If 20 million tuned into last Thursday (and fewer, but still millions on Monday), at least some will be persuadable Republicans. Hard to know how many. But the anti-Trump editorials on the NY Post and Wall Street Journal--both Murdoch-owned--and Fox deciding to carry Monday's hearing suggest things might be in more flux in the GOP.
NOTHING, yet, COMPARES TO JONATHAN ALTER’S BEING THERE-TYPE REPORT, WITH HIS HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE AND FAIRNESS.
[As a veteran broadcast journalist (Emmy for CBS News Watergate Coverage, for example) and long-time candidate and presidential television advisor, I much regretted an urgent previous commitment that kept me away from observing (and covering for a very respected San Diego news site) the 2ND JUNE 6TH HEARING AND SUBSEQUENT BROADCAST COVERAGE. Trying to catch up intermittently--via NPR and even the next day’s "NY TIMES”--was almost do-able].
I think Trump is as bad as you do, but I am troubled by your use of the word "lie." Just because everyone told Trump he'd lost fair and square, how do you know he believed them? In order for a statement to be a lie, the speaker must know s/he is stating an untruth. I haven't seen any evidence that indicates that Trump knew there was no fraud-- only that he was told it.
You raise a deep question that historians will wrestle over. My first boss and mentor--the legendary Charlie Peters--liked to say that all great con men believe their own cons. Trump fits this description. And yet he says so much that's untrue that it creates a disorienting fog of lies--literally thousands documented during his presidency. If you say intentionality is the only standard, you have given into the lying bully. Hitler truly believed Jews were destroying the world. But that doesn't mean this wasn't a lie. Maybe by your standard we need to distinguish between "lying"--which convey intent-- and "spreading lies," which relates to falsity and dissemnination.
Thanks for responding. Intentionality is the only standard for using the term "lie": it is not necessarily the standard for determining guilt or moral depravity. "Recklessness" is an accepted legal standard for finding guilt in the absence of intent. I am not looking to let Trump off the hook. His egregious and likely criminal behavior has hurt many and is damaging this country. I just think it's important to maintain the integrity of language. And from a practical point of view, I don't want to give the Trump-loving Right any more ammunition in its propaganda campaign-- it is depressingly effective in its use of our terms against us ("Black Lives Matter," "Critical Race Theory," "Gun Control,"...). Thanks for your lifetime of good work!
Willful ignorance does not absolve one from culpability. For instance, if Trump refused to react to red traffic lights by claiming that they are actually green, would he be entitled to ignore them?
Good point, JoAnne. Or if the president of a bank went up to a teller and said "find me" $11,780 that I believe is mine even if there is no record backing that up.
I'm not sure I get the parallel. All I'm saying is he didn't lie; or at least no one has introduced any evidence that he lied. As to his culpability, that would depend on whether he is being charged with lying. One is guilty of running a red light even if she honestly thought it was green. I'm all for him being found culpable of anything and everything! Except lying...
I have no doubt he lies all the time. That doesn't mean he lied this time. Words matter to me. Agreement on the definition of words helps keep societies together. Plus, miscasting what Trump did only empowers the right-wing propaganda machine. To the degree the Right is winning it is because they are using our words against us.
Wonderful piece. But really, you didn't see Trump as a grifter whose presidency itself was a scam? The man's entire life has been nothing but one rip-off scheme after another. I'm hoping that the hearings will open people's eyes to what Donald Trump really is. It may be that he wants people to think he really believes his own lies, but don't think for a moment that he's a delusional old poop - if you're tempted to let your mind slip in that direction, just remember the $250 million.
No, I was well aware of his history as a grifter. I live in New York and he once threatened to sue me for my part in a documentary about his sleaziness. I knew it pervaded his presidency. I just didn't see it as part of Jan 6 until this week's revelations. Silly me.
Trump is a thug. He's always been a thug, and his compulsion to sue people as a form of bullying is infamous. The people he sues are smaller, less wealthy and less able to fight back.
I think the biggest dilemma for the public is whether they want to believe Trump really is non compos mentis, and thus cannot be held accountable for his actions leading up to Jan. 6th. All one needs to do is look at his history to make that determination. He's possibly delusional, but he's sane - and a danger to the country. That's all we need to know to keep him from returning to the presidency.
Excellent analysis/condensation, Jon. It beats anything I've seen on the tube, and certainly beats sitting there watching the hearing for multiple hours -- as you chose to do on our behalf. The case against Trump is clear; what remains to be seen is whether that will finally bring any consequences for him -- as nothing has ever previously done throughout his decades of grift, lies and illegality.
Good commentary, Jon. Like reading a book, but with the punch of immediacy. You’re telling the story as the evidence unfolds on the table in almost real time. Wish we had that kind of narrative during the Watergate hearings. Thanks for your work.
Yawn. Nothing new uncovered in this boring partisan witch hunt.
This, sincerely hoping you are right.
Will do. Keep writing good stuff.
Yes, but are there any Persuadable republicans listening?
If 20 million tuned into last Thursday (and fewer, but still millions on Monday), at least some will be persuadable Republicans. Hard to know how many. But the anti-Trump editorials on the NY Post and Wall Street Journal--both Murdoch-owned--and Fox deciding to carry Monday's hearing suggest things might be in more flux in the GOP.
We need a Howard Baker for the 21st Century.
And remember, Stepian's moral compass is that Great White Shark that's been hanging out off the Jersey Shore.
Yes, Baker was a giant, as I explain in my Jimmy Carter bio (Baker helped Carter out on several important issues)....Like the shark ref!!
It's New Jersey. . .Thank you.
NOTHING, yet, COMPARES TO JONATHAN ALTER’S BEING THERE-TYPE REPORT, WITH HIS HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE AND FAIRNESS.
[As a veteran broadcast journalist (Emmy for CBS News Watergate Coverage, for example) and long-time candidate and presidential television advisor, I much regretted an urgent previous commitment that kept me away from observing (and covering for a very respected San Diego news site) the 2ND JUNE 6TH HEARING AND SUBSEQUENT BROADCAST COVERAGE. Trying to catch up intermittently--via NPR and even the next day’s "NY TIMES”--was almost do-able].
THANK YOU, JON!
Thanks, Barry! Glad I could be of a little help.
I think Trump is as bad as you do, but I am troubled by your use of the word "lie." Just because everyone told Trump he'd lost fair and square, how do you know he believed them? In order for a statement to be a lie, the speaker must know s/he is stating an untruth. I haven't seen any evidence that indicates that Trump knew there was no fraud-- only that he was told it.
You raise a deep question that historians will wrestle over. My first boss and mentor--the legendary Charlie Peters--liked to say that all great con men believe their own cons. Trump fits this description. And yet he says so much that's untrue that it creates a disorienting fog of lies--literally thousands documented during his presidency. If you say intentionality is the only standard, you have given into the lying bully. Hitler truly believed Jews were destroying the world. But that doesn't mean this wasn't a lie. Maybe by your standard we need to distinguish between "lying"--which convey intent-- and "spreading lies," which relates to falsity and dissemnination.
Thanks for responding. Intentionality is the only standard for using the term "lie": it is not necessarily the standard for determining guilt or moral depravity. "Recklessness" is an accepted legal standard for finding guilt in the absence of intent. I am not looking to let Trump off the hook. His egregious and likely criminal behavior has hurt many and is damaging this country. I just think it's important to maintain the integrity of language. And from a practical point of view, I don't want to give the Trump-loving Right any more ammunition in its propaganda campaign-- it is depressingly effective in its use of our terms against us ("Black Lives Matter," "Critical Race Theory," "Gun Control,"...). Thanks for your lifetime of good work!
Willful ignorance does not absolve one from culpability. For instance, if Trump refused to react to red traffic lights by claiming that they are actually green, would he be entitled to ignore them?
Good point, JoAnne. Or if the president of a bank went up to a teller and said "find me" $11,780 that I believe is mine even if there is no record backing that up.
I'm not sure I get the parallel. All I'm saying is he didn't lie; or at least no one has introduced any evidence that he lied. As to his culpability, that would depend on whether he is being charged with lying. One is guilty of running a red light even if she honestly thought it was green. I'm all for him being found culpable of anything and everything! Except lying...
He has no beliefs - he is completely transactional. He lies 1000% of the time.
I have no doubt he lies all the time. That doesn't mean he lied this time. Words matter to me. Agreement on the definition of words helps keep societies together. Plus, miscasting what Trump did only empowers the right-wing propaganda machine. To the degree the Right is winning it is because they are using our words against us.
Wonderful piece. But really, you didn't see Trump as a grifter whose presidency itself was a scam? The man's entire life has been nothing but one rip-off scheme after another. I'm hoping that the hearings will open people's eyes to what Donald Trump really is. It may be that he wants people to think he really believes his own lies, but don't think for a moment that he's a delusional old poop - if you're tempted to let your mind slip in that direction, just remember the $250 million.
No, I was well aware of his history as a grifter. I live in New York and he once threatened to sue me for my part in a documentary about his sleaziness. I knew it pervaded his presidency. I just didn't see it as part of Jan 6 until this week's revelations. Silly me.
Trump is a thug. He's always been a thug, and his compulsion to sue people as a form of bullying is infamous. The people he sues are smaller, less wealthy and less able to fight back.
I think the biggest dilemma for the public is whether they want to believe Trump really is non compos mentis, and thus cannot be held accountable for his actions leading up to Jan. 6th. All one needs to do is look at his history to make that determination. He's possibly delusional, but he's sane - and a danger to the country. That's all we need to know to keep him from returning to the presidency.
Terrific summary. Thank you, Jon.
Thanks, Mary!
Reps. Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney are the man and woman of the hour, but Sens. Sam Ervin and Howard Baker will live in our hearts forever.
(I guess it was the N. Carolina/Tennessee/Andy Griffith drawl that kept folks riveted to the TV screen in '73.)
Excellent analysis/condensation, Jon. It beats anything I've seen on the tube, and certainly beats sitting there watching the hearing for multiple hours -- as you chose to do on our behalf. The case against Trump is clear; what remains to be seen is whether that will finally bring any consequences for him -- as nothing has ever previously done throughout his decades of grift, lies and illegality.
Thanks, Ralph!
Good commentary, Jon. Like reading a book, but with the punch of immediacy. You’re telling the story as the evidence unfolds on the table in almost real time. Wish we had that kind of narrative during the Watergate hearings. Thanks for your work.
Thanks, Jim! Keep me posted on how things look politically in GA.....