I watched the full Jack Smith subpoena hearing and the Republicans had no defense to offer...

[kentuck]

Each Party chose to have an attorney ask most of the questions.

The Republican strategy seemed to be to try and corner Jack Smith in some sort of contradiction and to collect names from him. They were obviously working for Trump's retribution campaign. They asked very few meaningful questions. They did not wish to get into the details about January 6 or the theft of documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Instead, they wanted to know who Smith talked to about this and that?

Democrats gave Smith the opportunity to spell out once again the crimes that Trump would have been charged with "beyond any reasonable doubt', and that they believed he would have been convicted.

Jamie Raskin asked one of the most interesting questions, in my opinion. He referenced Jack Smith's experience at the Hague and asked what was the difference in normal crimes and crimes that were tried at the Hague. Smith quoted a Judge from one of the courts as saying that Trump was a threat to the foundation of our democracy. He seemed to be saying that Trump might be a candidate for the Court at the Hague. That was my impression.

Smith ended up answering a few questions about the threats made against him just this morning and he said he had no doubt but that Trump wants retribution against him and that he would not be surprised if Trump pressures his DOJ to indict him. January 6 anniversary is coming up in just a few days.

[lamp_shade]

1. I'll be finished in about 45 minutes. Smith is a rock star.

He handled all the gotcha questions with knock-outs.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Kind of an unfair fight

Jack Smith, a man of integrity VS republicans.

Trump to The Hague. I’m all for it.

Thanks for posting. Great Info.

[canetoad]

3. Unfortunately, eight hours is a bit too long

I admire your fortitude in sticking it out. Found this on YouTube - Meidas touch video of highlights of the deposition. Just under half an hour.

&pp=ygUVamFjayBzbWl0aCBkZXBvc2l0aW9u

[Ms. Toad]

4. The deposition was anything but explosive.

Time will tell whether it was devastating. But it was 8 hours of solid work by a skilled, unflappable prosecutor. Thirty minutes from the video (selected by folks who major in sensationalizing) won't give you that sense.

Meidas touch needs to stop sensationalizing things.

[ificandream]

5. "Meidas touch needs to stop sensationalizing things." That's why I don't listen to them.

It seems like everything they put up is about them. That's not the way a news report or a podcast should be.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Early on I watched some, but I haven't in a long time.

They have gotten worse. It's generally repetitive and they pick the bits that they perceive as sensational, then repeat and distort them.

[BaronChocula]

8. I don't dig hyped headlines either

And I avoid clips that use "EXPOLOSIVE" and such, but that being said...
I suspect the reason they do this (aside from clicks) is to attempt to match the hyper-sensational presentation of white-wing news-a-tainment. That's an effort I appreciate, though I don't know how effective it is and I don't respond to it.

[Harker]

15. Soon there will be arrows pointing at the arrows.

Some day they'll have a real scoop, and it will get lost in the hyperbolic presentation.

[BaronChocula]

19. The arrows help me

zero in on exactly what SHOCKING thing is being highlighted in the EXPLOSIVE revelations. I'd be so lost without them.

[Harker]

20. !

[OldBaldy1701E]

10. Yeah, but they get more clicks and money from the 'sensation'.

So, don't hold your breath.

[Amaryllis]

11. I wonder if they get more clicks that way or if they turn off more people or if it's a wash.

[OldBaldy1701E]

13. As long as their banks accounts react positively to their choice of headlines, they don't care about the rest. (n/t)

[Amaryllis]

16. But unless they try it both ways, they don't know which people will react more positively to. I just know that a lot of

people find the sensationalism off putting.

[OldBaldy1701E]

17. Oh I agree that it is ridiculous and off-putting.

I am just saying that, until the income (and desire for said) is removed, this will be their position.

They are making money, so they do not care about trivial things like 'accuracy' and 'forthright journalism'.

Bear in mind that they have already 'tried' the other way. They used to solely be the 'other way'.

But, that will not get them clicks these days. Without clicks, they don't get paid. (Print is dead as far as the modern news profession is concerned. It is too expensive and does not give enough ROI for their greedily programmed taste.)

[cksmithy]

21. Thanks for posting.

[everyonematters]

7. The Republicans are going to make it all about how they were out to get Trump.

They asked questions that had implications for the following:

coordination between Jack Smith and other states going after Trump.
Trump facing undue burden because all of the trials at once.
Trump didn't have enough time to go thru all of the boxes at Mar-a-Lago
getting the phone logs of the Senators

Of course, if he didn't break any laws, then he wouldn't be having these problems.

They spent time ridiculing Cassidy Hutchison.

They made a ridiculous argument that the documents at Mar-a-Lago would be safer there than at some obscure workers basement.

[BaronChocula]

9. Same old strategy

Shoot the messenger. Prosecute the opposition and in this case, the opposition is the law.

[Amaryllis]

12. WHat did they find to ridicule Cassidy? I thought she was impressive.

[everyonematters]

14. It seemed to center around her statement that Trump tried to take over control of the car

leaving the rally. Smith replied that her testimony was that of what she heard from others and was therefore hearsay, and he wouldn't expect her to be put on as witness, but he did not join in on the criticisms of her.

[Bev54]

18. That is exactly what they were doing, as I was listening to them, I couldn't help but think

it all comes back to the grievances and complaints of Trump and those around him. Constant questions started with "you would agree, wouldn't you" and it would be about something that aggrieved Trump. It is all BS and they were trying to change the narrative but Smith did not allow it. The one that stuck out to me was when they said, you have to agree that Trump is entitled to free speech about denying the election and Smith said NO and went on to explain why. That was their entire schtick.