Re: Laura Igraham. Why are her pleas to Meadows and her statement that not everyone at the Capitol that day were trump supporters mutually exclusive, much less a truth and a lie?
Re: Laura Igraham. Why are her pleas to Meadows and her statement that not everyone at the Capitol that day were trump supporters mutually exclusive, much less a truth and a lie?
Best analogy I could give would be the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. If Ann-Joy Reid was saying in texts that of course KR should be acquitted, but then went on TV and kept saying he CROSSED STATE LINES, then two things would be true at once:
1) both AJR's private and public statements would TECHNICALLY be accurate (Rittenhouse did cross state lines).
2) to privately acknowledge that KR wasn't guilty, but publicly stick to the CROSSED STATE LINES script, would be incredibly two-faced and disingenuous.
That's what's wrong with Laura Ingraham on J6. On TV, she was being two-faced and disingenuous by sticking to a script that she veered off of in her private correspondence.
My original point was confined to the point raised in the articled--the statement that possibly everyone at the Capitol that day were not trump supporters. I believe that specific reference was to what LI said on 1/6. Her rhetoric after 1/6 provides better examples of your point. There's no doubt that the Fox crew has been trying to play down the significance of 1/6 ever since 1/6. There is also no doubt that Fox's competitors have tried to overstate the significance of 1/6. None of them are particularly credible. The real problem with the Reid comparison is that she would never have simply said "he crossed state lines." She would have said that he "crossed state lines with an AR-15 rifle," which is demonstrably untrue.
I heard lefties being careful to say he "crossed state lines, and HAD an AR-15", which just barely stays onside the facts despite being deliberately misleading.
тАЬIt was self defenseтАж..but letтАЩs be realтАж.etc etc etcтАЭ
THAT is the comparison and sheтАЩd be right to say it.
Regardless, Laura Ingraham being тАЬtwo-facedтАЭ is not what we were promised. We were told that there was a text from Laura saying
тАЬMake sure they smash windows to intimidate congress!!!тАЭ
That didnтАЩt happen so now we are just arguing over how partisan Fox News is. ItтАЩs a fine argument to have, but itтАЩs also incredibly stupid if youтАЩre pretending to be a savior of democracy on the brink.
Depends on how much you think partisan media is driving hyperpolarization to a degree that makes democracy untenable. If you think media is destabilizing democracy, then both the Ingrahams of the world and the Joy-Reids of the world need to stop selling out pluralism for ratings.
I never heard any promises of Ingraham texting hoping for more violence, so I just saw her being concerned in private, but circling the wagons publicly.
If this was a lawsuit and we were deciding if we should call Fox News тАШFox EntertainmentтАЩ then youтАЩd have a point. But this isnтАЩt that. So you do not have a point.
This is allegedly an investigation into a domestic terror attack that was aimed at overthrowing the government.
In that context, if your bombshell is тАЬHannity is biasedтАЭ then I get to laugh at you. Understand?
Fox is a Republican hack network. ALSOтАжтАжthis is petty nonsense and I donтАЩt have to take it seriously.
I hope this committee keeps digging. I hope they find out whether or not Jim Jordan is friends with the pipe bomb guy. There are legitimate things to investigate here.
Kevin... "overthrowing the gov."...um, overthrowing the government. If you have children (maters not) but if, then you must have seen this "Overthrow Issue" many times , in your own house. ...i once had my niece somersault onto the coffee table...and smiled.
This particular substack article is how Fox News is so biased even THEY don't believe half the shit they say on TV. Hence, a night and day difference between Ingraham in texts vs. Ingraham on air.
Relevant quote from the article: "I guess I assumed Fox hosts believed what they were saying, even the lies. Naive of me."
So basically you are fully aware that the Republican Fox News hacks clearly said Jan 6th was bad both via text AND on TV but you wanted them to emphasize how bad it was on TV more?
Fox News is partisan. MSNBC straight up lied about what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse. ItтАЩs a bad comparison. LetтАЩs ditch that for now.
I hear you on the whataboutism part and now we need to talk about whataboutism.
The claim of тАШwhataboutismтАЩ is always made by people who donтАЩt want to be examined.
Rational thinking itself IS тАШwhataboutismтАЩ.
тАЬSo this is something but what about this? LetтАЩs consider the two options.тАЭ
ItтАЩs the definition of thinking.
I have heard examples of whataboutism where someone is actually trying to distract you from something but thatтАЩs incredibly rare. Normally, whataboutism is just a call for using your brain and the people who are offended by alleged whataboutism just do not want their actions to be examined.
"I have heard examples of whataboutism where someone is actually trying to distract you from something but thatтАЩs incredibly rare."
That right there is where we probably disagree the most. I would say distraction is the MOST common motive for engaging in whataboutism. (Side note: whataboutism is a colloquialism; the more formal term is the tu quoque fallacy).
If a person gets accused of something and they don't have a credible rebuttal of the accusation, they'll often instead mount a case that their accuser is equally guilty, or at least hypocritical.
If a progressive hears MSNBC accused of being partisan hacks, they'll often respond with "but what about Fox News?". And if a MAGA voter gets confronted with Donald "Grab em by the pussy" Trump bursting into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms, they'll often respond with "but what about Bill Clinton?". It's a rhetorical dodge to avoid getting stuck trying to defend the indefensible.
No. ThatтАЩs insane. In the case of Bill Clinton it is literally the most relevant thing you can come up with.
Q: тАЬCan we really have a President who barged into dressing rooms??тАЭ
A: тАЬYes the last guy was shoving cigars into a 22-year-old internтАЩs vagina and selling them to world leaders. Clearly this is not disqualifying.тАЭ
Bottom line is that тАШwhataboutismтАЩ is incredibly relevant information that exposes people who are full of shit. So thatтАЩs why they hate it.
If you tell me
тАЬBut Fox is worse than MSNBCтАЭ
IтАЩm not going to be a coward and claim that youтАЩre engaged in whataboutism. IтАЩm going to explain to you why they are both bad but MSNBC is clearly worse.
In other words, IтАЩm going to make an argument. Get it?
Laura IngrahamтАЩs text is premised on the belief that all those who entered the Capitol (IтАЩm trying to be non-judgmental as to each personтАЩs motive) were Trump supporters. She certainly drew no distinction and believed that a statement by Trump would end the drama.
If she had any information on Antifa or other agents provocateurs mixed in the crowd, she likely would have said that TrumpтАЩs calling for people to leave would expose the anti-Trumpets who stayed. That would have been a powerful argument. That she didnтАЩt make it, tells me she didnтАЩt believe it.
To my mind, the real question is why Don Jr. is texting Meadows. Did he not go directly to his father? And if not, why not? Was Meadows his second choice after being rebuffed?
No she just wanted Trump to make a statement because it was making him look bad to not condemn it faster.
There wasnтАЩt a Jumbotron for rioters to watch the statement. The riot did not end because of the statement and an earlier statement would not have ended it sooner. It was just optics for Trump.
Personally, I thought it was revealing that she wrote that the protestersтАЩ actions were тАЬmaking usтАЭ look bad, not necessarily Trump, but clearly Fox NewsтАЩ anchors who, with the possible exceptions of people like Chris Wallace, had taken very partisan positions in their reporting or editorializing. The concern seemed to be in part for their own continuing credibility.
As to whether the desired early statement by Trump would have ended things, we will never know. However, those who sent these panicked texts (both reporters and Republican members of Congress) apparently believed it would.
But IngrahamтАЩs (and others) quick attempt to paint the January 6 events as some mostly false flag operation, when contrasted to her text, is an obvious diversion. Sometimes things are just as they seem and one needs to admit it.
тАЬThe concern seemed to be in part for their own continuing credibility.тАЭ
тАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФ-
No thatтАЩs ridiculous. These people are partisan Republicans and this made Republicans/Trump look bad. That was their concern.
There are zero people who trusted Fox pre-Jan 6 who then stopped trusting Fox afterwards and nobody would have ever been concerned about that because if you try to imagine that person you immediately start laughing because itтАЩs farcical.
One of the very first pieces of information that came out was that the guy who sold the video of Ashli Babbit being shot to NBC was Antifa. ThatтАЩs where the false flag wrinkle came from. He absolutely was Antifa and thatтАЩs not disputed. It was clearly worth looking into.
An early statement would not have ended it. You do not think that it would have.
Since the concern as you express it was that they would тАЬlook bad,тАЭ that suggests they were concerned about their reputations and, implicitly, their credibility.
If one supported a person whose actions led, even if indirectly, to the spectacle of January 6, I would expect some level of soul searching to understand what went wrong. It could be seen as a breach of trust or perhaps still liking the ideas but objecting to the tactics. Or it could be a one-time pass or outright denial.
Everyone picks their own way through life, but these FOX News anchors knew something had gone terribly wrong and it seemed to them that President Trump was obligated to make right what he had set loose, regardless of what he may have intended in his heart of hearts.
She seemed to care enough about the scene she saw unfolding on the 6th to text the PresidentтАЩs Chief of Staff with a demand for action. I think the urgency of her text rather eloquently speaks for itself.
You are free, as you have been, to look at the same things I have and reach a different conclusion.
Speaks for itself how? That she thought it was bad and that it made Trump look bad? That isnтАЩt in dispute and never has been.
We are allegedly trying to get to the bottom of the crime of the century here. Laura Ingraham doing damage control for Republicans/Trump is the least surprising thing ever and it is not even marginally relevant.
This isnтАЩt the Laura Ingraham Credibility Committee. Bash away if you want but supposedly there is a higher purpose hereтАж..although IтАЩm beginning to think there absolutely isnтАЩt.
Did Republicans or Trump allies coordinate with the attackers and help them plan the attack? If that didnтАЩt happen the rest of this is nonsense and frankly somewhat pathetic.
While i follow your logic, i think it may be too much to have expected in the moment. Good question about Don Jr. Not the brightest bulb in the lamp and you know how daddy feels about "stupid" people...
ItтАЩs funny because the actual lie is that they are lying. The texts said it was bad and they said it was bad in public. Obviously itтАЩs a bit much to demand that they do an entire month of shows on how bad it was in order to be considered not lying. That isnтАЩt what the word тАШlyingтАЩ means.
There were other outlets going with an entire month on how bad it was. It was bad. It was obviously bad when it happened. Both Fox and the others acknowledged it was bad and then gave their audiences what they wanted, just as they always do on every single issue. Anyone who tires to condemn one and not the others is not credible.
I keep trying to see where people tell me Trump took his sabre and waved it in the direction of the Capitol and yelled, "Chhheeaaarge!" Until then, this looks like it went exactly as Nancy Pelosi, the mayor of DC, head of DC Police, and the IC wanted it to go. I'll always remember when I saw the police pull back the gates and all I could thinks was... "you idiots..." and "well freaking played."
And that purpose will end in 11 months. And she will be as irrelevant as Adam Kinzinger who is at least intelligent enough to know not to run again. And may as irrelevant and Steven Hayes (who also left FOX commentary) and Jonah Goldberg. The Never Trumpers stand for nothing but not liking Trump....which has little long term relevance.
Re: Laura Igraham. Why are her pleas to Meadows and her statement that not everyone at the Capitol that day were trump supporters mutually exclusive, much less a truth and a lie?
Best analogy I could give would be the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. If Ann-Joy Reid was saying in texts that of course KR should be acquitted, but then went on TV and kept saying he CROSSED STATE LINES, then two things would be true at once:
1) both AJR's private and public statements would TECHNICALLY be accurate (Rittenhouse did cross state lines).
2) to privately acknowledge that KR wasn't guilty, but publicly stick to the CROSSED STATE LINES script, would be incredibly two-faced and disingenuous.
That's what's wrong with Laura Ingraham on J6. On TV, she was being two-faced and disingenuous by sticking to a script that she veered off of in her private correspondence.
My original point was confined to the point raised in the articled--the statement that possibly everyone at the Capitol that day were not trump supporters. I believe that specific reference was to what LI said on 1/6. Her rhetoric after 1/6 provides better examples of your point. There's no doubt that the Fox crew has been trying to play down the significance of 1/6 ever since 1/6. There is also no doubt that Fox's competitors have tried to overstate the significance of 1/6. None of them are particularly credible. The real problem with the Reid comparison is that she would never have simply said "he crossed state lines." She would have said that he "crossed state lines with an AR-15 rifle," which is demonstrably untrue.
I heard lefties being careful to say he "crossed state lines, and HAD an AR-15", which just barely stays onside the facts despite being deliberately misleading.
I don't think they were all that careful, especially at first.
Yeah I'm thinking about after he was acquitted, and woke media still kept banging on about how he CROSSED STATE LINES
The straw grasping at that point was comical.
No you butchered that badly.
If Joy Reid said in a text
тАЬThat was obviously self defense by Kyle.тАЭ
and then during her broadcast she said
тАЬIt was self defenseтАж..but letтАЩs be realтАж.etc etc etcтАЭ
THAT is the comparison and sheтАЩd be right to say it.
Regardless, Laura Ingraham being тАЬtwo-facedтАЭ is not what we were promised. We were told that there was a text from Laura saying
тАЬMake sure they smash windows to intimidate congress!!!тАЭ
That didnтАЩt happen so now we are just arguing over how partisan Fox News is. ItтАЩs a fine argument to have, but itтАЩs also incredibly stupid if youтАЩre pretending to be a savior of democracy on the brink.
Depends on how much you think partisan media is driving hyperpolarization to a degree that makes democracy untenable. If you think media is destabilizing democracy, then both the Ingrahams of the world and the Joy-Reids of the world need to stop selling out pluralism for ratings.
I never heard any promises of Ingraham texting hoping for more violence, so I just saw her being concerned in private, but circling the wagons publicly.
Yeah this isnтАЩt the
тАШFox News Societal Polarization CommitteeтАЩ
If this was a lawsuit and we were deciding if we should call Fox News тАШFox EntertainmentтАЩ then youтАЩd have a point. But this isnтАЩt that. So you do not have a point.
This is allegedly an investigation into a domestic terror attack that was aimed at overthrowing the government.
In that context, if your bombshell is тАЬHannity is biasedтАЭ then I get to laugh at you. Understand?
Fox is a Republican hack network. ALSOтАжтАжthis is petty nonsense and I donтАЩt have to take it seriously.
I hope this committee keeps digging. I hope they find out whether or not Jim Jordan is friends with the pipe bomb guy. There are legitimate things to investigate here.
This ainтАЩt it.
Kevin... "overthrowing the gov."...um, overthrowing the government. If you have children (maters not) but if, then you must have seen this "Overthrow Issue" many times , in your own house. ...i once had my niece somersault onto the coffee table...and smiled.
This particular substack article is how Fox News is so biased even THEY don't believe half the shit they say on TV. Hence, a night and day difference between Ingraham in texts vs. Ingraham on air.
Relevant quote from the article: "I guess I assumed Fox hosts believed what they were saying, even the lies. Naive of me."
So basically you are fully aware that the Republican Fox News hacks clearly said Jan 6th was bad both via text AND on TV but you wanted them to emphasize how bad it was on TV more?
ThatтАЩs just ridiculous.
I wanted a lot less whataboutism. Not impressed by "mumble mumble this was bad mumble mumble OH LOOK OVER THERE ANTIFA!!!"
Hence the comparison to MSNBC hacks saying "mumble mumble Ritten house technically had a gun pointed at him first but HE CROSSED STATE LINES!!!"
Fox News is partisan. MSNBC straight up lied about what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse. ItтАЩs a bad comparison. LetтАЩs ditch that for now.
I hear you on the whataboutism part and now we need to talk about whataboutism.
The claim of тАШwhataboutismтАЩ is always made by people who donтАЩt want to be examined.
Rational thinking itself IS тАШwhataboutismтАЩ.
тАЬSo this is something but what about this? LetтАЩs consider the two options.тАЭ
ItтАЩs the definition of thinking.
I have heard examples of whataboutism where someone is actually trying to distract you from something but thatтАЩs incredibly rare. Normally, whataboutism is just a call for using your brain and the people who are offended by alleged whataboutism just do not want their actions to be examined.
"I have heard examples of whataboutism where someone is actually trying to distract you from something but thatтАЩs incredibly rare."
That right there is where we probably disagree the most. I would say distraction is the MOST common motive for engaging in whataboutism. (Side note: whataboutism is a colloquialism; the more formal term is the tu quoque fallacy).
If a person gets accused of something and they don't have a credible rebuttal of the accusation, they'll often instead mount a case that their accuser is equally guilty, or at least hypocritical.
If a progressive hears MSNBC accused of being partisan hacks, they'll often respond with "but what about Fox News?". And if a MAGA voter gets confronted with Donald "Grab em by the pussy" Trump bursting into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms, they'll often respond with "but what about Bill Clinton?". It's a rhetorical dodge to avoid getting stuck trying to defend the indefensible.
No. ThatтАЩs insane. In the case of Bill Clinton it is literally the most relevant thing you can come up with.
Q: тАЬCan we really have a President who barged into dressing rooms??тАЭ
A: тАЬYes the last guy was shoving cigars into a 22-year-old internтАЩs vagina and selling them to world leaders. Clearly this is not disqualifying.тАЭ
Bottom line is that тАШwhataboutismтАЩ is incredibly relevant information that exposes people who are full of shit. So thatтАЩs why they hate it.
If you tell me
тАЬBut Fox is worse than MSNBCтАЭ
IтАЩm not going to be a coward and claim that youтАЩre engaged in whataboutism. IтАЩm going to explain to you why they are both bad but MSNBC is clearly worse.
In other words, IтАЩm going to make an argument. Get it?
Laura IngrahamтАЩs text is premised on the belief that all those who entered the Capitol (IтАЩm trying to be non-judgmental as to each personтАЩs motive) were Trump supporters. She certainly drew no distinction and believed that a statement by Trump would end the drama.
If she had any information on Antifa or other agents provocateurs mixed in the crowd, she likely would have said that TrumpтАЩs calling for people to leave would expose the anti-Trumpets who stayed. That would have been a powerful argument. That she didnтАЩt make it, tells me she didnтАЩt believe it.
To my mind, the real question is why Don Jr. is texting Meadows. Did he not go directly to his father? And if not, why not? Was Meadows his second choice after being rebuffed?
No she just wanted Trump to make a statement because it was making him look bad to not condemn it faster.
There wasnтАЩt a Jumbotron for rioters to watch the statement. The riot did not end because of the statement and an earlier statement would not have ended it sooner. It was just optics for Trump.
Personally, I thought it was revealing that she wrote that the protestersтАЩ actions were тАЬmaking usтАЭ look bad, not necessarily Trump, but clearly Fox NewsтАЩ anchors who, with the possible exceptions of people like Chris Wallace, had taken very partisan positions in their reporting or editorializing. The concern seemed to be in part for their own continuing credibility.
As to whether the desired early statement by Trump would have ended things, we will never know. However, those who sent these panicked texts (both reporters and Republican members of Congress) apparently believed it would.
But IngrahamтАЩs (and others) quick attempt to paint the January 6 events as some mostly false flag operation, when contrasted to her text, is an obvious diversion. Sometimes things are just as they seem and one needs to admit it.
LOL at the idea of Chris Wallace being nonpartisan
Pre 1/6: тАЬI trust Laura Ingraham.тАЭ
Post 1/6: тАЬIтАЩve been deceived!!!тАЭ
ЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВ
(sorry I canтАЩt stop laughing at this concept)
I guess it depends on how you interpret the difference between her texted plea to Trump with her public talking points later the same day.
Yeah thatтАЩs because one was a text message and one was a 60 minute TV program. Both made it clear she thought it was a bad event.
I guess sheтАЩll know to text him her entire monologue next time.
In order to have her entire TV show be the exact same as the text message as you are bizarrely demanding, how does the TV show go?
тАЬWelcome to the Laura Ingraham Show. This riot made Trump look bad.тАЭ
*roll credits*
ЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВ
тАЬThe concern seemed to be in part for their own continuing credibility.тАЭ
тАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФтАФ-
No thatтАЩs ridiculous. These people are partisan Republicans and this made Republicans/Trump look bad. That was their concern.
There are zero people who trusted Fox pre-Jan 6 who then stopped trusting Fox afterwards and nobody would have ever been concerned about that because if you try to imagine that person you immediately start laughing because itтАЩs farcical.
One of the very first pieces of information that came out was that the guy who sold the video of Ashli Babbit being shot to NBC was Antifa. ThatтАЩs where the false flag wrinkle came from. He absolutely was Antifa and thatтАЩs not disputed. It was clearly worth looking into.
An early statement would not have ended it. You do not think that it would have.
Since the concern as you express it was that they would тАЬlook bad,тАЭ that suggests they were concerned about their reputations and, implicitly, their credibility.
If one supported a person whose actions led, even if indirectly, to the spectacle of January 6, I would expect some level of soul searching to understand what went wrong. It could be seen as a breach of trust or perhaps still liking the ideas but objecting to the tactics. Or it could be a one-time pass or outright denial.
Everyone picks their own way through life, but these FOX News anchors knew something had gone terribly wrong and it seemed to them that President Trump was obligated to make right what he had set loose, regardless of what he may have intended in his heart of hearts.
ItтАЩs worth noting that in order to get to the bottom of this Pearl Harbor Crime of the Century, we are speculating on Laura IngrahamтАЩs feelings.
This doesnтАЩt strike you as both frivolous and stupid?
ЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВ
(obviously itтАЩs still very possible for something of actual import to surface so I am leaving room for that)
She seemed to care enough about the scene she saw unfolding on the 6th to text the PresidentтАЩs Chief of Staff with a demand for action. I think the urgency of her text rather eloquently speaks for itself.
You are free, as you have been, to look at the same things I have and reach a different conclusion.
Speaks for itself how? That she thought it was bad and that it made Trump look bad? That isnтАЩt in dispute and never has been.
We are allegedly trying to get to the bottom of the crime of the century here. Laura Ingraham doing damage control for Republicans/Trump is the least surprising thing ever and it is not even marginally relevant.
This isnтАЩt the Laura Ingraham Credibility Committee. Bash away if you want but supposedly there is a higher purpose hereтАж..although IтАЩm beginning to think there absolutely isnтАЩt.
Did Republicans or Trump allies coordinate with the attackers and help them plan the attack? If that didnтАЩt happen the rest of this is nonsense and frankly somewhat pathetic.
While i follow your logic, i think it may be too much to have expected in the moment. Good question about Don Jr. Not the brightest bulb in the lamp and you know how daddy feels about "stupid" people...
ItтАЩs funny because the actual lie is that they are lying. The texts said it was bad and they said it was bad in public. Obviously itтАЩs a bit much to demand that they do an entire month of shows on how bad it was in order to be considered not lying. That isnтАЩt what the word тАШlyingтАЩ means.
There were other outlets going with an entire month on how bad it was. It was bad. It was obviously bad when it happened. Both Fox and the others acknowledged it was bad and then gave their audiences what they wanted, just as they always do on every single issue. Anyone who tires to condemn one and not the others is not credible.
I donтАЩt mind owning the cons and opportunistically ripping Fox News.
What I mind is when Liz Cheney pretends democracy is at stake and her committee is reading HannityтАЩs text messages.
If thereтАЩs a text from Trump to the buffalo helmet guy saying
тАЬAttack now!!тАЭ
then IтАЩm interested. This is just petty and dumb.
IтАЩm a huge fan of petty and dumb, just donтАЩt dress it up as something else because I shall call you on it.
ЁЯШВЁЯШВ
I keep trying to see where people tell me Trump took his sabre and waved it in the direction of the Capitol and yelled, "Chhheeaaarge!" Until then, this looks like it went exactly as Nancy Pelosi, the mayor of DC, head of DC Police, and the IC wanted it to go. I'll always remember when I saw the police pull back the gates and all I could thinks was... "you idiots..." and "well freaking played."
you got it...Dan, and thanks, cause i did not see (mostly none) of the TV covers. Yes, i also missed the OJ covers...just me.
Cheney is playing to an audience that will abandon her immediately after she has served their purpose. I thought she was supposed to be smart.
And that purpose will end in 11 months. And she will be as irrelevant as Adam Kinzinger who is at least intelligent enough to know not to run again. And may as irrelevant and Steven Hayes (who also left FOX commentary) and Jonah Goldberg. The Never Trumpers stand for nothing but not liking Trump....which has little long term relevance.