07-28-2021, 03:53 PM
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.
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.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
