Capitol Assault Aftermath and US Domestic Terrorism

[thekaj]

Coming back to the topic of Fox News, one of their fired editors, Chris Striewalt will be testifying Monday. Appears his axing may have come from the decision to call Arizona for Biden as election results were coming in.

I mean, that's interesting, and certainly does tie in to there being an entire subset of the country that was and continues to be fed a story that Trump didn't lose. But in the list of people that I think should be getting interviewed by the committee in prime time, he'd be pretty far down my list. Fox News has a definite political bent, and will fire people who don't play ball? Shocking!!!

It is important to note that only about 21% of Americans claim that Fox News is their primary news source. For people whom it's their ONLY news source, I'm guessing it's an even smaller number. And those people are going to be mentally unreachable even if you did somehow force them to watch the hearings.

So who would you suggest be interviewed, and why do you think it would be of greater significance? It probably is a balancing act of finding witnesses who will give credible testimony.

Per the information silos—it’s a troubling reality we are dealing with, and based on the actions of some bad faith elected officials regarding social media (covered here on Ars) could get even worse. Regardless, it’s imperative to spread the word on the events of 1/6, and look toward penetrating those silos. Cynicism by itself won’t preserve democracy.

Well considering the schedule that was laid out last night, I'd probably go with:

Monday (Trump knew he lost): People who were on the campaign analytics team who knew he lost, and DOJ who knew there wasn't any fraud.

Wednesday (People threaten to quit): This one is easy, the people who threatened to quit.

Thursday (Trump pressures Pence): I think Pence's chief of staff is scheduled. Maybe also the Secret Service people who were warned that Trump was going to turn on Pence.

Unscheduled #1 (Trump pressures state officials): The Georgia officials would definitely be good.
Unscheduled #2 (How it all went down on the 6th): WH staff members who begged Trump to do something. Various government officials who were hamstrung by Trump's inaction.

Honestly though, I found my attention waning with the two in-person interviewees last night. I found it much more fascinating when they were laying out the case and interspersing recorded testimony and footage of the attack. I'd like them to do more of that. The in-person witnesses are all likely going to be fairly friendly to the Committee and thus likely not TOO close to Trump. Seeing recorded testimony from Barr, Ivanka, and a few other insiders though was much more enlightening. It's MUCH tougher for anyone not named Trump to just dismiss all of them. The ultra-MAGA people will believe him, even if he disowns Ivanka as a traitor. A lot more other Republicans are going to wonder how it seems like EVERYONE who has worked for Trump is Judas.

 

[slymenstra hymen]

Coming back to the topic of Fox News, one of their fired editors, Chris Striewalt will be testifying Monday. Appears his axing may have come from the decision to call Arizona for Biden as election results were coming in.

I mean, that's interesting, and certainly does tie in to there being an entire subset of the country that was and continues to be fed a story that Trump didn't lose. But in the list of people that I think should be getting interviewed by the committee in prime time, he'd be pretty far down my list. Fox News has a definite political bent, and will fire people who don't play ball? Shocking!!!

It is important to note that only about 21% of Americans claim that Fox News is their primary news source. For people whom it's their ONLY news source, I'm guessing it's an even smaller number. And those people are going to be mentally unreachable even if you did somehow force them to watch the hearings.

The article you linked also says 43% of US adults trust Fox News for political and election content, undermining that is a good thing if Fox is going to support insurrectionists. What's also missing from that piece is people who don't actively consume news, people who instead pick things up by osmosis.

No idea how to reach these people or how to stop the endless flood of lies and misinformation, but news entertainment places like Fox need to be checked for their part in this specifically and their shittiness in general.

 

[Technarch]

Coming back to the topic of Fox News, one of their fired editors, Chris Striewalt will be testifying Monday. Appears his axing may have come from the decision to call Arizona for Biden as election results were coming in.

I mean, that's interesting, and certainly does tie in to there being an entire subset of the country that was and continues to be fed a story that Trump didn't lose. But in the list of people that I think should be getting interviewed by the committee in prime time, he'd be pretty far down my list. Fox News has a definite political bent, and will fire people who don't play ball? Shocking!!!

It is important to note that only about 21% of Americans claim that Fox News is their primary news source. For people whom it's their ONLY news source, I'm guessing it's an even smaller number. And those people are going to be mentally unreachable even if you did somehow force them to watch the hearings.

The article you linked also says 43% of US adults trust Fox News for political and election content, undermining that is a good thing if Fox is going to support insurrectionists. What's also missing from that piece is people who don't actively consume news, people who instead pick things up by osmosis.

No idea how to reach these people or how to stop the endless flood of lies and misinformation, but news entertainment places like Fox need to be checked for their part in this specifically and their shittiness in general.

This is what I'm actually hoping for out of these hearings, even more than the prosecution of those former White House occupants responsible. Pop the conservabubble. Something like 18.3 million people watched these hearings, based on Nielsen ratings, and that doesn't include C-SPAN or social. If we're really lucky Fox itself will be charged and held liable, though I'm tempering expectations there.

 

[Shavano]

I have barely even started watching the coverage (flipped time zone) but its immediately apparent they should have been shooting the first people breaking in. That would have cooled the heels of a lot of these traitors.

Tactically, that would have been wrong. Fighting the crowd that vastly outnumbered them at the many entrances was impossible and shouldn't have been tried any longer than needed to keep Congress's members safe; that building is a seat of government, never meant to be a fortress that could be defended by a handful of men and women against a giant mob. As soon as they had the members of Congress and staffers safe, they should have withdrawn to the entrances of the tunnels, and had the shootout there where they could concentrate their force. Then the metro police and national guard could have come at the crowd from the rear and mopped them up.

We are going to need to agree to disagree here. My enthusiasm for storming the capital building would diminish immensely if the guy right in front of me had has brains splattered on my chest. It would have turned into Monty Python and 'run away run away' as soon as anyone behind the front wave saw dead bodies on the floor. One AR ala the Las Vegas shooter in one extended mag would have been able to hold off that crowd.

Were capitol police armed with assault rifles? I was speaking of the conditions I think they had. Not enough officers and not enough weapons to hold off a giant mob unless they could narrow the lines of approach.

 

[Shavano]

One potential side effect of all this might also be that the group of people that Trump actually has any trust in shrinks to a microscopic level. We are apparently going to see a number of depositions of people very close to Trump's inner circle where they admit under oath that they knew Trump lost, that they tried desperately to get him to call off the rioters, and that they were otherwise shocked at his refusal to peacefully accept the results. I'm sure he'll get over it, but I wonder how pissy he is at Ivanka right now for admitting she found Barr's assessment of the election not being rigged to be compelling. But there was also a text message exchange between Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany that discussed in positive terms Trump being removed from office via either the 25th Amendment or impeachment. There's also the deposition of Jason Miller, who's still in Trump's good graces, where he admits that he told Trump he lost.

I think there's a good chance that Trump's "enemy" list grows exponentially after all these "loyal" people decided that they weren't going to lie under oath for him and/or their immediate private reactions to January 6th was rats jumping off the ship.

Best thing that could happen is what my wife suggested: Trump gets so angry during the testimony he can't help watching that he strokes out.

 

[Shavano]

But Congress doesn’t have the authority to charge anybody with a crime. This—and impeachment—is literally what they can do.

Counterpoint: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-p ... piracy-and

Again, if this investigation were going to indict somebody named Trump, it would have been done already. The investigators don't have to go on TV to do their investigation. I guarantee that DOJ has already been talked to, evidence already handed over, and they passed on it. Going on TV was the last move, not the first one.

??? Those charges were brought by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. US attorneys are under the purview of the Department of Justice, not Congress. Congress didn’t indict these guys. What makes you think they have the authority to charge anybody?

(If your point is that Garland’s DOJ has been appallingly slow and ineffectual, that’s fine, and I’d agree, but I don’t see how that relates to what Congress is doing. If anything, it argues for these hearings as a means of potentially turning up the heat on the DOJ.)

Another possibility is Garland has been holding indictments so the committee can make its case first.

 

[Shavano]

Coming back to the topic of Fox News, one of their fired editors, Chris Striewalt will be testifying Monday. Appears his axing may have come from the decision to call Arizona for Biden as election results were coming in.

I mean, that's interesting, and certainly does tie in to there being an entire subset of the country that was and continues to be fed a story that Trump didn't lose. But in the list of people that I think should be getting interviewed by the committee in prime time, he'd be pretty far down my list. Fox News has a definite political bent, and will fire people who don't play ball? Shocking!!!

It is important to note that only about 21% of Americans claim that Fox News is their primary news source. For people whom it's their ONLY news source, I'm guessing it's an even smaller number. And those people are going to be mentally unreachable even if you did somehow force them to watch the hearings.

I have an uncle that has it on all day long, even when nobody's watching.

 

[duffle]

‘Truth Social’ reportedly banning users who post (what I expect to be the, um, truth) about the hearings now.

 

[Soothsayer786]

It's amazing watching the mental gymnastics people on the right are going through to try and continue to defend Trump and what happened on Jan. 6th. Their arguments are just pathetic. In fact, it's gotten so bad that right-wing columnists like Marc Thiessen are employing "whataboutism" in the headlines of their articles.

Washington Post put up an opinion article last night by Marc, with the title: "If Trump incited Jan. 6, what about Schumer’s threats against Kavanaugh?"

I don't understand why WaPo even prints that garbage. For one thing, Schumer made no threats. But the whole "whatboutism" thing is just pathetic to see in the headline of a major, well respected publication. I know they try to offer viewpoints from all sides but the crap they print from Thiessen and others like him is just insane. Why give these people a platform at all? Oh right, because the media loves a good nut job. Nut jobs bring views, and clicks. It's why we ended up with a clearly mentally ill President that they enabled (and continue to enable), and why someone like Joe Rogan got $100 million from Spotify.

 

[Ecmaster76]

Another possibility is Garland has been holding indictments so the committee can make its case first.

He might even be saving them for October but I really doubt he would be so blatantly political

Either he isn't ready or it isn't happening. I'd give even odds

 

[yd]

I have barely even started watching the coverage (flipped time zone) but its immediately apparent they should have been shooting the first people breaking in. That would have cooled the heels of a lot of these traitors.

Tactically, that would have been wrong. Fighting the crowd that vastly outnumbered them at the many entrances was impossible and shouldn't have been tried any longer than needed to keep Congress's members safe; that building is a seat of government, never meant to be a fortress that could be defended by a handful of men and women against a giant mob. As soon as they had the members of Congress and staffers safe, they should have withdrawn to the entrances of the tunnels, and had the shootout there where they could concentrate their force. Then the metro police and national guard could have come at the crowd from the rear and mopped them up.

We are going to need to agree to disagree here. My enthusiasm for storming the capital building would diminish immensely if the guy right in front of me had has brains splattered on my chest. It would have turned into Monty Python and 'run away run away' as soon as anyone behind the front wave saw dead bodies on the floor. One AR ala the Las Vegas shooter in one extended mag would have been able to hold off that crowd.

Were capitol police armed with assault rifles? I was speaking of the conditions I think they had. Not enough officers and not enough weapons to hold off a giant mob unless they could narrow the lines of approach.

Surely to golly the Capital police have hand guns and the calculus most certainly would have been a lot different if the 'tourists' came in the broken window and saw dead bodies and people squirming on the ground with 9mm bullet wounds. You don't need to fight off an army, you just need to pop the first dozen or so and the followers would make different life choices. If you can't justify shooting these people in the land of guns guns guns, why have them? An angry mob is smashing in re-inforced windows to break into the capital building.....what more do you need?

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

‘Truth Social’ reportedly banning users who post (what I expect to be the, um, truth) about the hearings now.

The appropriate response here would be to overrun the platform with posts of said content. A denial of denial attack.

 

[bluloo]

‘Truth Social’ reportedly banning users who post (what I expect to be the, um, truth) about the hearings now.

As we all understand, it was never about free speech.
It’s about not being able to handle unpleasant information, and the dissonance that follows.

America is in the “golden age of the unique snowflake”, and no where is that demonstrated more consistently and with greater magnitude, than on the far right.

 

[kvndoom]

‘Truth Social’ reportedly banning users who post (what I expect to be the, um, truth) about the hearings now.

The appropriate response here would be to overrun the platform with posts of said content. A denial of denial attack.

Impossible! I was assured TS was a 1st 'mendment safe haven!

 

[Shavano]

Is that "Thou shalt not speak ill of a Republican?"

 

[thekaj]

Is that "Thou shalt not speak ill of a the right kind of Republican?"

T,FTFY. Because I’m sure you can speak ill of Liz Cheney all you want!

 

[Lt_Storm]

Is that "Thou shalt not speak ill of a the right kind of Republican?"

T,FTFY. Because I’m sure you can speak ill of Liz Cheney all you want!

Moderation has recently forbidden this kind of response, so watch out, you invite tyranny yellow to our conversation.

 

[BenN]

‘Truth Social’ reportedly banning users who post (what I expect to be the, um, truth) about the hearings now.

Truth Social has users?

Also, the name is so inane that it must have been Trump (or one of his moron offspring) that thought of it.

 

[Shavano]

There's plenty of lamery to go around outside Trump's immediate family, Ben.

On the charging of rioters, where/if the government can't show Seditious Conspiracy, they should charge people under the Riot Act:

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots[/b]":wt7yofvt]
(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1)to incite a riot; or
(2)to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3)to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4)to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

<< subsequent parts omitted >>

This seems easier to prove than Seditious Conspiracy, even if in many cases it is less appropriate because it appears that they very much intended to prevent the lawful process of counting the EV's and officially recognizing the election of the President.

 

[thekaj]

Witness lineup for tomorrow’s 10 am Eastern (7 am Pacific, ugh) hearing:

— Ex-Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien
— Ex-Fox News Political Editor Chris Stirewalt
— Attorney Benjamin Ginsberg
— Ex-US Attorney BJay Pak
— Ex-Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt

This is the “election wasn’t stolen” hearing. It’ll be interesting to see if Stepien is a hostile witness or not. Stirewalt will likely testify about getting fired by Fox News for calling AZ for Biden and refusing to backtrack on that. Ginsberg will likely testify about how absurd all of Trump’s legal arguments were. Pak will probably talk about how he was told he was going to be fired if he didn’t claim that there were irregularities in the Georgia election. Schmidt is the Republican election commissioner in Philly who actively refuted Trump’s claims of irregularities there.

Should be a good summary of why the election wasn’t stolen, and that it wasn’t even a near thing.

 

[Carhole]

Did Schmidt ever come forward with reports of coercion by Trump as Raffensperger did? If not, this would be an excellent time for that very public revelation.

 

[thekaj]

I don’t think Schmidt ever got pressured like those in Georgia did. He came out rather strongly on the “there’s no fraud here” side of things, so maybe Trump knew trying to lean on him wouldn’t work.

Looks like Stepien had a “family emergency” and won’t testify today. Yeah, pull the other one. But the hearing has been delayed a bit as a result.

 

[Louis XVI]

I don’t think Schmidt ever got pressured like those in Georgia did. He came out rather strongly on the “there’s no fraud here” side of things, so maybe Trump knew trying to lean on him wouldn’t work.

Looks like Stepien had a “family emergency” and won’t testify today. Yeah, pull the other one. But the hearing has been delayed a bit as a result.

Family emergency looks legit this time—his wife went into labor. They’ll just use his filmed deposition testimony instead today.

 

[bluloo]

It also seems clear at this point that they’re attempting to make a case for criminal charges against Trump, though they have no authority to do so themselves.

For whatever that’s worth.

 

[thekaj]

I don’t think Schmidt ever got pressured like those in Georgia did. He came out rather strongly on the “there’s no fraud here” side of things, so maybe Trump knew trying to lean on him wouldn’t work.

Looks like Stepien had a “family emergency” and won’t testify today. Yeah, pull the other one. But the hearing has been delayed a bit as a result.

Family emergency looks legit this time—his wife went into labor. They’ll just use his filmed deposition testimony instead today.

Oh how convenient. They probably induced! They knew these hearings would happen now and made sure to get pregnant 9 months ago!!! </tinfoil>

The Committee is doing a pretty good job adjusting to this. I'm sure that 45 minute delay was filled with a lot of swearing by the AV team. They are definitely dragging Giuliani. They started off asserting that he was drunk on election night, giving Trump advice to declare victory when no one else wanted him to do that, and then continued on with pretty much everyone outside of Sidney Powell noting that not only did everyone else disagree with what Rudy was saying, but they all thought he was nuts. They just had Barr noting that it felt like whack-a-mole with all the claims Giuliani was coming up with, and he ended up just dismissing them out of hand.

Also Jared is just such a sniveling worm. I know these are just bits of depositions, but there's a night and day difference between everyone else's testimony, where they're using full sentences to answer questions, and Jared taking long pauses before stammering out a couple word response to things like "do you recall what you said to Trump about what you thought about Giuliani's theories?"

Edit: If Fox News is actually covering this one (I haven't checked to see if they are), this is really good. They're going through a whole bunch of specific claims of election fraud and having people within the Trump campaign and administration and discrediting all of them. I'm sure a lot of Fox News viewers are going to dismiss this out of hand, but I heavily doubt that they've even heard the rebuttals before. Standard Fox strategy has always been to blast the allegations and then either ignore that they were discredited, or barely mention it.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

It's telling to me that there's a plethora of attorneys, a profession well-versed in spinning narratives in their client's favor, making up so much of "Team Normal."

 

[Starbuck79]

Edit: If Fox News is actually covering this one (I haven't checked to see if they are), this is really good. They're going through a whole bunch of specific claims of election fraud and having people within the Trump campaign and administration and discrediting all of them. I'm sure a lot of Fox News viewers are going to dismiss this out of hand, but I heavily doubt that they've even heard the rebuttals before. Standard Fox strategy has always been to blast the allegations and then either ignore that they were discredited, or barely mention it.

This also could be the key to Criminal Action, if those in the admin KNEW that the election was valid but knowingly liked to rile up the crowds.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Heck now they're focusing on the (knowing) use of fake voter fraud rhetoric to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for non-campaign purposes.
Could be prepping charges of just plain old fraud.

 

[thekaj]

Very good point just made by the talking heads on CNN. Bill Stepien being the "voice of reason" and on "Team Normal", trying to tell Trump that he lost the election... he's currently working on the campaign of the Republican trying to primary Liz Cheney, because of her refusal to go along with the Big Lie.

So just a reminder that a number of these people telling the truth under oath are happy to continue milking the Big Lie because that remains the official stance of the Republican Party.

 

[bluloo]

Very good point just made by the talking heads on CNN. Bill Stepien being the "voice of reason" and on "Team Normal", trying to tell Trump that he lost the election... he's currently working on the campaign of the Republican trying to primary Liz Cheney, because of her refusal to go along with the Big Lie.

So just a reminder that a number of these people telling the truth under oath are happy to continue milking the Big Lie because that remains the official stance of the Republican Party.

Everyone has to eat and keep a roof over their heads. So much of politics is opportunism, spun from threads of pure, artisanal bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 14629]

Well, this one did a good job of establishing the fact that Trump knew this was bullshit and ran into the bullshit to undermine the election. It's not surprising, of course, but it's good to hear it direct from people that were talking to Trump.

I can see why they put this one at 10 am, though. It's not as "interesting" and the key takeaways are easy soundbites for the news. It's more establishing his frame of mind and evidence he knew it wasn't stolen than anything else.

 

[thekaj]

Very good point just made by the talking heads on CNN. Bill Stepien being the "voice of reason" and on "Team Normal", trying to tell Trump that he lost the election... he's currently working on the campaign of the Republican trying to primary Liz Cheney, because of her refusal to go along with the Big Lie.

So just a reminder that a number of these people telling the truth under oath are happy to continue milking the Big Lie because that remains the official stance of the Republican Party.

Everyone has to eat and keep a roof over their heads. So much of politics is opportunism, spun from threads of pure, artisanal bullshit.

Yeah, but there's dozens of competitive House races that don't involve primary challenges to the most visible Republican who's led the resistance to Trump's lies that Stepien could have been hired as a consultant for. As the former campaign manager for a presidential campaign, even being Trump's campaign, I highly doubt he had to be a consultant on THIS race to make sure his new baby could eat.

Anyway, hot take from today's hearing is that they most certainly made the case that Trump was told repeatedly and forcefully that he had lost the election. This wasn't a case where he was constantly in a yes-man bubble and was never told the truth. In fact, he sought out people who would create that bubble for him, so he could tune out the people telling him no.

Of course, the legal issue still remains that Trump could have "strongly believed" that he won, and that he only lost via fraud. There was a very good segment where they showed Barr saying he specifically explained a story about how there had been a ballot dump in Detroit that shifted the numbers there as part of the completely normal process, only for Trump to later use that exact story as "proof" of fraud. Normally you could point to a person being told something is a lie, only for that person to continue telling it as proof as evidence of their bad intent. Unfortunately, it's a rather common trait of someone who's clinically narcissistic. I used to have very similar conversations with my dad, where I'd tell him something that didn't fit with what he wanted reality to be. He'd acknowledge it at the time. But within days, he would act like he had never heard it, going right back to how he wanted things to be. And there wasn't malicious intent. His brain literally would make him forget the things he didn't want to hear. And I imagine it was likely maddening for the people trying to convince Trump he lost fair and square. As they noted, there were hundreds of these false claims. Each time they batted one down, he'd bring up another one. And by the time they'd explained away all the ones he brought up, his brain had cleared out the first ones.

I still don't think that's enough to NOT charge him with any crimes. Even if it does ultimately get him off. His own lawyers arguing the idea that Trump isn't capable of retaining information he doesn't want to hear and a jury believing that would be campaign fodder gold for all the Republicans trying to get the courage to run against him in 2024. It won't matter a bit once it gets to the general election, but the likes of DeSantis, Christie, and a few others pounding away during the GOP primary about how Trump is legally delusional might actually get a significant number of Republicans to think twice about voting for him again (and unfortunately vote for a non-deranged Trump clone).

 

[U-99]

Really good WaPo summary: Inside the explosive Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ore-jan-6/



Trump was going for the electoral jugular with zero concerns beyond success of his gambit.

Edit: Subway autocorrect

 

[U-99]

Apparently Fox News cancelled advertising on Thursday to remove even the chance that viewers might flip elsewhere during commercials and watch the hearing. They're willing to give up revenue for their true goals.

 

[thekaj]

Really good WaPo summary: Inside the explosive Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ore-jan-6/



Trump was going for the electoral jugular with zero concerns beyond success of his gambit.

Edit: Subway autocorrect

Huh, I guess that provides an answer as to how a middling middle management lawyer almost became acting AG, and also helps explain why Perry was angling for a pardon.

I'm actually still a bit surprised that Trump didn't just go forward with putting Clark in. Rosen threatening that there would be mass resignations at the DoJ, I would have thought, would have made Trump happy to flush out so many non-loyal people. I mean, he was orchestrating a coup. I'm not sure a bunch of lawyers quitting would have been much of a blip in the longer-term "Trump overturned the election" story.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

Because Trump isn't an adept strategist. He's a prehistoric Instagram influencer. He can't actually tell what helps him or hurts him, and Rosen apparently made a compelling case (which in Trump world probably means loudest and most expletive laden while simultaneously flattering him) that a bunch of DoJ lawyers resigning would "look bad".

 

[Technarch]

Apparently Fox News cancelled advertising on Thursday to remove even the chance that viewers might flip elsewhere during commercials and watch the hearing. They're willing to give up revenue for their true goals.

They are merely invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination.

 

[U-99]

I'm actually still a bit surprised that Trump didn't just go forward with putting Clark in. Rosen threatening that there would be mass resignations at the DoJ, I would have thought, would have made Trump happy to flush out so many non-loyal people. I mean, he was orchestrating a coup. I'm not sure a bunch of lawyers quitting would have been much of a blip in the longer-term "Trump overturned the election" story.

The article covers this: Trump went with his fall-back of strong-arming Pence. This fits his modus operandi of shying away from confrontations outside of Twitter and reality TV.

 

[TenaciousB]

Apparently Fox News cancelled advertising on Thursday to remove even the chance that viewers might flip elsewhere during commercials and watch the hearing. They're willing to give up revenue for their true goals.

Can you provide a source for that? A quick Googling didn't turn up anything (or my Google Fu is weak, entirely possible).

 

[karolus]

Apparently Fox News cancelled advertising on Thursday to remove even the chance that viewers might flip elsewhere during commercials and watch the hearing. They're willing to give up revenue for their true goals.

Can you provide a source for that? A quick Googling didn't turn up anything (or my Google Fu is weak, entirely possible).

Here's one source.