Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Dill]

In the interest of developing our critical media literacy, I suggest the first thread devoted primarily to the hearings take "competing narratives" as its theme, so we get a better sense of how each sides develops and disseminates talking points, and the degree to which said talking points are corroborable within the data set offered by our press MSM and RW together.

I'll start here with some excerpts from an NPR article, then a follow up post focusing on RW talking points.

4 Takeaways From The Emotional 1st Select Committee Hearing On The Capitol Attack
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/1021113538/4-takeaways-from-the-emotional-1st-select-committee-hearing-on-the-capitol-attac

1. Officers point the finger at Trump for inciting supporters
U.S. Capitol Police Pfc. Harry Dunn said what happened on Jan. 6 was political and that those participating had a mission: "They literally were there to 'stop the steal,' " he said, using a phrase former President Donald Trump and his supporters invoked to falsely claim that the 2020 election results were illegitimate.
Dunn said he wants the committee to look at why rioters were there that day.
"If a hit man is hired and he kills somebody, the hit man goes to jail," he told the panel. "But not only does the hit man go to jail, but the person who hired them does. There was an attack carried out on Jan. 6, and [someone] sent them. I want you to get to the bottom of that."
Dunn, a Black officer who has been with the department for more than 14 years, said he was called the N-word after acknowledging to rioters that he voted for Joe Biden for president....

2. Murphy reveals rioters were 40 paces from two lawmakers
Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy, one of the seven Democrats on the nine-person committee, revealed for the first time Tuesday how close the throng of rioters came to her and New York Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice.
She described how the two lawmakers were holed up in a room in the basement of the Capitol, a location they thought would be the most secure in an emergency. But she said that the two were just "40 paces" from where Officer Hodges and others clashed with rioters attempting to breach the West Front entrance....

3. McCarthy's move to boycott the panel leaves Trump without a defense
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., made the call to pull all five members he named to the select committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vetoed two of them — Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana.
Pelosi's move was unprecedented because no leader had blocked another party from installing their members for a select committee, but she argued that the statements and actions from Jordan and Banks made it untenable for her to accept them. The resolution creating the panel gave the speaker the power to block GOP picks.
Instead, Pelosi tapped two Republicans, Wyoming's Liz Cheney and Illinois' Adam Kinzinger, who both voted to impeach Trump and have been strong critics of the former president....

4. The committee could subpoena the former president and other Republicans
Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., didn't rule out subpoenas for Trump and other senior White House officials, telling reporters after the hearing, "We will follow the facts." He indicated that the committee could schedule a hearing next month, even though the House is scheduled to take its regular August recess....
...........................................................................................................................................................

For the Dem side, the points seem to be that 

1. Trump incited the capitol riot and shirked his responsibility as C-o-C to quell it, 

2. that it was an insurrection (not just a "riot"), and there is a question of collusion between some of the rioters and some of the Republicans in Congress. 

3. Some also make explicit connections between the insurrection and White Supremacy, asserting WS was the ultimate driver for the most fanatical and violent of the insurrectionists.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/01/12/what-the-capitol-insurgency-reveals-about-white-supremacy-and-law-enforcement/

[Dill]

Previous to the hearing, Trump and others have questioned the ferocity of the attack and dismissed efforts to assign Trump responsibility. Georgia’s Andrew Clyde disputed the use of “insurrection” to describe the riot, since the government had not actually been overturned, and called the Russia investigation “the real insurrection.”  Ralph Norman (SC) questioned claims the rioters were indeed Trump supporters. A bit off that message, Paul Gosar (AZ) reminded everyone that it was a Trump supporter who was killed that day, apparently to counter the focus on the Sicknick’s death. https://www.axios.com/capitol-riot-gop-house-hearing-02499570-1dab-4dd8-82f0-18f2eccfb16f.html

As for the Republican Talking points, Hannity is my go to guy here.  His show last night (July 27), repeated the “Pelosi bears responsibility for attack.” (Why did six calls for guard help go unanswered?), but focused more on the BLM protest/Capitol insurrection equivalence, asserting Democrats have ignored and in some cases encouraged the violence we saw last summer. 

Emphasizing his “consistency” in condemning “all violence,” whether at the Capitol or elsewhere, Hannity demanded to why there had been no committee proposed to deal with those events. Why not investigate both, if “violence” is the issue? Rather than a partisan one sided show about violence at the capitol, which ignores the 574 riots last summer—including the one at Lafayette Park— Why not a commission to investigate both, if “violence” is really the issue?

Hannity thinks it’s not: the real goal is to smear the 70+ million who voted for Trump, casting them ALL as violent insurrectionists.

According to him, the four officers selected to speak had “activist” backgrounds and were vetted to further an anti-Trump agenda. https://www.thewrap.com/geraldo-rivera-hannity-gaslighting-january-6/

Newsmax commentator Grant Stinchfield says the video doesn’t back up officers claims their lives were in danger because “there were no guns.” Calling the hearings “political theater scripted by the Trump-hating left” he called Rep. Kinziger a “pansy” for crying in public. https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=336183721550393&_rdr

From these and other sources, a preliminary collection of talking points would be—

1. The goal of the hearing is NOT to “find out what happened” but to smear Trump supporters* and to accomplish what the Russia investigations and impeachments could not--the take down of Donald Trump. It's STILL about THAT.

2. Pelosi bears more responsibility than Trump for the insurrection.

3. The insurrection was not an insurrection but a riot. The difference in terms shifts focus from the attack on the transition of leader to an “violence” as equivalence. In consequence, the Capitol riots are comparable to last summer’s riots attending George Floyd protests. Dem hypocrisy now.

4. There is a conflict between the overdramatic testimony from “activist” police officers and what we see in the videos. Not really all THAT violent.

*A few Trump supporters question whether the rioters/insurrectionists were REALLY all Trump supporters, but Hannity, Tucker and Ingraham have been rather silent about the ideological bent of the crowd, condemning rather the "violence," which is what hypocritical Dems DON'T do when it's on their side.  

[*michaelsean*]

Not a big fan of the analogy to a hit man unless they show he told them to storm the Capitol and attack police.

Pelosi vetoing Republicans and replacing them with two people who voted to impeach is a bit shady.

[hollodero]

(07-28-2021, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Pelosi vetoing Republicans and replacing them with two people who voted to impeach is a bit shady.

I would agree in principle, but not in this particular case. The one guy said in advance that this committee is pointless and has to cover totally different issues instead. And Jim Jordan is an incendiary, ranting liar who clearly does not plan to add anything constructive, but to provide mendacious clips for FOX to show. Besides and maybe more importantly, he might be quite a material witness.

Liz Cheney agreed with not accepting him. I think that might indicate that it's probably rather reasonable than shady to at least try to keep this thing from turning into a phony shitshow.

I'd also add that the democrats tried their best to form a bipartisan committee, which the Republicans voted down. They don't get to point to the not so bipartisan nature of the committee that was formed instead.

[Dill]

(07-28-2021, 04:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: I would agree in principle, but not in this particular case. The one guy said in advance that this committee is pointless and has to cover totally different issues instead. And Jim Jordan is an incendiary, ranting liar who clearly does not plan to add anything constructive, but to provide mendacious clips for FOX to show. Besides and maybe more importantly, he might be quite a material witness.

Liz Cheney agreed with not accepting him. I think that might indicate that it's probably rather reasonable than shady to at least try to keep this thing from turning into a phony shitshow.

I'd also add that the democrats tried their best to form a bipartisan committee, which the Republicans voted down. They don't get to point to the not so bipartisan nature of the committee that was formed instead.

Though the choice would have been indefensible, I wonder if keeping Jordan might worked in the Dems favor.

One the one hand you have the video and police officers describing the violence and clear pro-Trump ranting, 

and other other Jordan would be doing what?--asserting the rioters were "allowed" into the Capitol and most were walking peacefully through the halls after they'd broken through doors and windows? 

If he was shrilling claiming all this was theater to discredit Trump and his supporters, mightn't that have contrasted with the rest of the speakers and illustrated the fanaticism of the moment and the continued Trump response?  

[Dill]

(07-28-2021, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not a big fan of the analogy to a hit man unless they show he told them to storm the Capitol and attack police.

Pelosi vetoing Republicans and replacing them with two people who voted to impeach is a bit shady.

Hannity stumped Geraldo Rivera last night by continually asking him what he made of Trump's statement that the protestors should go "peacefully" to the Capitol.

Rivera did not respond well, referencing his "deep belief" that Trump knew who was in his audience (e.g., 3%ers and Oath Keepers). 

For Hannity, the words totally exonerated Trump. 

Were I Geraldo, I'd have mentioned the many things Trump said before about the "steal" and the pressure needed on Mike Pence to do the right thing to "take our country back."  He essentially gave the crowd an address and a target, if they did not want to lose their country.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2021, 04:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: I would agree in principle, but not in this particular case. The one guy said in advance that this committee is pointless and has to cover totally different issues instead. And Jim Jordan is an incendiary, ranting liar who clearly does not plan to add anything constructive, but to provide mendacious clips for FOX to show. Besides and maybe more importantly, he might be quite a material witness.

Liz Cheney agreed with not accepting him. I think that might indicate that it's probably rather reasonable than shady to at least try to keep this thing from turning into a phony shitshow.

I'd also add that the democrats tried their best to form a bipartisan committee, which the Republicans voted down. They don't get to point to the not so bipartisan nature of the committee that was formed instead.

Which is why I probably shouldn’t comment. I’m generally only aware of what is presented here

[*michaelsean*]

(07-28-2021, 04:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Hannity stumped Geraldo Rivera last night by continually asking him what he made of Trump's statement that the protestors should go "peacefully" to the Capitol.

Rivera did not respond well, referencing his "deep belief" that Trump knew who was in his audience (e.g., 3%ers and Oath Keepers). 

For Hannity, the words totally exonerated Trump. 

Were I Geraldo, I'd have mentioned the many things Trump said before about the "steal" and the pressure needed on Mike Pence to do the right thing to "take our country back."  He essentially gave the crowd an address and a target, if they did not want to lose their country.

It certainly gives you reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Dill]

(07-28-2021, 04:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It certainly gives you reasonable doubt in a court of law.

lol Everyone who hires a 'hitman' knows that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It's nice to see Democrats caring about law enforcement for a change. And of course this was motivated by white supremacy, white supremacy is responsible for everything bad that happens in this country and all white people should feel responsible for it. As far as an insurrection, that's a huge stretch. After all, no one in the crowd had an F-15 or a nuclear weapon.


I hope anyone who actively encouraged this incident is held responsible. And by actively encouraging them I don't mean repeating the "big lie", I mean telling people to storm the capitol or assisting them in doing so. But let's also be real about this, Pelosi is using these hearings as much for political theatre as she is about getting to the truth, hence her appointment of Cheney. Of course, it also helps promote Biden's newly stated agenda that he has to enact much more gun control because domestic extremists (i.e. white supremacists only, not Antifa or any left leaning group of course) can use them to commit acts of terror.

[hollodero]

(07-28-2021, 04:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Though the choice would have been indefensible, I wonder if keeping Jordan might worked in the Dems favor.

One the one hand you have the video and police officers describing the violence and clear pro-Trump ranting, 

and other other Jordan would be doing what?--asserting the rioters were "allowed" into the Capitol and most were walking peacefully through the halls after they'd broken through doors and windows? 

If he was shrilling claiming all this was theater to discredit Trump and his supporters, mightn't that have contrasted with the rest of the speakers and illustrated the fanaticism of the moment and the continued Trump response?  

I tend to have similar responses to things like that. I get your logic. I don't think your logic matters, or that pinning Jordan in any kind of corner or contradiction would matter. It didn't matter until now, I don't think any event in any hearings will change that.

If Jordan is on this committee, he would give his incoherent rants and ramblings, peppered with accusations of Godknowswhat, Fox et al. would only repeat those as the essence of the matter and whoever wants to believe in the truth of these ramblings in advance will do so, no matter how illogical these words might be.

Everyone who cares has made up his mind according to his initial belief or allegiance already anyway. It's only about talking points.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-28-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's nice to see Democrats caring about law enforcement for a change. And of course this was motivated by white supremacy, white supremacy is responsible for everything bad that happens in this country and all white people should feel responsible for it. As far as an insurrection, that's a huge stretch. After all, no one in the crowd had an F-15 or a nuclear weapon.


I hope anyone who actively encouraged this incident is held responsible. And by actively encouraging them I don't mean repeating the "big lie", I mean telling people to storm the capitol or assisting them in doing so. But let's also be real about this, Pelosi is using these hearings as much for political theatre as she is about getting to the truth, hence her appointment of Cheney. Of course, it also helps promote Biden's newly stated agenda that he has to enact much more gun control because domestic extremists (i.e. white supremacists only, not Antifa or any left leaning group of course) can use them to commit acts of terror.

How is this political theater? Political theater would have been giving the party of Trump what they wanted and having Jim and MTG on the committee. Count me in the group who wants to hold people responsible for a direct attack on the governing body of my country and be very thorough in looking at how things got so far.

Are you saying you don’t think a bunch of racist assholes were in the crowd that day?

Luckily there is a gun ban in DC right? Is that what saved us from a bunch of people getting shot that day? Did a gun ban work? Maybe we should look in to that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-28-2021, 08:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How is this political theater? Political theater would have been giving the party of Trump what they wanted and having Jim and MTG on the committee. Count me in the group who wants to hold people responsible for a direct attack on the governing body of my country and be very thorough in looking at how things got so far.

Reread the comment, it's both.  Should this incident be looked into, absolutely.  But you're insanely naïve if you don't think Pelosi is playing this up to make political hay.

Quote:Are you saying you don’t think a bunch of racist assholes were in the crowd that day?

What is a bunch?  I'm sure there were some, just like I'm sure there are some at every BLM rally and Antifa protest.  Do I think that the crowd as a whole was motivated by racial hatred, no.  

Quote:Luckily there is a gun ban in DC right? Is that what saved us from a bunch of people getting shot that day? Did a gun ban work? Maybe we should look in to that?

One need only look at the murder and violent crime rate in DC to answer that question.  But, I'll give you a direct answer.  Absolutely not.


I do appreciate you're not trying to argue against the sudden 180 on the Dems view of law enforcement.  I guess they aren't all racist oppressors itching to kill minorities when their saving your ass eh?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-28-2021, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Reread the comment, it's both.  Should this incident be looked into, absolutely.  But you're insanely naïve if you don't think Pelosi is playing this up to make political hay.



What is a bunch?  I'm sure there were some, just like I'm sure there are some at every BLM rally and Antifa protest.  Do I think that the crowd as a whole was motivated by racial hatred, no.  


One need only look at the murder and violent crime rate in DC to answer that question.  But, I'll give you a direct answer.  Absolutely not.


I do appreciate you're not trying to argue against the sudden 180 on the Dems view of law enforcement.  I guess they aren't all racist oppressors itching to kill minorities when their saving your ass eh?

The majority of dems were not for defunding the police. There were a couple outliers and the main stream right wing media picked up that narrative and continues to play it on repeat. Meanwhile the self professed law and order party waving back the blue and thin blue line flags have an overwhelming majority who don’t even want to investigate an attack on our democracy that involved dozens if not hundreds of current and former LEOs who assaulted our capital after listening to various republican law makers whose intent was overturning our democratic election results and it ended up getting multiple people killed. I see the 180. Do you?

[Vas Deferens]

I think it’s more “political theatre” to not want this investigation, even the previously proposed bipartisan effort shot down by the GOP, than having a castrated version we’re seeing now that Mitch and Kev “didn’t have time to watch”.

Despicable. Not everyone on the grounds needs to be prosecuted. Those who entered do. Those who organized even more so. Why is that so hard? It’s literally the law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-28-2021, 11:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The majority of dems were not for defunding the police. There were a couple outliers and the main stream right wing media picked up that narrative and continues to play it on repeat.

At the national level you have somewhat of a point.  However, even there a not insignificant number of Dems vocally, and repeatedly, backed defunding the police.  A large percentage of those continue to do so to this day.  However, at the local level you are utterly wrong.  At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so.  A larger percentage of those areas have recognized what a disaster this is already becoming and are backing off, but not all.  That in no way absolves them from buying into it in the first place.

Quote:Meanwhile the self professed law and order party waving back the blue and thin blue line flags have an overwhelming majority who don’t even want to investigate an attack on our democracy that involved dozens if not hundreds of current and former LEOs who assaulted our capital after listening to various republican law makers whose intent was overturning our democratic election results and it ended up getting multiple people killed. I see the 180. Do you?

First of all, 100's of LEO's participated in the capitol riot?  Please cite any source claiming a number even remotely close to this.  As to the rest, more people died over the course of the riots during 2020, but those were "mostly peaceful".  Given that the vast majority of people involved in the initial protest did not participate in the riot wouldn't that make their protest "mostly peaceful"?  Additionally, wasn't an unarmed woman killed by law enforcement during that riot?  Don't we hear all the time about unarmed "people of color" killed by law enforcement?  Maybe we should realize that unarmed is not synonymous with not dangerous and stop repeating this inane talking point when it comes to law enforcement.

I'll leave it at this as I honestly am not trying to derail the thread.  I'd have a lot more faith in this probe if it weren't for the radically different views of law enforcement and their response by the Dems in this incident versus virtually every single other one, e.g. the girl killed in Ohio while trying to stab someone.  This extreme level of hypocrisy rankles and I'm not going to ignore it.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-29-2021, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so.  A larger percentage of those areas have recognized what a disaster this is already becoming and are backing off, but not all.  That in no way absolves them from buying into it in the first place.

Larger than 100%?

Quote: Please cite any source claiming a number even remotely close to this.

Can you do the same for your claim about dems 'defunding the police'?

I doubt that is even the case for CA. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2021, 11:38 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Larger than 100%?

A larger percentage of local governments have gone back on "defund the police" than those who advocated it at a national level.  I thought that was clear, I guess not.

Quote:Can you do the same for your claim about dems 'defunding the police'?

I doubt that is even the case for CA. 

Oh man, easily.

https://crosscut.com/news/2021/06/police-funding-seattle-council-members-worry-theyre-losing-momentum

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-ore-leaders-walk-tightrope-between-calls-defund-police-escalating-n1272196

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/06/24/oakland-city-council-votes-defund-police-stripping-17-million-department-budget/

https://www.kqed.org/news/11862094/sf-mayor-breed-unveils-plan-for-reinvesting-120-million-from-police-into-black-communities

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019413198/minneapolis-policing-is-caught-between-the-defund-movement-and-violent-crimes-ri

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/07/20/democratic-mayors-defunded-their-police-while-spending-millions-on-their-own-police-protection/?sh=129e50fed86b

https://missouriindependent.com/2021/07/20/st-louis-mayor-tishaura-jones-reflects-on-success-challenges-of-first-100-days/

https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/interim-chief-austin-police-department-in-dire-crisis-after-defunding/article_f1cf3332-e8b2-11eb-a76c-afc3b5f2ca55.html

[Dill]

(07-28-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's nice to see Democrats caring about law enforcement for a change.  And of course this was motivated by white supremacy, white supremacy is responsible for everything bad that happens in this country and all white people should feel responsible for it.  As far as an insurrection, that's a huge stretch.  After all, no one in the crowd had an F-15 or a nuclear weapon.

I hope anyone who actively encouraged this incident is held responsible.  And by actively encouraging them I don't mean repeating the "big lie", I mean telling people to storm the capitol or assisting them in doing so.  But let's also be real about this, Pelosi is using these hearings as much for political theatre as she is about getting to the truth, hence her appointment of Cheney.  Of course, it also helps promote Biden's newly stated agenda that he has to enact much more gun control because domestic extremists (i.e. white supremacists only, not Antifa or any left leaning group of course) can use them to commit acts of terror.

It's hard to imagine any kind of insurrection accountability hearing by anyone which would or could not be construed as "political theater." Though at the moment there is no reason to suppose that theater is "really" the driver of an investigation into a mob's breach of the Capitol building during electoral certification, that that's all this is, and that Dems more than Republicans want theater. 

If "theater" were REALLY the point, why pick Cheney over Jordan or Gaetz? Which appointment more likely serves "getting to the truth"? 

And it's hard to imagine a scenario in which "getting to the truth" of a Trump-inspired insurrection would not promote any Biden agenda, newly stated or otherwise.  Of course Dems will be more "unfair" to white supremacists than anti-fascists.  Thank god. But until Biden calls together a bunch of Biden-flag waving ANTIFA on a specific date and gins them up to attack gov. property, there is little point in equivalence.  "Both sides" don't do it.

If a bunch of Trump-flag waving terrorists are incited by the Republican party leader to storm the Capitol building then, yes, in a two-party system such as ours, getting at the "truth" will serve Dem purposes. That's why it is unwise to hand them such gifts, forcing the party of law and order to stand against law and order.

Republicans and other right-winger supporters should be thinking about this as another example of their leader's terrible judgment, backing them into yet another corner, rather than just Dem political theater that somehow came out of nowhere. 

But they cannot without setting a precedent which could unravel the whole alternative narrative comprising the Russia investigations, the impeachments, and the Big Lie. 

[Dill]

(07-28-2021, 07:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I tend to have similar responses to things like that. I get your logic. I don't think your logic matters, or that pinning Jordan in any kind of corner or contradiction would matter. It didn't matter until now, I don't think any event in any hearings will change that.

If Jordan is on this committee, he would give his incoherent rants and ramblings, peppered with accusations of Godknowswhat, Fox et al. would only repeat those as the essence of the matter and whoever wants to believe in the truth of these ramblings in advance will do so, no matter how illogical these words might be.

Everyone who cares has made up his mind according to his initial belief or allegiance already anyway. It's only about talking points.

I agree with this up to the last statement.

I'd say that storming the Capitol put in play a significant fraction of voters who were right or leaning right among "independents" and some even in the Trump camp. Hence the desperation to fix the narrative that this is just another witch hunt to get Trump and smear all Trump voters/sympathizers. More Dem theater.

PS I wasn't suggesting Jordan be "pinned" in some kind of logical contradiction. Rather the shrill tone and ham-fisted gas lighting would daily tend to define the Trump defense across the different media spheres--in contrast with very strong visual evidence and the words of the Republican leadership immediately after the breach.