Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[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?