Over the next few months there should be an unending flow of open hearings televised.

[shockey80]

The Democrats have so many people they can subpoena about so many crimes, it's impossible to count. There is no longer an excuse to wait. It's time to get serious and you do that with open hearings, Lots of them.

[Hoyt]

1. Honestly, rather than interrogating a bunch of witnesses on TV, I'd prefer

Seeing Democrats give a hard hitting report after the investigations, highlighting what they’ve found, with transcripts and video of important moments. Details and full hearings can be offered for those who want to view it.

Don’t think the hours and hours of hearings over the last two years have done a lot of good.

Most people aren’t like us, and aren’t going to watch it. Too much stuff we think is important and condemning, gets ignored as just politics as normal. The news reports of hearings are hard to control and get the truth out too.

[shockey80]

2. I must disagree with you.

When you have open hearings you never know what will be said, be found out. It's on video forever. It can be shown over and over again. The Democrats could hold dozens of open hearings with dozens of people about all the crimes that have been committed.

Open hearings are the key to educating the American people. They may not watch the hearing, but sooner than later they will see the high lites on the news.

[Hoyt]

3. I hear you, but when you don't know what will be said, it might hurt your case too.

And, the questioners often look hostile and fishing for something, if nothing damning comes up.

The last time they questioned Cohen, all that came out was that trump is a racist and a-hole. Most everyone knew that. And, white wingers said, “Hell yeah, that’s why we voted for him.”

[StarfishSaver]

6. You're right. This isn't 1973 when there were 4 networks

with all of them showing the same hearing gavel-to-gavel as a riveted nation watched together.

Not only are there several "news" sources spread out over the airwaves and electronic outlets, they would - and wouldn't - cover it in different ways. Most of them probably wouldn't show it gavel-to-gavel but would, instead show it in pieces with much more of the coverage beIng pundits talking about it like it's a sports match with a focus on optics and little attention to or analysis of what the witnesses actually said (just like they did Mueller). Many of the outlets will spin it to suit their purposes and viewed will watch the news source that confirms their already formed biases. And I'm sure that after a week or so, most of the news outlets would lose interest and move on to something else, dipping in occasionally to check on whether someone is saying something they think is interesting. enough to interrupt their discussion about Trump's latest tweet, Biden's latest gaffe, or why the white working class still feels neglected by the East Coast elites..

I'm not saying they shouldn't do hearings. But expecting them to be some kind of dramatic collective national experience that results in a seachange in public opinion is overly optimistic and assumes a different media, cultural, and olitical environment than we actually have.

[Duppers]

4. K & R

[kentuck]

5. Absolutely!

They should have them standing in a line to testify. If necessary, they should someone to jail. They need to show that they have the authority of the people of the United States. There are three equal branches of government, but one is more equal. It is the branch of the People.