Using The Law To Go After Your Political Rivials...

[CivilDiscourse]

Looks like CNN's Chris Wallace wasn't impressed, and if you can't win ol' Chris.... and Luntz appears to have thought it was a disaster, as his focus group totally stopped watching the TV after 9 minutes.

Everything I've read basically paints an "underwhelming" picture so far. I don't even mean people's opinions on it. I read Huffposts article on the hearings, and even where they would be expected to tout how well the hearing "stuck it to" trump, there really wasn't anything damning.

Bill Barr called the stolen election claims "Bull" poop. But that was known in Jun 2021
Trump didn't act to stop the hoard and was (in private) nonchalant about the concerns and safety of people in the capital...again, known.


This was the first hearing, but it was also the one that was going to get the most attention. This is why they hired ABC to "produce" the hearing for the cameras. This means they should be starting with their best actual evidence, similar to an opening statement. And, essentially, even with professional help, this hearing was....uninspired and re-hashed evidence, and the case they are making boils right back down to the one they tried to make during the impeachment. Trump made a speech, and lied, then people did bad things, therefore Trump is responsible.

[Cow Poke]

Everything I've read basically paints an "underwhelming" picture so far. I don't even mean people's opinions on it. I read Huffposts article on the hearings, and even where they would be expected to tout how well the hearing "stuck it to" trump, there really wasn't anything damning.

Bill Barr called the stolen election claims "Bull" poop. But that was known in Jun 2021
Trump didn't act to stop the hoard and was (in private) nonchalant about the concerns and safety of people in the capital...again, known.


This was the first hearing, but it was also the one that was going to get the most attention. This is why they hired ABC to "produce" the hearing for the cameras. This means they should be starting with their best actual evidence, similar to an opening statement. And, essentially, even with professional help, this hearing was....uninspired and re-hashed evidence, and the case they are making boils right back down to the one they tried to make during the impeachment. Trump made a speech, and lied, then people did bad things, therefore Trump is responsible.

Yeah, I've seen comments like "they hyped it so big that they raised expectations too high" then "they began downplaying it because they knew they oversold it" to "you're supposed to underpromise and overdeliver - they did the opposite"....

And, yeah, if this was "the first one" and was a flop, why on God's green earth would anybody want a "Flop 2.0".

Also --- it's been pointed out that this was incredibly one-sided with ZERO 'cross-examination' or even opposing viewpoints.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yeah, I've seen comments like "they hyped it so big that they raised expectations too high" then "they began downplaying it because they knew they oversold it" to "you're supposed to underpromise and overdeliver - they did the opposite"....

And, yeah, if this was "the first one" and was a flop, why on God's green earth would anybody want a "Flop 2.0".

Also --- it's been pointed out that this was incredibly one-sided with ZERO 'cross-examination' or even opposing viewpoints.

Honestly? I'm not even concerned about "overpromising". (In fact, I don't really believe they did alot to set expectations, and just let the hype of the "prime time" hearing simply do it for them).

Ignoring the overpromise problem, they set this at primetime for a reason, and being the opening of it, they had a particular job to do with it, and it seems they fell flat. It's like a prosecutor's opening statement being "Lady's and Gentlemen of the Jury, we think the defendant is guilty. Thank you"

[Cow Poke]

Honestly? I'm not even concerned about "overpromising". (In fact, I don't really believe they did alot to set expectations, and just let the hype of the "prime time" hearing simply do it for them).

It was all that breathless "shocking video never before seen by the public" crap.

Ignoring the overpromise problem, they set this at primetime for a reason, and being the opening of it, they had a particular job to do with it, and it seems they fell flat. It's like a prosecutor's opening statement being "Lady's and Gentlemen of the Jury, we think the defendant is guilty. Thank you"

Or better -- "We hate Trump!" thanks for watching.

[rogue06]

Virtually nothing new. CNN worked hard to pump up the "chilling" previously unseen aerial footage of the breaching if the Capitol saying "the new video was part of the debut prime time hearing of the select committee investigating the January 6th Capitol attack" but it is as said, nothing but yet a different view of what we've already seen from dozes of angles already. And it doesn't show anything previously missed.

Looks like the network heads will be consoling themselves with doing their duty as party loyalists because they appear to be set to lose a boatload of money on something few will tune into.

[seanD]

Only when they are Republicans - like Roger Stone...

Peter Navarro shackled and dragged out of the airport. It clearly is a show they're engaging in. The thing that's so disconcerting is that federal law enforcement is apart of this whole charade.

[Cow Poke]

Peter Navarro shackled and dragged out of the airport. It clearly is a show they're engaging in. The thing that's so disconcerting is that federal law enforcement is apart of this whole charade.

That --- but we've seen that the FBI has clearly been weaponized against conservatives, so...

[Cow Poke]

That --- but we've seen that the FBI has clearly been weaponized against conservatives, so...

Thinking that over, I think it was more a "hate Trump" thing than it was conservatives in general.

[seanD]

Thinking that over, I think it was more a "hate Trump" thing than it was conservatives in general.

I don't think so. Remember how they went after Veritas, and that had nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think so. Remember how they went after Veritas, and that had nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.

No! (yeah, I guess Trump is just 'extra effort', but.... yeah)

[seanD]

No kidding...

FBI ‘Purging’ Employees With Conservative Views: Rep. Jordan

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Tuesday claimed that the FBI is “purging” employees who hold conservative viewpoints.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks at a news conference in Washington, on July 21, 2021. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
In a letter (pdf) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Jordan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that multiple whistleblowers at the law enforcement agency had come forward alleging retaliatory actions to employees who had engaged in “disfavored political speech.”

The letter redacted the names and positions of the alleged whistleblowers.

The Ohio Republican lawmaker said that in one instance, an alleged veteran was targeted for failing to agree with officials’ conclusions about the Jan. 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

The veteran, who allegedly served in the U.S military for several years and was deployed in Kuwait and Iraq, had their security clearance suspended, before being indefinitely suspended from duty and pay after sharing “personal views that the FBI was not being entirely forthcoming about the events of January 6.”

“As a result, the FBI determined that [REDACTED] had ‘espoused conspiratorial views’ and ‘promoted unreliable information which indicates support for the events of January 6,’ and therefore the FBI questioned allegiance to the United States,” Jordan wrote.

Jordan wrote that the same individual had “been rated as ‘Exceeds Fully Successful’ in performance evaluations, has received several awards, and has never been disciplined or reprimanded until this instance.”

Lawyers for the alleged whistleblower claimed that the FBI’s accusations against their client are a “monumental leap from objective fact” and a “distortion” of actions as well as “gross injustice” which violates their client’s right to exercise freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

In another incident, Jordan said that one alleged whistleblower, who has since left the FBI, had informed the House Judiciary Committee that they faced retaliation when they criticized the FBI in an anonymous survey circulated to employees following Jan. 6.

“The FBI allegedly escalated an adverse personnel action against this employee after [REDACTED] commented on the survey, which sought feedback about the [REDACTED] actions ‘during the recent crisis/command post’ event. The employee, too, was never disciplined or reprimanded until after [REDACTED] criticized the FBI,” the letter reads.

Jordan said multiple “whistleblowers have called it a ‘purge’ of FBI employees holding conservative views.”

[Cow Poke]

No kidding...

FBI ‘Purging’ Employees With Conservative Views: Rep. Jordan

Wow, back in my day, I interacted with the FBI guys a lot, and they were ALL conservative to a fault --- but that was like 40-45 years ago.

[seer]

Wow, back in my day, I interacted with the FBI guys a lot, and they were ALL conservative to a fault --- but that was like 40-45 years ago.

FBI_1.jpg

[Mountain Man]

That --- but we've seen that the FBI has clearly been weaponized against conservatives, so...

But it's just the top brass. The rank and file are the good guys, right? Right?

[Cow Poke]

But it's just the top brass. The rank and file are the good guys, right? Right?

I wouldn't think anybody from the top brass was actually involved in the raids and arrests we're seeing.