitol. (There has not been a contradiction of the underlying account that Trump was prevented from going to the Capitol — an allegation that raises some serious legal questions, as discussed in yesterday’s column). The allegation that Trump physically tried to stop or direct the car suggested that he was not just angry but out-of-control in that critical moment. The Committee combined that account with later testimony of how some were considering removing him from office under the 25th Amendment. If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, such testimony could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world. A Republican-appointed member would have likely sought confirmation from the obvious witnesses or the Secret Service. After all, the Secret Service was cooperating with the Select Committee and had already offered information on that day. Hutchinson recounted a story that she insists was given to her by Tony Ornato, the former deputy chief of staff for operations. She said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of a presidential SUV when agents would not allow that. In fairness to Hutchinson, her testimony could still be true even if the account is false…if that is what Ornato told her. However, Fox News is reporting that Ornato was “shocked” by the testimony. He and Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Secret Service detail, both testified previously and this is a hardly a detail that they would omit from their accounts. What is even more notable is the alleged failure of the Committee to reach out to them or the Secret Service to confirm that account before making it the highlight of a national hearing. Indeed, the hearing was suddenly called with little prior warning to highlight the new and explosive allegations. This is the peril of an investigation that occurs in an echo chamber. Such “gotcha” moments are powerful in the moment but can also be equally damaging if later challenged. This is the type of problem that arises when the focus of a hearing is persuasive rather than investigative. The account fit the narrative and the underlying fact seemed simply too good to check.
back to the OP Enter Hillary Clinton? Trump, Roe prompt muted talk of White House run https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ump-roe-prompt-muted-talk-of-white-house-run/
Pointless. Republicans were allowed to seat any members they wanted on the committee that weren't potential subjects of the investigation. They were invited to do so but refused. The only point he brings up is the one that wasn't witnessed by Hutchinson and isn't central anyway. And all anyone has to deny it is the word of people that refuse to testify.
again, don't kill the messenger. just some of the reasons people might give for a perception of "unfairness"
I'm not after the messenger at all. But when the messages are uninformed and keep presenting it as if Republicans weren't allowed to seat members on the committee, it is their fault for not researching or omitting that fact. Trump himself came out and said that it was foolish of McCarthy not to have Republicans on the committee. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-is-having-an-effect-gop-infighting-about-it/ They only have themselves to blame. They were given a fair chance. Now they are paying for their own decisions.
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3544103-now-more-than-ever-democrats-need-hillary-clinton/ excerpt: Regardless of one’s own political affiliation or opinions of Mrs. Clinton, the country knows her as an experienced politician and a champion of women’s rights. From her declaration at the United Nations in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights,” to being the first woman nominated as a major party’s candidate for president in 2016, she offers the exact type of leadership that the Democratic Party desperately needs. Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Joe Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights. Put another way, the stakes are simply too high for Democrats to remain on this slowly sinking ship. more at the link
