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. Why Is Liz Cheney Not Considered Republican Enough To Co-Chair Hearings?

    After the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy,” Liz Cheney put out a statement saying, “Hillary’s actions have been far worse.” She said anti-Trump texts sent by F.B.I. agents “could well be treason”; frequently lashed out at leftists such as Ilhan Omar (“an anti-Semitic socialist who slanders US troops”) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“do us all a favor and spend just a few minutes learning some actual history”); and delivered characteristically compact versions of G.O.P. talking points, such as when, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” she called the Democrats “the party of anti-Semitism, the party of infanticide, the party of socialism.”

    Edited From:

    “Liz Cheney’s Kamikaze Campaign”

    The New Yorker, August 10, 2022

    This piece reminds us that Liz Cheney was as conservative as any Republican in Congress. She was also a Trump defender.

    So why is Liz Cheney ‘not’ acceptable as a real Republican on the January 6th Committee?

    Professor Turley would have us believe that only Republicans who have pledged fealty to Trump are are acceptable. Yet Turley, a ‘constitutional scholar’ should know that congresspeople pledge loyalty to the Constitution (and not to Donald Trump).

    1. Pledge loyalty to the constitution? That usually means pledging loyalty to America and policies that benefit America first. Liz Cheney is a war monger, an elitist and a Trump hater, despite some of her “gotta vote for this or the base will be all over me” history. Her own state cannot stand her anymore. That should tell you something as she heads toward the end of her political career.

  2. The “January 6 hearings” were bad theater. Of course, they were fraudulent as well because the most important witnesss–RAY EPPS–never testified before the public. Since Ray Epps is clearly a protected FBI-sponsored agent provocateur posing as a Trump supporter who engaged in criminal activities on behalf of the Democrats, that tells you all you need to know about the phony “hearings.”

  3. Professor Turley Writes:

    “Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial.”


    Professor Turley teaches law. Surely he should understand that Representative Jordan is a material witness to the events surrounding January 6th. Below is an excerpt from an article describing Jordan’s role:


    On Jan. 5, Mr. Jordan forwarded to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, a text message he had received from a lawyer and former Pentagon inspector general outlining a legal strategy to overturn the election.

    “On Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” the text read.

    Mr. Jordan has acknowledged speaking with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6, though he has said he cannot remember how many times they spoke that day or when the calls occurred.

    Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the committee, has said that Mr. Jordan is a “material witness” to the events of Jan. 6.

    Edited From:



    It strains the imagination to picture how Jim Jordan could have objectively investigated events that he took part in.

    1. Gee, that’s kinda interesting. I was thinking that Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intel Committee impeaching Trump, was quite material (along with Marc Elias) in the role played by the ostensible yet-unknown whistleblower that started the whole impeachment? Do I have that wrong?

      1. What do you mean by “Schiff … was quite material”? Are you saying that he was a material witness, and if so, what did he witness?

    2. Surely he should understand that Representative Jordan is a material witness to the events surrounding January 6th.

      Material witness? This is not a criminal investigation. The constitution demands the committee do nothing but fact find.

  4. Until yesterday, I thought maybe just maybe Biden could really have won the 2020 election legitimately, but after the raid on Mar a Logo, it demonstrates these Swamp Tyrants posing as Law-and-Order devotees will pursue any means necessary to get and retain power, an election is just another rung on the ladder.

      1. Thanks, Concerned Citizen, I was able to find the comment from Darren that you’re referring to.

        I think that’s a silly reason to ban Jeff, especially when Darren was quite lax about the ongoing harassment directed at Jeff, including the guy who kept posting comments telling Jeff to commit suicide. There are plenty of moderation decisions here that make no sense to me. I think it’s too bad that Jeff isn’t around anymore.

        1. Silberman naively believed anyone was welcome to comment here.

          In other words, ‘Silberman thought Turley was serious about free speech’.

          1. Enigma would really appreciate if someone, anyone, even CCP bots visited his unranked blog where he discusses issues you would approve like racism, raceizm, raysism and, in case you didnt get it, rrrayyyyyyyyschissssssmm!

            OTOH your handlers may not pay you for pointing your VPN IP to anywhere but Professor Turley’s highly ranked and increasing in popularity legal blog. Translation, you wont generate web traffic for Enigma’s irrelevant blog because you are racist. Here is the link


          2. Sir or Madam ‘Anonymous..’ .. ‘Free Speech’ does not give one the right to be ABUSIVE. The Founding Fathers built that concept on the rules of civility and respect for one’s fellow man…………..

            1. Eighteenhole, we’ve never seen your name before. Just popped out of nowhere?

              You’re the jerk who kept telling Silberman to commit suicide.

          3. “‘Silberman thought Turley was serious about free speech’.”

            Turley is a free speech advocate but anonymous doesn’t have the intellectual ability or honesty to understand why Silberman was canned or to tell the truth.

            Silberman threatened the moderator. That is a good reason to throw him off the blog.

        2. When I first started following this blog, I thought Turley was a reasonable non-partisan observer, but he has changed so much that all of the weekend commentators have left with the exception Darren, an ex LEO who is very partisan. Then Turley;s objections to the conduct of the committee is so absurd that it defies logic. After Trump correctly observed that he could shoot a person on 5th Ave and not lose a single voter, any idea that Trump supporters could have their so called minds changed is absurd.

          Then we have recently seen the admission of Eric Trump that the Trump White House, used the DoJ as a dept to attack and pursue his political enemies. There is nothing from Turley on this outrageous conduct on the part of Trump and the GOP. The GOP is now on record with most of its members endorsing Eric’s view that there is nothing wrong with the POTUS ordering the DoJ to be a political police force. Now at least I can understand why Turley KNOWS that Biden HAD to intervene in matters affecting his son Hunter.. Turley also endorses such conduct as well, so if Trump did it everybody else must and can do so with NO evidence at all. It is sad to see.

          1. ‘randyjet’ you take Trump’s comments out of context. …this is a fatal flaw to a successful TRUTHFUL deposition… and one of the favorite techniques used by the MSM to convince ‘the sheeple’ that Trump is unique in playing outside the box… when indeed we have witnessed the families of Nancy and Joe doing it far better than Trump…. for decades.. on and behind the sheeple’s backs… the ‘SWAMP’ EXTRAORDINAIRE…’

          2. At some point, a constitutional scholar and expert must adhere to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            That is a clear and present problem in this era of communism.

        3. Thanks for the Laugh, Anonymous… we are assuming that your comments about ‘the harassment’ in this forum ‘directed at Jeff.’ were meant for comic relief as indeed the distracting insulting provocative truth-twisting ‘harassment’ always came From ‘Jeff..’ arrogantly, viciously, disrespectfully, etc., etc…..

          1. No, I’m talking about the person who posted as “Friends of Presidio Park” who kept telling Jeff to commit suicide.

            That you don’t consider that harassment tells us that you’re not a moral person.

            1. First, my point being that ‘Jeff’ brought that all on himself.. HIS ‘Harassment’ caused that reaction..! Second, I daresay you are not qualified to judge anyone’s ‘moral’ character.in this forum.. one of Jeff’s favorite tactics, too…. This forum is for debating the issues at hand.. in a respectful way.. .

              1. No, NO ONE brings on themself another person telling them to commit suicide.

                You are making excuses for the excrement who kept telling Jeff to kill himself. That person made their own decision to act immorally, and it’s extremely easy not to do it.

                If you don’t want to discuss this off-topic issue, then don’t comment about it. But when you make excuses for someone encouraging another to kill themselves, expect to be called out on it.

                1. “No, NO ONE brings on themself another person telling them to commit suicide.”

                  You are trying to justify your existence on this blog telling us someone else is worse than ATS. It doesn’t work, for that comment as foolish as it may be, doesn’t equal the malignant posting we see from you.

                  You should never be trusted, even if you might have a marginal point.

            2. I also didn’t like the personal insults (called retard) and name calling (changed his last name to Simpleton) directed at Jeff repeatedly.

              1. Retard is just a descriptive word. Nothing wrong with it, just a word.

                Elon Musk is clearly Retarded but he’s smart enough to know how to jump his co’s shares in the middle of the night.

              2. Concerned Citizen: You didn’t like people insulting Jeff who with a broad brush insulted every person that demonstrated any support for Trump while insulting Turley repeatedly..

                Do you know what that makes you? A Simpleton.

                Grow up. If he didn’t like the insults he should never have started throwing them in the first place. Don’t melt, snowflake.

                1. I don’t like the use of personal insults (including retard) and name calling directed at Jeff, me, or anyone and would encourage all commenters not to use such uncivil language on this blog. Thanks.

                  1. You are absolutely correct, but you can’t select who can be insulted and who can’t. When you do that you become a participant. That is your problem. Ask yourself what Jeff said and if it was appropriate. When you see what you did wrong you can apologize to the blog.

                    1. As for the insults, well, we have a lot of scratching posts on this blog, and I have to sharpen my tootsies from time to time.

                      I’ll miss Jeff, but I get it. I hate Yahoo beyond all imagining, but I never made veiled threats at their Romper Room administrators.

                      Hopefully, Jeff will figure out there’s a distinction between insults and hinting at kill shots.

                  2. Jeff is a retard. He was corrected repeatedly. Ignored the facts laid before him.The next day he would go off on the same rant with the same mistakes.

                    A. His intent was never discussion, it was always to spam the site and separate the readers from Turley

                    b. He is just a retard

                    1. Calling Jeff a retard is just wrong and it never helped your case in the arguments you had with him.





    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln illicitly and unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus to pursue his unconstitutional collectivist agenda, which, incidentally, was approved by Karl Marx.


    Looks like “Crazy Joe” Biden is on the precipice and ready to suspended habeas corpus or something worse.

    Let me remind the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats. RINOs) that it is illicit and unconstitutional for a president, especially a “fake” illegitimate president, to suspend habeas corpus.

    It is, similarly, illicit, unconstitutional and impeachable for the DOJ to engage in malicious prosecution for political purposes, and there may be a substantial material “transformation” in November.

    The last Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to fulfill his sworn oath and actually and literally support the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution, Roger B. Taney, told President Lincoln that he, Taney, “…can see no ground whatever…that the President.. in any state of things can authorize the suspension of…habeas corpus…,” which occurred of Taney’s volition, no case having been brought.

    Where in the world in the law; where in the world is the U.S. Supreme Court?

    “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

    “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

    “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

    – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

  6. Say it again. Louder this time for the tone-deaf idiots in Congress:

    These J6 committee people have done more damage to the country, told more lies, engaged in more corruption, etc, both during this disgraceful, un-American, Stalinist showtrial –and throughout their time in Congress — than ANYTHING they impeached Trump for! Take your J6 committee and shove it up your a$$, Pelosi.

  7. “Congressman Perry says FBI agents have seized his cell phone”

    WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) – Republican Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania said on Tuesday that FBI agents had seized his cell phone, in yet another sign that the Justice Department’s investigation into the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol is heating up. In a statement, Perry said three agents seized his phone while he was traveling with his family. He did not say why his phone was confiscated but said he was “outraged.” A supporter of former President Donald Trump, Perry has been the subject of a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. “They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish,” Perry said in the statement, first reported by Fox News.

    – Reuters

  8. The American-hating leftists in government and media have been telling us 24/7 for close to 6 years now that Trump was a illegitimate president and a criminal. Yet the man has never been charged with, much less convicted of, a single crime, not one. The continued Un-American shameful persecution by the colluding media and government of this man is making people like me, FORMER Trump supporters, consider very seriously supporting him again if he runs in 2024. Is it all going to backfired for the libs? There has to be consequences for this kind of contrived coup to take out the opposition by the power that be.

  9. “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.””

    Because it is. This is not a ‘fact-finding’ mission. They have been putting forth lies, mistruths, falsehoods, missing context, and then refusing to correct the record even when told it is incorrect. Do we know about Ray Epps yet? Do they know how much involvement the FBI had ‘instigating the Fed-surrection’ that day? Do we know who gave the order to open the big giant doors to the Capitol to welcome the rally-goers “inside” the building? Have they probed the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt in cold blood without even a verbal warning? Have they released all 14,000 hours of unedited video yet?

    I find the entire committee to be a bunch of utterly repellant lying disgustingly unethical pieces of human crap that I cannot stomach even hearing about this sh*tshow. There is just so much to doubt about the veracity of the information with all the blatant lies spewing from their political trash-talking, filthy corrupt mouths.

    These J6 committee people have done more damage to the country. told more lies, engaged in more corruption, etc, both during this disgraceful, un-American, Stalinist showtrial –and throughout their time in Congress — than ANYTHING they impeached Trump for! Take your J6 committee and shove it up your a$$, Pelosi.

    1. Anonymous Thank you for concisely putting into words what my thoughts and feelings are on the Jan 6 committee.

      Now we are hearing on the news from a “leak” that an FBI confidential informant was involved with the RAID. Last time we got a “leak” of this magnitude was the totally discredited Steele Dossier.

      1. Thank you. There are tens of millions of “us” who feel this same way. The Dems/media want us to think we are the crazy outliers, but we are not. And they know we are not. Hence, 80,000 new IRS agents!

        FJB x a Gazillion.

  10. Lynch and Comey Decline Raid and Pull Charges Against Hillary

    “AG Lynch defends decision on Clinton email inquiry”

    “WASHINGTON (AP) Attorney General Loretta Lynch steadfastly defended her decision to close the Hillary Clinton email investigation without criminal charges, insisting Tuesday that she simply accepted the unanimous recommendation of career FBI investigators and attorneys.” “I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it,” Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee. “The matter was handled like any other matter.” The panel’s chairman, GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, strenuously criticized Lynch over her decision, charging that it “does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath.” “Secretary Clinton’s ‘extreme carelessness’ possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and nation,” Goodlatte said. “Her ‘extreme carelessness’ suggests she cannot be trusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets if she is nevertheless elected president.” “The election-year hearing played out amid a roiling national debate over police violence, and committee Democrats repeatedly tried to turn the conversation to that issue and other topics as they criticized Republicans for dwelling on the Democrats’ likely presidential nominee and her email practices. “Republicans were furious last week that the FBI decided not to recommend charges against Clinton over her handling of classified information when she relied on a private email server for government business during her tenure as secretary of state. “We’re beating a dead horse here for political reasons,” said Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California. “But Republicans kept the focus on Clinton, trying to draw Lynch out on whether Clinton lied to the public or to Congress, and on a couple of occasions turning the conversation to then-president Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings 18 years ago. “Are you aware that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied to the public about her emails and email servers?” asked GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa. “Are you aware of that?”

    – AP, July 12, 2016, (Condensed)

    “Republicans blast FBI director’s refusal to push for charges in Clinton emails”

    “WASHINGTON – House Republicans Thursday accused FBI Director James Comey of setting a “dangerous precedent” by refusing to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of State Department emails.” The comments came in an emergency hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called just two days after Comey announced his recommendation, which some committee members deemed “mystifying.” “I think you should have recommended that Clinton be prosecuted,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, to Comey. “If not now, who? When?” But Comey said that while the FBI’s year-long investigation turned up “evidence of great carelessness,” he stood by his decision not to recommend prosecution. “I know no reasonable prosecutor would take this case,” Comey said. “It takes mishandling it (the information) and it takes criminal intent.” Democrats agreed with Comey and called the hearing little more than another Republican attempt to politicize the probe against Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president this fall. “In their (Republicans’) eyes, you had one job and one job only: to prosecute Hillary Clinton,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, to Comey. “Everyone knows what this committee is doing.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday that the Justice Department would accept Comey’s recommendation and would not file charges in the case. The issue began last year, when it came out that Clinton had used a private email address and server to send and store official emails while she was secretary of State. Comey said Tuesday that the FBI’s investigation of the issue ultimately turned up 110 emails, out of more than 30,000 on Clinton’s private servers, that contained confidential information. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called that a serious mishandling of classified information that demands Clinton’s prosecution. When Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Georgia, said it “seems to me like you have a hell of a case” to prosecute Clinton, Comey said he didn’t agree and was “trying to explain why.” “The precedent that I’m setting today is my absolute best effort to treat everybody fairly,” Comey said. Republicans also focused questioning on Clinton’s past statements, in which she denied sending confidential information over the server and claimed that she had turned in all work-related emails to the State Department. Comey said investigators had no basis to believe that Clinton lied to the FBI during a 3-1/2 hour interview last Saturday, but Gosar and others are calling for perjury charges against Clinton for these remarks. “He (Comey) defined all the allegations as being contradictory to what Ms. Clinton actually did, so it validated that there was a problem,” Gosar said after the hearing. “What we found out was that this investigation was very narrow in its scope and did not consider some of the testimony Ms. Clinton has put out under oath or in the public sphere,” he said.

    – Cronkite News, July 7, 2016

    1. Are you aware that Trump signed a law in 2018 that made it a felony to remove and retain classified documents? The law changed, by Trump’s own doing.

      1. Are you aware that Hills violated the law on classified material and destroyed evidence with BleachBit, by Capo Comey’s own admission, and no law was prosecuted against her?

        Are you aware that the Biden Family is the Biden Crime Family?

        Are you aware that the democrat party (liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, RINOs) is a criminal organization?

        Are you a coward with no name?

        Grow a pair; Nanny Peeloosi did, she landed in Taiwan.

        How ’bout you, hon?

  11. Can you imagine the insanity in the country if they indict President Trump on trumped up charges? And then nothing happens to Hunter Biden?

    Bye bye Miss American Pie.

  12. Trump’s best PR people are the beltway crowd. And his worst PR person is himself. Trumps approval goes UP when the beltway crowd does outrageous things. And it goes down due to his own conduct. Trump’s approval went UP due to the Russia Hoax. His approval went UP due to impeachment over a phone call. In terms of the J6 hearings, his approval may not go up, but it won’t go down any.

    As to which of these two sides “wins” I thought Trump might have finally done himself in due to his own conduct, but suddenly the beltway crowd wants to make a game of it again with what appears to be an outrageous stunt over a document dispute. I would have no problem eating those words. But given the nature of Washington, I think there would have been some sort of general leak by now to indicate there was more to this raid than what we’ve heard.

  13. Turley says 8% of respondents being influenced is no big deal. He doesn’t say which way they moved. Did anyone who watched think Trump did such a great job during 187 minutes that they now love him when they weren’t sure before? Or did they reach the conclusion that Trump incited the riot and should be prosecuted? If say 5-6 percent of the populace in a divided country suddenly swung one way that isn’t significant? Turley again trying to convince the Fox crowd there’s nothing to see. Meanwhile, Trump is taking the Fifth in New York.

    1. Don’t be fooled by the internet. It’s cool to get on the computer, but don’t let the computer get on you. It’s cool to use the computer. Don’t let the computer use you. Y’all saw the Matrix. There’s a war going on. The battlefield is in the mind, and the prize is the soul.

      – Prince Rogers Nelson at the Yahoo Internet Life Awards Ceremony – 1999

  14. When do the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) “show” indictments against Real President Donald J. Trump et al. come down?

    …and what the heck is China doing right now, anyway?

    Maybe the Chinese communists will hold off until Obama is done “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    I know, let’s ask “Suzy Q,” she being one Susan Rice, President of the United States (Obama’s not answering his phone just now).

  15. Blah, Blah, Blah–more Turley spin. Tell me, what does it mean when someone is asked whether the J6 hearings have “changed your mind about what happened”? Everyone saw “what happened” in real time. An armed mob invoked by someone who lost an election but refused to accept this truth, and who did everything possible to prevent the rightful election winner from taking office, fomented an insurrection to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified. Some things we didn’t know include the testimony of the reporter embedded with the Proud Boys who testified about accompanying them on a reconnaisance mission before Jan 6th to calculate the various points of entry into the Capitol, how to distract the Capitol Police at one point of entry, to weaken the defenses at other points. That testimony shreds the claim that Jan 6th was just a “peaceful protest that got out of control.”

    The wording of the question is so vague that any results would be meaningless, yet Turley tries to spin it into some sort of no confidence statement about the work of the Committee, consistent with one of Fox’s themes — which is to reassure the disciples,. Turley then launches into his usual diatribe about the Committee being “heavy handed” and “one sided”, and actually tries to argue that somehow there’s equal blame for there not being more Republicans on the Committee, suggesting that Jim Jordan, who was directly involved in the insurrection, and Jim Banks, a Trump flunkie, whose presence would accomplish nothing useful, were appropriate nominees. Tell us, Turley, what “countervailing views” or evidence can there be as to what has been presented? There isn’t any. That’s just another Fox argument: “it’s so unfair”. No. What’s unfair is that America is still being torn apart by a malignant narcissist who isn’t man enough to admit that he lost a free and fair election, and whose ego won’t allow him to shut up, go away and respect the will of the American people.

    Another stunning position is the implication that Trump could or should run again in view of what he has done. Turley tries to argue that a small majority of respondents agreed that the “main aim” of the J6 Committee was to stop Trump from running again, as if this is something bad. Tell us whether any of the following is OK: 1. cheating his way into office with the help of Russian hackers, directed by his campaign to smear Hillary Clinton in order to sway the Electoral College; 2. trying to gin up false evidence against Joe Biden by leveraging aid to Ukraine approved by Congress; 3. When polls predicted he would once again lose the popular vote, begin lying about his “victory” being “stolen” by a “rigged election” even before Election Day; 4. After litigation failed, after bullying state election officials failed, after trying to bully the VP into refusing to accept certified votes, going on “Stop the Steal” campaign to rile up his supporters to attack the Capitol and prevent the VP from certifying Biden’s victory knowing there was no proof to back up his claims of a “rigged election”. He still won’t stop lying. Tell us, Turley, why should Americans stand by and watch this sick creature continue to divide us by continuing to promote this lie? Why should Trump get away with plotting with the Proud Boys to attack the Capitol? Why shouuld the beatings and abuse suffered by the Capitol Police go unpunished? What “alternative interpretations or viewpoints” are possible, and why hasn’t Fox presented them, if they exist? Jan 6th was unprecedented. There are NO realistic defenses.

    And, of course, this piece is just a diversion to the revelations about the search warrant served at Mar A Lago because Trump refused to turn over classified and secret documents he stole when he left office. Alt right media attempt to portray Trump as some kind of victim, but he wasn’t home at the time, his attorney was present, the Secret Service were notified in advance, and the warrant was gotten after informal efforts to obtain the documents back in June failed.

    1. There is no reason other than targeted political prosecution for so many people to be given prison terms for non violent offenses while at the capital on January 6. There was no precedent, probable cause, or any hint of evidence that Trump committed a crime requiring such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. It is only due to the ignorance of postings like the above that we now find ourselves on the verge of becoming a Marxist (read that democrat)style police state. God help us.

    2. “why should Americans stand by and watch this sick creature continue to divide us by continuing to promote this lie?”

      Because anything whatsoever is preferable to the policies espoused by the Democratic Party.

  16. If JT did not want to advance his own narrative and instead offer a more balanced presentation in his post, he could have specifically mentioned that (1) Pelosi appointed Republicans Cheney and Kinzinger who have been given prominent roles, and (2) much of the testimony provided in the public sessions has been from Republicans.

    1. much of the testimony provided in the public sessions has been from Republicans.

      ALL of that testimony is a small fraction of the total testimony taken by the committee. You have been suckered by the Jan 6 committee, to believe what you see is representative of all the information in possession of the committee.

      1. They’ve interviewed ~1000 people. You expect them to broadcast that many hours of testimony?

        1. This fool has used this excuse many times and in many circumstances.

          If the fool were honest he would say the committee interviewed about 1000 people and decided to publish only those things that fit the committee’s narrative sometimes showing or producing snippets so that what was cut off couldn’t show the committee was lying.

          They did this even though they didn’t permit Jordan and Banks on the committee and there was no cross. They also did this without interviewing the most important people who knew about what happened on Jan 6. Nancy Pelosi did not testify, Byrd who killed Babbitt didn’t testify, the female capital police officer who beat Roseanne Boyland before she died didn’t testify, the officer involved with throwing a protestor off a ledge didn’t testify, and the officers of the west win didn’t testify nor did they show the videos of police wrongdoing at the west tunnel.

          In other words, the J6 committee was a sham meant to convince the gullible and themselves of their righteousness. The committee left the truth on the cutting floor.

        2. . You expect them to broadcast that many hours of testimony?

          I never implied such a thing.

          With 1000 people interviewed, coming up with an hour of Republicans hating on Trump is childs play. A person living in reality would know enough to stop repeating the idiocy, that Republicans agree with the Dems, when all you have seen is a tiny fraction of a fraction of the testimony.

    2. Both Cheney and Kinzinger were/are self-promoting anti-Trump advocates whose role/value to the committee was predictable. Please offer why you believe Pelosi appointed them but rejected the others.???? thanks.

      1. If you want to know why Pelosi accepted Reps. Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls (who were pulled by McCarthy), rejected Reps. Jordan and Banks, and ultimately appointed Cheney and Kinzinger, why not read what Pelosi herself said about why?

Leave a Reply