Poll: The J6 Hearings Had Virtually No Impact on Changing the Public Views

For months, we have been discussing the heavy-handed, one-sided approach of the J6 Committee in the presentation of evidence and witnesses. Both sides blame each other for the absence of a single Republican-selected member. Yet, the Committee treated the lack of balance as a license to present a rigid and scripted account of events and actions, including editing out countervailing views or evidence. For those of us who welcomed the greater transparency on the events of that terrible day, it was a lost opportunity to have a truly historic investigation akin to Watergate or the Kennedy assassination. The result is now evident and unsurprising.  A Monmouth University poll shows that almost 90 percent of respondents report that the hearings have made no change in how they view the J6 riot.  Moreover, despite the overwhelming cooperation and support of the media with the Committee, the vast majority believe that the J6 Committee was a political rather than investigative exercise, focused on opposing Trump rather than disclosing the facts of January 6th.

Respondents were asked “Have the recent House January 6 Committee hearings changed your mind about what happened at the Capitol that day or who is responsible, or have the hearings not changed your mind?” Only eight percent answered in the affirmative while 89 percent said it made no change at all in their views.

What was really striking was the response to a prompt stating “Some say that the Jan. 6 committee’s main aim is to ensure President Trump can’t run in 2024.” Sixty percent agreed with that statement, including 62 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans. That view was reinforced by the baffling decision of Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney and other members to repeatedly end hearings with calls to oppose Trump in the coming election. It was hardly subtle.

The lack of impact of the hearings is, in my opinion, due to two threshold decisions of the Democrats. First, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others decided that the Committee would focus on reinforcing “a narrative” rather than follow prior investigatory commissions with an open and balanced inquiry.

After bringing in a television producer, the hearings showed members reading off teleprompters and witnesses confined in limited roles of reaffirming what members were declaring about the riot. There was no effort to present alternative interpretations or viewpoints. It played into criticism of a “show trial” environment–an image that was magnified by Cheney declaring in the last hearing that Trump family and associates had come forward to “confess” and encouraging others to do the same.

Many of us supported 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. The unquestioning media coverage likely added to the feeling of many that these hearings lacked objective analysis and full accounts of what occurred, including the exclusion of any discussion of why the Capitol was left poorly protected on that day despite prior warnings of potential violence.

Second, the Committee over promised the public. At the start of the hearings, committee members promised they had the long-sought smoking-gun evidence — new material that would close the circle on Trump. Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) indicated he thought there was now “credible evidence” to support a variety of criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. 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.

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 the dramatic 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.

Once again, this Committee could have been transformative for opinions on the riot. Instead, it was another Pelosi signature muscle play. As a witness in the first Trump impeachment, I was highly critical of her insistence that the House would impeach before Christmas rather than conduct the traditional impeachment investigation with witnesses. Instead of building a more convincing case, Pelosi preferred to impeach with virtually no record, for a certain defeat in the Senate. In the second impeachment, she went one better: She held no hearing at all and pushed through what I called the first “snap impeachment.”

The Jan. 6 committee was similarly stripped of any pretense. It was as subtle a political move as Pelosi’s ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union speech. Thus, it was not surprising that, when asked what she hoped to achieve from the committee, Pelosi tellingly referred to it as a “narrative.” It is the difference between seeing and simulating justice.

The results in polling are no less predictable. Presented with one-sided, tightly choreographed hearings, most citizens were left precisely where they began. The hearings were meant to enrage the base rather than add allies. It may have succeeded in that limited objective, but it could have been so much more.

Here is the poll: Monmouth University J6 Poll

259 thoughts on “Poll: The J6 Hearings Had Virtually No Impact on Changing the Public Views”

  1. We did not watch a moment of the Jan 6th hearing. When televised, we enjoyed watching alternate programming. At this point, the raid on President Trump’s home has left us with a shock followed by growing anger at their underhanded dealings. We fully expected that by now, the FBI or DOJ would have publicly addressed the nation and provided some explanation why this raid was significantly different from those of a despotic “banana republic”. Obviously they did not. With each new revelation regarding the raid, such as the FBI searching through First Lady Melania Trump’s wardrobe, fuels our anger all the more. We can no longer believe that corruption and wrong doing is only at the highest levels of management and the “rank and file” are “great people” just doing their jobs. A field agent that readily executed a search on Melania’s personal wardrobe can not be permitted to hide behind the excuse “I was just following orders”. We have heard that excuse used before, fortunately to no avail. The top officials that initiated or approved this raid must step up and explain his actions to the American people. The outrage over this raid will continue to grow until some sane reason is put forth that justifies the extraordinarily extreme nature of this raid. The tired old saw of “We can’t discuss an ongoing investigation” is light years away from the explanation that must be given.

    1. Spoken like a true Fox disciple: didn’t watch the J6th Committee hearings, because they told you not to; serving a search warrant was a despotic act of a banana republic; that, somehow, the FBI and DOJ “owe” Trump supporters an explanation. All of this is corrupt. Based on what facts? Those put out by Fox?

      Here are a few facts Hannity left out: national security experts met informally with Turmp’s lawyers in June, explained what classified government documents were missing, and asked to have them voluntarily returned. The documents were NOT returned. Only after such efforts failed, did the DOJ take the unusual step of seeking a search warrant. The subject of the warrant was collection of classified and/or top secret documents that are missing. It’s only you 30%ers who are “outraged” by this. The majority of the American people understand: 1. Trump was already caught being in possession of 15 boxes of classified and/or top secret documents he wrongfully took, and which were returned; 2. Mar A Lago is NOT secure; in fact, there are photos of known Chinese spies taken at Mar A Lago parties; 3. Trump is a private citizen. He has NO right to possess classified or top secret documents. 4. Trump has previously failed to use reasonable care to put away classified materials around Russians and others. 5. Stephanie Grisham, former aide to Melania Trump, said that Trump would tear up and throw documents on the floor, and sometimes put some of them in his pockets, all of which are inappropriate; 6. Trump has tried to flush documents down toilets instead of preserving them for the National Archives, as required by the Presidential Records Act, passed after Nixon resigned.

      Law enforcement does not owe you Trumpsters any explanations. Trump or his attorney were given an inventory of what was in those 12 additional boxes of materials that were removed, and there’s no reason why he couldn’t release the list, so you fans of his can see for yourself what documents he had retained and what the FBI was forced to claw back. The fact that he hasn’t released this list should be very telling.

      1. Natacha and Others defending the FBI raid… Were you this emotionally distraught when Obama refused to turn over his records to the archives? Can you show us how you demanded the FBI raid Obama’s home and confiscate those records?

        From CBS News March 14, 2017

        “WASHINGTON — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

        For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files that were requested.

        And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.”

        For those that claim I wasn’t there to see the FBI rummaging through First Lady Melania Trump’s wardrobe, Google it. Perhaps the limited information you get from CNN doesn’t tell all.

        Regarding an FBI confidential informant, if there was one and that person knew where certain documents were, why did they spend nine and a half hours on site? Why search Melania’s wardrobe?

        And if Trump’s lawyers have a copy of the search warrant they should not release it to the press. Why would they? We see enough newscasters and commenters here trying to justify the unprecedented actions of the FBI & DOJ.

        Let the FBI & DOJ explain themselves. They weren’t coy about an unprecedented invasion of a former President’s home, why be coy about explaining their unprecedented actions?

        Democracy dies in darkness. The FBI & DOJ are the ones covering up their actions to the American people.

      2. . Only after such efforts failed, did the DOJ take the unusual step of seeking a search warrant.

        You lie by omission. The National archive already asked for and were given a dozen boxes of material.
        Their is no evidence President Trump has the documents the govt is claiming. We know the broke into a safe, that was empty. Proves their intel is little more than wish casting.

        The govt refused to use the tools afforded them. The govt never issued a subpoena.

        1. “ The National archive already asked for and were given a dozen boxes of material.”

          They weren’t given all of the material. The archives KNEW because they had records showing those documents were not given back.

          Keeping those documents at mar a lago is illegal and it is legally considered theft.

          1. Keeping those documents at mar a lago is illegal and it is legally considered theft.

            Obama hasn’t been been ambushed. He hasn’t turned over any documents.

            1. LOL.

              Obama turned over millions of documents:
              “While the vast majority of the material transferred into the custody of the National Archives from the Obama administration was “born digital” (the 300 million emails are equivalent to over one billion pages), the 30 million pages of paper records are an integral part of the collection.”
              https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/information-about-new-model-for-obama-presidential-library

              Also see: https://www.archives.gov/findingaid/presidential-library-explorer/list/bho — “39,713,750 estimated total textual pages in this Presidential Library’s holdings”

    2. The FBI didn’t search her wardrobe. The search warrant list specific item that the agents were looking for.
      YOU WEREN’T THERE!

  2. I haven’t watched a second; I knew it was more of the same since Hillary ran, and I have watched the ‘evidence’ unfold in realtime, no need for the Hollywood rehash, replete with unedited clips as they became available over the period of years. We are not nearly as stupid as the DNC assumes. The only people frothing at the mouth at any of this are the NPR etc. faithful that carry around irrational and completely insane hatred everywhere they go. It is nonsense. Unless the DNC intends to actually forcefully take over our elections via an ACTUAL coup this year and in 2024, and if they don’t resort to murder if Trump runs again, I think they are probably done. Though it was certainly far from perfect, after Carter we had Republicans in the White House for 12 years, and it was better overall. Any dem that came after that built on what they accomplished. So much is rhetoric and we all get so inflamed, but as the Professor continually points out, we still have laws, they do not currently favor our Democratic party, and the dems are very much well aware of it.

    1. If you haven’t watched a second of it then you’re in no position to criticize it. You’re left with making arguments from ignorance.

      1. Anonymous, sure this is a shame. This is a trial with no defense. It’s all prosecution, there was no chance for rebuttal.

  3. Just remember that Hutchinson was the Democrats star witness. At the time I predicted that the Secret Service agents involved who discredited her testimony would never be called to testify. As I predicted the Secret Service agents with first hand knowledge were viewed with no curiosity by the Jan 6 committee. The final conclusion was determined before the investigation began. The committee was not interested in any testimony that would go against their predetermined outcome. The plan was to dunk Trump under the water and if he survived he wasn’t a witch. It’s simply a high tec dunking and the American people know it. This occurrence is no different than the water test for witches and history will treat it with the same outrage.

    1. They had already testified, AND they have been recalled to testify again, but they’ve chosen to retain private counsel and the Committee is still negotiating with their counsel.

  4. Very astute observation

    Repression, Terror, Fear: The Government Wants to Silence the Opposition

    We didn’t know it then, but what happened five years ago in Charlottesville, Va., was a foretaste of what was to come……On August 12, 2017, government officials took what should have been a legitimate exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turned it into a lesson in authoritarianism by manipulating warring factions and engineering events in such a way as to foment unrest, lockdown the city, and justify further power grabs.

    On the day of scheduled protests, police deliberately engineered a situation in which two opposing camps of protesters would confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent enough to justify allowing the government to shut everything down.

    This is not much different from what is happening on the present-day national scene.

    Indeed, there’s a pattern emerging if you pay close enough attention.

    ###

    When Charlottesville happened, just 45 minutes away from us, I saw both sides being a threat to my family and me. Like gangs from West Side Story, the White Supremacists and ANTIFA were juvenile and pointless. More concerning was how politicians then, and now the Federal government, fueled the flames. It has become a pattern. It is far easier to rid your enemies by having their opponents neutralize them. This is what Fidel Castro did in Cuba, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, both encouraging their supporters to expose, track and report “counter-revolutionaries”. Families turned on each other. Soon societal institutions collapsed. Not reported by the liberal media, both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez died as multimillionaires. Chavez had a net worth of $1 Billion when he died.

    Biden’s handlers knew the FBI raid would create a visceral response. As Matt Taibbi notes in his latest substack article,
    Welcome to the Third World, this raid isnt the first time Trump’s opponents have crowed with “we have him now”. If they really had him “now”, they would have taken him personally instead of boxes, considering they have been pursuing him since 2015.

    Americans are exhausted of the political unrest, the theater, the tribalism between two groups who are mirror images of each other but non-superimposable, (i.e. enantiomers). Either way, the DOJ better have a smoking gun, otherwise Americans will pursue each other in vivo like in Charlottesville, Cuba and Venezuela. Perhaps that is the point

    I just ask that when Democrats set Richmond on fire again like they did at the close of the Civil War, and in 2020 with ANTIFA BLM, that they burn their neighborhoods and not mine. We just planted a vegetable garden and we would hate to lose our abundant garden.

    1. Excellent post.

      J6 is much like Charlottesville.

      It would have taken little effort by the Capital police to have a perfectly legitimate protest at the capital on J6.

      Allow a steady stream of protestors into the capital, searching them for weapons etc as they entered and only allowing limited numbers inside at one time.

      These are reasonble and constitutional restrictions that do not offend the first amendment.

      Instead the capital was “locked down” no one was officially allowed in. Yet many got in. Because they had to get in on their own the entire dynamic changed.

      Much like charlottesville.

      At charlotesville the disfavored group had to run a gauntlet of violent Antifa nutjobs pelting them with rocks, frozen water bottles etc.

      Then when they got to the square – the government revoked their permit so that returning was EVEN WORSE.

      Is anyone surprised that ONE of them – Felding, wigged out and did something stupid ?

      We hold those on the right to entirely different standards than those on the left.

  5. “A Monmouth University poll shows that almost 90 percent of respondents report that the hearings have made no change in how they view the J6 riot. Moreover, despite the overwhelming cooperation and support of the media with the Committee, the vast majority believe that the J6 Committee was a political rather than investigative exercise, focused on opposing Trump rather than disclosing the facts of January 6th.”
    *****************************
    And the thinking public has stayed away from the J6 hearings in droves. it’s worth remembering that the opposite of love isn’t hate. It’s indifference. The public has moved to indifference and the Dims had best lash themselves to the mast. They’re in for a blow they’re not accustomed too. And that’s saying something. Barnacle Liz the Sailor is the first to go.

  6. Meanwhile, NY AG Letitia James probes Trump organization for irregularities.

    NY AG asks questions about luggage used when traveling from Mar-a-Lago.

  7. The problem is the old guard of ancients such as McConnell and Pelosi know that if they did actually did allow for a truthful and thorough investigation into ALL this crap, they would be opening a hornet’s nest of corruption that would probable end in it touching ALL of them. It is never going to happen as long as ALL these faaackers are safely in their gerrymandered districts. I hold out little hope of changinng anyone’s understanding of the swamp unless there is a powerful revolution spured on by intolerable conditions on the ground.

  8. The January 6th committee hearings were about “finding the truth” as the Stalin show trials in the late 1930s were about seeking ‘justice” The hearings were led by inveterate liars with no other purpose than eliminating a potential political opponent in the 2024 election. No difference in their motivations from the Chinese and or Iranian rulers who approve the slate of candidates eligible for running for elective office. The American Democratic Party is now the equivalent of the CCP. (Yes, i know Nancy Pelosi went to Taipei and professed support for the Taiwanese but she has supported the shredding of American defense for the last 40 years; her words are empty slogans). If the polls are to be believed than most Americans are inured to the MSM propaganda.

  9. Over 15 years ago, I came to realize that Nancy Pelosi was one of the most dangerous women in America, if not the most dangerous.
    Other women have vied for that ‘title,’ but Pelosi has held firm at the top of the heap.
    She still is the most dangerous woman in America, and the most dangerous woman TO America.
    Just watch what she does when she retires from the House —- she’ll throw her weight behind her young relative, Gavin Newsom, who has been throwing major hints about presidential aspirations.

    When the history books write about Pelosi, her accomplishments will be overshadowed by her abject failures: two ill-advised impeachments of Trump, both of which failed. And now this J6 Committee, which when all is said and done, will have failed to achieve its official purpose — independent unbiased congressional investigation into the events of January 6, 2021, and to insure such an event does not happen in the future.

    By the way, Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan recently may well become the alleged or actual ‘trigger’ for a Chinese attack upon Taiwan.

  10. Anybody who’s as old as I am remembers the early 70’s. what the dims are doing seems so nixonian.

  11. This isn’t just about Trump. This is about anyone who runs against the establishment in DC. We are becoming the United “STATE” of America.

    1. The Deep Deep State Swamp, aka Eisenhower’s Military/Industrial Complex;

      it feeds, it burgeons, it needs protection for the purposes of self-preservation and perpetuation.

  12. Christians/Conservatives know what a show trial looks like. They also know such a trial is an attack on them as well. Their strength comes from a principled belief in an America First worldview. Democrats may believe eliminating Donald Trump from political office is a winning strategy, but 2000 years of history prove it will expand the base that hold that worldview.

    1. Do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, … and liberals know what a show trial looks like too. If your answer is “no,” then you are a bigot when it comes to this issue.

      1. Do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, … and liberals know what a show trial looks like too. If your answer is “no,” then you are a bigot when it comes to this issue.

        Huh? Can you give me one reason why they wouldn’t? Unsurprisingly, you missed the entire point. Show trials are for persecuting an individual or a group of individuals to intimidate others of the same belief. It will have little to no impact on those beliefs. So while the show trial may succeed against the defendant(s), it will only reinforce those beliefs that their cause is just. And in this case, the belief is that an America First agenda is a just cause.

        1. I asked you a question because you only made your claim about “Christians/Conservatives.” I didn’t claim that others wouldn’t, so I have no onus to give you a reason that they wouldn’t.

          As for your opinion that it’s a show trial, I don’t agree, not least because it’s not a trial.

          1. I didn’t claim that others wouldn’t, so I have no onus to give you a reason that they wouldn’t.

            Neither did I, so neither do I.

            1. Agreed. I never asked you for a reason they wouldn’t, nor suggested that you have any onus to say why they wouldn’t.

  13. BS article by Turkey.
    Hey. The Repubs didn’t chose Cheny. Her Tepub and Dem voters in her state did. She’s on the committee. She is a Republican.
    The work has been very much in depth

    Trump won’t win the next election

  14. Your comment at the close of the article, “The Jan. 6 committee was similarly stripped of any pretense. It was as subtle a political move as Pelosi’s ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union speech.” says it all as to the widespread ignoring of the narrative. It’s the same as it’s been since Trump won in 2016 when one of the major outlets stated that it was time for the impeachment to begin. Don’t forget that about 65 dems boycotted the inauguration as their way of ‘accepting’ election results. The efforts of the left as we approach the November election have only become more frantic in an effort to disqualify Biden’s chief political rally for 2024. They want to negate his voice in the mid-term as well, so these tone-def dems and never Trumpers will not be able to help themselves.

    Biden said he would insure that ‘diversity & equity’ was woven into all federal agencies and departments. That, I believe, has been their biggest goal as it weaves more Neo-Marxists into the bureaucracy. While his top appointments will be replaced, their new hires will not as it takes an act of congress to fire or remove a federal employee. Equality is equal opportunity, not result. ‘Equitey’ looks to achieve equal results. That means taking something (redistribution) to give it to someone else. Equity = redistribution = force = socialism/facsim. Look up ‘Critical Theory’ on wikipedia & you’ll find it is a specific school of philosophical thought born of the Frankfort School in Berlin that was founded entirely by Marxists in 1937 who were working on modifying original ‘class’ Marxism that they acknowledged failed due to the unexpected (by them) success of capitalism. The replaced the class Marxism with identity politics, ‘race’ Marxism (Neo Marxism) with the goal to raise everyone’s ‘consciousness’ about race so that it was made part of EVERYTHING. There is a direct line from the Frankfort School (originally to be named the Institute of Marxism) to the CRT and other types of Critical Theory that has made its way into our classroome.

    Also, wokism is the same Neo (cultural) Marxism. Read ‘Woke Inc’ by Vijay Ramashama, ‘The War on the West’ by Douglas Murray, and get ready for the best explanation of the march from the ‘scientific historism’ of Germany’s top philosopher of the 19th century (Hegel) and professor of Karl Marx at the Berlin School, thru Marx and Engels, thru its examination for its failure to create a revolution of the industrial proletariat in the 20s, to its remaking into neo-cultural-racist-identity Marxism of today.

  15. Professor Turley often suggests that the exclusion of Jordan and Banks was a tactical error, because it reduced the credibility of the Committee’s narrative about Trump and J6.

    I don’t believe this.

    If Jordan and Banks had been on the committee the scope for distortion would have been reduced.

    The lack of evidence of the alleged involvement of Trump in the riot would have been exposed.

    Hearsay (Cassidy Hutchinson) would have been identified as such and the actual witnesses (Secret Service agents) would have been highlighted.

    The decisions by Pelosi and Bowser not to call for the National Guard when offered before J6 would have been discussed.

    The allegations of undercover involvement by the likes of Ray Epps and others would have been examined.

    The reams of still hidden video might have been released.

    The whitewash of the Ashli Babbitt killing might have been considered.

    None of this would have helped the credibility of the “narrative” being promoted by the committee. It would have undermined it.

    That is why Jordan and Banks were excluded.

    1. Daniel, you state,”Professor Turley often suggests that the exclusion of Jordan and Banks was a tactical error, because it reduced the credibility of the Committee’s narrative about Trump and J6.. I [Daniel] don’t believe this.”
      Then you list all the enlightening things that Jordan/Banks would have added/brought up. You then conclude that “None of this would have helped the credibility of the ‘narrative’ being promoted by the committee. It would have undermined it. ”
      ???????
      non sequitur?
      thanks

      1. (My inference was that the professor was suggesting that excluding/not hearing what Jordan/Banks would have added created an unbalanced “show trial” that hurt the panel’s credibility. I think you are both on the same page.)

      2. My point was that the “narrative” that Trump organised an insurrection on J6 would have been undermined if Jordan and Banks had been on the committee. So the purpose of excluding them was to preserve the “narrative” even if this was at the expense of the committee’s credibility to some. Because the “narrative” is false, Pelosi could not have both that and a balanced committee. So the tactic worked to preserve the “narrative.” It also set the stage for corrupt DOJ action.

        1. Yup, I understand you, but if you removed the “I don’t believe this,” your comment would be more acute/crisp.
          I believe the good professor is correct in suggesting that the Jordan/Bank EXCLUSION hurts the panel’s credibility. I agree with you that INCLUSION of Jordan/Banks would have hurt the panel’s credibility. BOTH premises lead to the same concentric end: a one-sided, selective-fact “narrative.” Thanks, Daniel.

          1. That’s not quite it. The inclusion of Jordan and Banks would have enhanced the credibility of the committee. But it would have undermined the preferred “narrative.” Pelosi chose to preserve the preferred “narrative” at the expense of losing credibility with some. She could not both preserve her “narrative” and have a credible committee.

            1. Ah, but we don’t know that. Neither of us know/knows how much latitude would have been allotted/allocated to Jordan/Banks, or whether they would have been cut off/limited/restricted/or (attemptedly) discredited. We really don’t know the breadth/width of Schiff’s soft-spoken schtick. (I am not Jewish, did I spell that correctly?) Jordan (whom I like) does get a little extreme/broad in his declarations sometime, and he could have come off not as we would prefer. We just don’t know.
              So better off left where it is: JT succeeds by pointing out the perception created by squashing J/B; you score points by pointing out what J/B would most likely have added.

    2. Daniel,

      McCarthy initially nominated 5 Republicans. Pelosi only rejected 2. McCarthy pulled the other 3 and said he wouldn’t nominate any other Republicans. Do you assume that the other 3 — and all remaining Republicans other than Cheney and Kinzinger — would have been unable to pursue what you propose, and if so, why do you believe that Jordan and Banks were the sole Republicans capable of what you propose?

      If you don’t assume that, then you can blame McCarthy for refusing to allow the other Republicans to participate.

      Also, had the Senate Republicans not filibustered the creation of a bicameral National Commission, they would have been able to seat whoever they wanted for half the Commission, without Pelosi being able to reject them. That includes Jordan and Banks. Your claim “If Jordan and Banks had been on the committee the scope for distortion would have been reduced” implies that you must also believe “If the Senate Republicans hadn’t filibustered the creation of a National Commission, the scope for distortion would have been reduced.”

      1. and if so, why do you believe that Jordan and Banks were the sole Republicans capable of what you propose?

        It only matters what Pelosi believed. She knew her little circus of clowns would not survive Jordon and Banks. Those two would have replied to each statement by Schiff, and Cheney that more evidence was in their hands, by demanding they stop hiding the evidence, because they had seen none. Due to the fact there is none.

        1. Jordan and Banks are great advocates. I’m just not sure what machiavellian tactics might have been employed to dilute/discredit their efforts. As it is, the people on the committee are not known for their great successes in Congressional legislation, but rather, for their partisan skill in polemics.

        2. iowan, you’re free to share your opinion (one I don’t share, FWIW), but you cannot answer for Daniel.

  16. Having 8% change their minds is very significant if all the opinions changed in the same direction

  17. This reminds me of a childhood memory watching the the Roadrunner cartoon. Adam Schiff is the Coyote, constantly scheming and hatching a new plot. Why has he not been held accountable for wasting millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers money on the Russia Collusion, Impeachment Part I and Impeachment Part II?

    I recently finished and I highly recommend a book by European professor of clinical psychology, Mattias Desmet, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism.”

    It is a fascinating analysis of the human mind and insight into the bizarre and sometimes irrational behavior of seemingly normal people and those who hold positions of authority in light of our current circumstances.

  18. Control of the means of communication is the jewel in the Democrat / left crown. Most people are busy with their personal issues and have their own biases to begin with; they don’t have time to perform research. Dictating the narrative allows the left to guide the discussion. If American moderates can smooth out the playing field even somewhat, we will win elections by 15 points. Support non woke media at all costs.

Leave a Reply