2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[Dave_LF]

Is that really so surprising? It is abundantly clear that the Biden administration is in deep denial about the fact that the Republican Party has declared war on the republic.

[Frelga]

As someone said on Twitter, the Democrat leadership gained power 30-50 years ago and cling to the delusion that the world hasn't changed and our institutions are still stable.

[N.E. Brigand]

This video is very interesting, talking about how Hutchinson's testimony came to happen. It is well worth the couple of minutes that it takes to watch it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 08cadb4bc1

Marcy Wheeler suggests that this means Donald Trump apparently "knew her testimony could be sufficiently damaging to pay for her defense" to keep her quiet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hmm. The New York Times reports that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony this week "astonished" officials at the Department of Justice. That's troubling. Hutchinson was a top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. A few weeks ago, the Dept. of Justice informed Congress that it decided not to prosecute Mark Meadows for contempt of Congress. How can DOJ have reached that decision without having some sense of the kind of information Meadows was withholding? Maybe they'll reconsider?

Is that really so surprising? It is abundantly clear that the Biden administration is in deep denial about the fact that the Republican Party has declared war on the republic.

Turning to Wheeler again, she also points out some possible flaws in that Times article, including, for example, this passage: "Ms. Hutchinson's name has not yet appeared on subpoenas and other court documents related to their investigation into their effort to overturn the 2020 election". Wheeler notes that doesn't mean DOJ hasn't interviewed Hutchinson: lots of people who were interviewed by Robert Mueller never appeared before a grand jury, and she points specifically to this transcript, still almost entirely redacted, of an interview by Mueller's team with Jody Hunt, who served as the Assistant Attorney General in the Trump administration.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I never expected the DOJ to indict Meadows for contempt of Congress. If anyone were to have a valid executive privilege claim it would be the White House Chief of Staff. Not that I think that he did have a valid privilege claim, but I didn't expect that Garland and his team would want to establish that precedent.

It doesn't mean that me might not eventually get indicted for a more serious crime. (Not that I expect that he will, but the chances did increase this week.)

[Cerin]

The right wing spin machine is not disputing* that Trump knew he lost the election and his claims had no legitimacy (even though he took millions of dollars from his supporters to "fight the lie")* that he was prepared to lead an armed mob to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power, and was only concerned that he was not going to be hurt* that it's increasingly provable that the Vice President was in imminent danger of being murdered, and so were some SenatorsAnd on and on.

I don't know what 'right wing spin machine' you're talking about, but everything you said above would be considered ludicrous in actual right wing circles.

I might remind everyone here that on election night 2020, hours before Trump emerged to say 'this is fraud,' I had stated here on this website (paraphrase) 'They're stealing it right in front of our eyes.'

You can take my existence as evidence that not everyone who believed that night that the election had been stolen, and believes it today, was a non-thinking Trump sycophant who took their lead from him. Anyone who believes that Trump isn't sincere in his belief that the election was fraudulent, anyone who believes that the millions of Americans taking part in the democratic process at the local level for the first time don't believe it with all of their hearts, based on their own observations and thought processes, is completely detached from the reality that exists outside of the Beltway bubble.

The Capitol was breached (by anarchists and extremists from both political poles)* while Trump was still speaking to his supporters. When he told his supporters, 'Let's march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol,' he could have had no idea that the Capitol had been breached while he was speaking and that extremists were fighting with police (btw, mainstream Trump supporters (not referring to people in bizarre headdress), revere America, revere its founding, revere its Constitution, revere its flag, and revere law enforcement and the military, unlike progressives and anarchists who believe all of the former are white supremacist crap that needs to be burned to the ground). As someone whose impressions of Trump haven't been shaped by hate-filled fantasies, it seems perfectly natural that he would want to go to the Capitol with his 1 million peaceful supporters to voice their angst about what every last one of them believed was the certification of a fraudulent election.

Yes, there were credible threats of violence made weeks before Jan. 6 (violence), and one might wonder, in view of these alarming and credible threats, why the Capitol Police found themselves so unprepared on that day, and why Pelosi turned down Trump's offer of National Guard troops. These are the sorts of questions that would be examined in an actual hearing with genuine representatives of both parties, whose aim was to understand what happened that day rather than to shape a fictitious narrative to prevent Trump from holding office again. 

Whoever those extremists were, plotting violence on the internet, they were not represented by the ~million peaceful supporters anguished about a stolen election who turned up to hear Trump that day. Fortunately, most of the people in the Trump crowd smelled a dead fish when they saw people dressed in black fighting with police and frantically urging them on to enter the Capitol. They went home. Some of them unfortunately got caught up in the action and ended up in the Capitol. I would note that only one person died in the Capitol that day, an unarmed 5'2" female former Marine who was shot in the neck through a closed door without any warning by an evidently frightened, panicked, ill-trained Capitol police officer (giving him the benefit of the doubt here). 

Regarding weapons, all of the footage I've seen shows unarmed people with cameras confusedly roaming around the Capitol, in addition to some bizarrely attired apparent eccentrics. However, perhaps we could see these alleged weapons if Pelosi would release the 14,000 hours of footage that is being withheld from the public.

Turning to the FBI, their classic M.O. for 'thwarting' terrorist plots (find a hapless muslim, radicalize him, suggest a terrorist plot, fund the plot, then go arrest him when he tries to carry it out (The Hill), was used in the fake Whitmer kidnapping. It's interesting to note that the FBI agent in charge of that failed and humiliating operation was promoted to the Washington field office shortly afterwards (revolver), before the plot was revealed to be a sting operation and the defendants acquitted at trial. He would thus have been in charge of operations at the Capitol on Jan.6. Of course, the FBI refused to say how many operatives they had at the Capitol that day, or if any of them perpetrated acts of violence. (FBI)

The FBI and Washington Trump haters would undoubtedly have observed a prime opportunity to discredit Trump and his supporters forever by turning a massive Trump rally violent, and then by promoting the narrative that 1)the legislators trying to delay the certification, 2)the massive numbers of peaceful Trump supporters there to lawfully voice their concerns, 3)the violent anarchists, 4)the professional agitators, 5)the FBI operatives and 6)the far left and right wing extremists who were there to disrespect the Capitol and engage in violence that day, are all one entity, knowingly coordinated by Trump. That is false. Violent extremist groups plotted to violently crash the Trump rally, the FBI knew it and was there in numbers, Nancy Pelosi knew it and took no measures to protect the Capitol. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why, or are we simply not interested in any narrative that doesn't paint the big, bad orange man as the devil and Hitler combined?

Perhaps some people with steel, whose priorities go beyond staying on the best lists for Washington cocktail parties, will be elected in November and really look into this. That is, if the next election is allowed to take place unhindered. Going by Biden's and the mainstream media's rhetoric, Biden would surely have cause, under his now perpetual emergency powers, to cancel this election, IF it's true that Trump supporters and the white-supremacist Republican party at large are the greatest threats to American security and democracy. Can we actually allow an election to take place that would, as increasingly appears likely, put these domestic terrorists in positions of power?

edit: changing 'charges dismissed' to 'defendants acquitted'
edit: forgot to actually edit text on first edit
edit: *to indicate characterization of extremists is speculation

[River]

So, how about you present some evidence of the theft of the election and explain how nothing credible ever stood up in court or even appeared in court briefings? Did you ever get in touch with Trump's legal eagles with your proof? Or did you just jump to a bunch of conclusions with insufficient information? Or do you have as much evidence of this as you do that Ohio got stolen from Kerry and 2004 (I remember you being into that conspiracy theory as well)? You such a fan you couldn't believe your pussy-grabbing preferred candidate could ever lose?

[N.E. Brigand]

The right wing spin machine is not disputing* that Trump knew he lost the election and his claims had no legitimacy (even though he took millions of dollars from his supporters to "fight the lie")* that he was prepared to lead an armed mob to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power, and was only concerned that he was not going to be hurt* that it's increasingly provable that the Vice President was in imminent danger of being murdered, and so were some SenatorsAnd on and on.

I don't know what 'right wing spin machine' you're talking about, but everything you said above would be considered ludicrous in actual right wing circles.

I might remind everyone here that on election night 2020, hours before Trump emerged to say 'this is fraud,' I had stated here on this website (paraphrase) 'They're stealing it right in front of our eyes.'

You can take my existence as evidence that not everyone who believed that night that the election had been stolen, and believes it today, was a non-thinking Trump sycophant who took their lead from him. Anyone who believes that Trump isn't sincere in his belief that the election was fraudulent, anyone who believes that the millions of Americans taking part in the democratic process at the local level for the first time don't believe it with all of their hearts, based on their own observations and thought processes, is completely detached from the reality that exists outside of the Beltway bubble.

The Capitol was breached by anarchists and extremists from both political poles while Trump was still speaking to his supporters. When he told his supporters, 'Let's march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol,' he could have had no idea that the Capitol had been breached while he was speaking and that extremists were fighting with police (btw, mainstream Trump supporters (not referring to people in bizarre headdress), revere America, revere its founding, revere its Constitution, revere its flag, and revere law enforcement and the military, unlike progressives and anarchists who believe all of the former are white supremacist crap that needs to be burned to the ground). As someone whose impressions of Trump haven't been shaped by hate-filled fantasies, it seems perfectly natural that he would want to go to the Capitol with his 1 million peaceful supporters to voice their angst about what every last one of them believed was the certification of a fraudulent election.

Yes, there were credible threats of violence made weeks before Jan. 6 (violence), and one might wonder, in view of these alarming and credible threats, why the Capitol Police found themselves so unprepared on that day, and why Pelosi turned down Trump's offer of National Guard troops. These are the sorts of questions that would be examined in an actual hearing with genuine representatives of both parties, whose aim was to understand what happened that day rather than to shape a fictitious narrative to prevent Trump from holding office again. 

Whoever those extremists were, plotting violence on the internet, they were not represented by the ~million peaceful supporters anguished about a stolen election who turned up to hear Trump that day. Fortunately, most of the people in the Trump crowd smelled a dead fish when they saw people dressed in black fighting with police and frantically urging them on to enter the Capitol. They went home. Some of them unfortunately got caught up in the action and ended up in the Capitol. I would note that only one person died in the Capitol that day, an unarmed 5'2" female former Marine who was shot in the neck through a closed door without any warning by an evidently frightened, panicked, ill-trained Capitol police officer (giving him the benefit of the doubt here). 

Regarding weapons, all of the footage I've seen shows unarmed people with cameras confusedly roaming around the Capitol, in addition to some bizarrely attired apparent eccentrics. However, perhaps we could see these alleged weapons if Pelosi would release the 14,000 hours of footage that is being withheld from the public.

Turning to the FBI, their classic M.O. for 'thwarting' terrorist plots (find a hapless muslim, radicalize him, suggest a terrorist plot, fund the plot, then go arrest him when he tries to carry it out (The Hill), was used in the fake Whitmer kidnapping. It's interesting to note that the FBI agent in charge of that failed and humiliating operation was promoted to the Washington field office shortly afterwards (revolver), before the plot was revealed to be a sting operation and the charges dismissed at trial. He would thus have been in charge of operations at the Capitol on Jan.6. Of course, the FBI refused to say how many operatives they had at the Capitol that day, or if any of them perpetrated acts of violence. (FBI)

The FBI and Washington Trump haters would undoubtedly have observed a prime opportunity to discredit Trump and his supporters forever by turning a massive Trump rally violent, and then by promoting the narrative that 1)the legislators trying to delay the certification, 2)the massive numbers of peaceful Trump supporters there to lawfully voice their concerns, 3)the violent anarchists, 4)the professional agitators, 5)the FBI operatives and 6)the far left and right wing extremists who were there to disrespect the Capitol and engage in violence that day, are all one entity, knowingly coordinated by Trump. That is false. Violent extremist groups plotted to violently crash the Trump rally, the FBI knew it and was there in numbers, Nancy Pelosi knew it and took no measures to protect the Capitol. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why, or are we simply not interested in any narrative that doesn't paint the big, bad orange man as the devil and Hitler combined?

Perhaps some people with steel, whose priorities go beyond staying on the best lists for Washington cocktail parties, will be elected in November and really look into this. That is, if the next election is allowed to take place unhindered. Going by Biden's and the mainstream media's rhetoric, Biden would surely have cause, under his now perpetual emergency powers, to cancel this election, IF it's true that Trump supporters and the white-supremacist Republican party at large are the greatest threats to American security and democracy. Can we actually allow an election to take place that would, as increasingly appears likely, put these domestic terrorists in positions of power?

For now, I'm going to focus just one passage I've bolded from your post.

Months before November 2020, lots of people issued warnings that because several key swing states were not counting and in some cases not even opening mailed ballots prior to Election Day -- in a year in which mail balloting was (1) huge because of the pandemic and (2) being discouraged by the Republican incumbent president -- there would be an illusory "red wave" on election night that made it appear initially as if Donald Trump was cruising to victory. And Trump was setting up that notion from the start. Just as he had in 2016, he claimed before election day that the only way he could lose would be if there was fraud.

That prediction was correct. And what you described that night and again now seems to show that you fell for his big lie:

It's tremendously upsetting and suspicious that they are stopping the vote count in these vital areas where the process is controlled by Democrats and Trump is leading. Normally vote counting would continue long into the night. I've just heard a report that poll workers are walking out of a building in Va. with boxes of ballots! All this talk about Trump cheating, and it looks like we are witnessing a Democratic attempt to steal an election right before our eyes.

Those areas where counting was stopped should have been immediately secured, with lawyers from both parties witnessing the securing of the ballots as soon as the decision was made to stop the count. This is outrageous. I wonder what the plan for Philadelphia is -- leave the ballots unsecured and let antifa burn down the building?

None of that happened. It was entirely fictional. I told you that less than two hours later.

The election was the most closely watched, recounted, investigated, and litigated in American history, and result after result after result, from the determination by Trump's handpicked attorney general (the one who saved him from Mueller's investigation) to dozens of court cases and right on down to the insane "Cyber Ninjas" recount in Arizona, all showed that Trump lost.

It's not in dispute. It just isn't.

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now rediscovering this unexpectedly relevant post of yours, V:

Honestly, I disagree with the idea that very much depends on Mike Pence right now.

[Cerin]

It's not in dispute. It just isn't.

It is in dispute, by people risking their livelihoods, their reputations, their professions, who are derided, canceled, de-banked, de-attorneyed, hand-cuffed, dragged to prisons, etc. They are going up against the silencing by the media and big tech, are being obfuscated and blocked at every turn, and yet, they are still incrementally moving forward in their efforts, state by state, county by county, to try and verify the results of the election. We may one day know all that took place in that election, or we may not. But saying it is not in dispute is simply inaccurate.

If what you mean is, that for people who get their information exclusively from elitist media it is not in dispute, I agree with you there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

How wrong I was!

I would like to know what is the basis of this statement:

The Capitol was breached by anarchists and extremists from both political poles while Trump was still speaking to his supporters.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that any of the people who breached the capital were anything other than Trump supporters. However, if you have any evidence to the contrary I would be very interested in seeing it.

Regarding weapons, all of the footage I've seen shows unarmed people with cameras confusedly roaming around the Capitol, in addition to some bizarrely attired apparent eccentrics.

If you had watched the hearing on Tuesday, you would have seen lots of footage of people with firearms and other weapons, as well as abundant other evidence of the weapons the individuals who attacked and breached the Capital had.

[River]

The Oathkeepers are laying out a defense strategy: they were there at the request of rally planners to provide security and they believed Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act on Jan. 6 and federalize them.

Needless to say, Trump did not do that. It's not even clear he could.

[Cerin]

I would like to know what is the basis of this statement:

The Capitol was breached by anarchists and extremists from both political poles while Trump was still speaking to his supporters.

I don't believe it's in dispute that the President was still speaking when the Capitol was breached. (I tried to find a link that would be acceptable to you, but the NYT blocked me.)

Indeed, at 12:50 P.M., while Trump was still speaking to a huge, peaceful crowd, Epps was the person who orchestrated the first breach of the Capitol barricades.

link

timeline

As far as who did the breaching, I'm simply applying logic. If the genuine, mainstream, peaceful Trump supporters were listening to him speak, they couldn't simultaneously have been breaking into the Capitol.

My description of the extremists (anyone behaving violently and unlawfully at a political event is an extremist in my view) comes from what I've seen in photos and from eye witness accounts. I remember hearing that there was antifa chatter about crashing the rally. I saw people dressed in black beating police and breaking windows (classic antifa deportment). I'm assuming the people with confederate flags were right wing extremists.

My point is, the people who came to listen to Trump that day (supporters) were not the same people who acted violently (extremists, agitators, troublemakers, whatever term you prefer). Trump urged his supporters to march peacefully, therefore anyone acting violently during the time he was speaking was acting counter to his appeal, ergo, not a supporter, but an extremist of one ilk or another. The mainstream media has tried to equate the violent actors with Trump's audience. Those were two different groups.

[Frelga]

Applying logic - why would anyone who was not a Trump supporter want to disrupt a Senate proceeding that was about to certify his loss?

[Cerin]

Applying logic - why would anyone who was not a Trump supporter want to disrupt a Senate proceeding that was about to certify his loss?

The internet chatter plotting violence was hateful towards lawmakers. I don't know what motivates violent, anti-government extremists. I don't know what these internet plotters were wanting to do, or why, other than hurt lawmakers. Why at the Capitol, and why this day? Because there was a huge event planned, a lawful Trump rally. Whenever there is an event, like the now infamous Charlottesville protest against removing statues, it draws all sorts of people looking for trouble, from a whole range of political views, as well as those who come for the actual cause. 

To put it mildly, it would not have been in Trump supporters' interests to interfere with what was going on in the Senate. The Trump-supporting Senators were trying to legitimately, constitutionally object to the certification of electors. The violent protest interrupted that process and ruined any chance that their efforts would ever be viewed as legitimate. Those Senators were conflated by the media with the violent thugs at the Capitol. Do you honestly think learned Senators who have dedicated their lives to serve their country and its institutions would make common cause with such people? It nearly ruined their careers. It was heartbreaking for Trump's America First movement; it painted his supporters as violent extremists who had no respect for American institutions or the democratic process -- exactly the opposite of what they are. It had Republicans as well as Democrats -- including the very Senators who had been acting in Trump's interests and were supposedly in league with these extremists -- hiding in spaces, fearing for their lives, not knowing what on earth was happening.

Does it make sense to you that Trump or his mainstream supporters would deliberately and violently interrupt the very process they had come to Washington to encourage, and which they were hoping against hope might actually delay certification? We'll never know now how that process would have played out; it was utterly discredited and defeated by the violent interruption. 

Does anyone actually know who those violent people were or why they wanted to harm lawmakers? I find it hard to believe that people really think Trump is so stupid as to calculate that this despicable cohort had a legitimate chance to overthrow a government, and that he coordinated the attack with such no-accounts. Do you honestly think that if Trump really wanted to overthrow the government, this is the pathetic, self-defeating way he would go about doing it?

It is reported (link in previous post) that FBI operatives removed the 'Keep Out' barricades and the 'Do Not Enter' signs so that the peaceful Trump crowd arriving after the speech would unsuspectingly wander in, not knowing it was prohibited that day, thus making it unlikely they could be differentiated from those who had vandalized and planned violence. This is the reason, people conjecture, that those who knew about the violent threats did nothing to protect the Capitol. It was a golden opportunity to discredit the Trump movement once and for all. They had tried with Russia, they had tried with the phone call -- they would finally have him! It almost worked; depending on what happens in the very near future, it may still work. Imagine if Pelosi had accepted Trump's offer of National Guard, and there had been soldiers ten-deep there to protect the institution.

Whoever it was that was violent and disrespectful that day, for whatever reason, it certainly did not serve Trump interests. It almost destroyed the credibility of all Trump supporters, and did destroy it for a large portion of the population. It's what seems to be at the bottom of the constant media rhetoric calling Trump supporters' participation in politics 'a fascist attempt to overthrow democracy' (by participating in democracy? -- that one is a little tricky).

Does it make sense to you that the Trump movement deliberately tried to destroy itself, and that Trump led the effort?

[N.E. Brigand]

Does it make sense to you that the Trump movement deliberately tried to destroy itself, and that Trump led the effort?

That's not what happened.

Trump wanted his mob to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election so that he could remain in power.

Thankfully that effort failed! But it wasn't for want of trying.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was watched by more Americans (albeit on multiple stations) than watched any one game of this year's NBA finals except the last one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Washington Examiner is one of the most conservative newspapers in the country. So what did their editorial board think of Hutchinson's testimony?

Trump proven unfit for power again

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.

Hutchinson’s resume alone should establish her credibility. The 25-year-old had already worked at the highest levels of conservative Republican politics, including in the offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (LA), before becoming a top aide for former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

In short, Hutchinson was a conservative Trumpist true believer and a tremendously credible one at that. She did not overstate things, did not seem to be seeking attention, and was very precise about how and why she knew what she related and about which testimony was firsthand and which was secondhand but able to be corroborated.

What Hutchinson relayed was disturbing. She gave believable accounts of White House awareness that the planned Jan. 6 rally could turn violent. She repeated testimony that Trump not only knew that then-Vice President Mike Pence’s life had been credibly threatened that day but also that he was somewhere between uncaring and actually approving of Pence’s danger.

She also told, in detail, that Trump repeatedly insisted that he himself should join his supporters at the Capitol — even after being informed the crowd contained armed elements and that it was breaching the perimeter against an undermanned U.S. Capitol Police force.

Also distressing to hear were Hutchinson’s accounts of Trump’s repeated fits of rage, including dining table contents overturned and ketchup dishes thrown violently across the room. The worst by far, though, was that people immediately returning from being with Trump in the presidential vehicle told of the president trying to grab the wheel of the car to force it to be driven to the Capitol and then violently reaching for the neck of Secret Service agent Bobby Engel, who headed the president’s protective detail.

Hutchinson’s testimony confirmed a damning portrayal of Trump as unstable, unmoored, and absolutely heedless of his sworn duty to effectuate a peaceful transition of presidential power. Considering the entirety of her testimony, it is unsurprising that Hutchinson said she heard serious discussions of Cabinet members invoking the 25th Amendment that would have at least temporarily evicted Trump from office.

Trump is a disgrace. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him, ever again.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was watched by more Americans (albeit on multiple stations) than watched any one game of this year's NBA finals except the last one.

That's pretty remarkable given that it was a daytime hearing during the work week, and all the NBA finals games were in prime time. Do you have the numbers, or a link to the information?

[Cerin]

Does it make sense to you that the Trump movement deliberately tried to destroy itself, and that Trump led the effort?

Trump wanted his mob to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election so that he could remain in power.

That's so absurd, there's nothing I can say.

But I'm not meaning to argue this. I just felt it was necessary to respond to Frelga's statement about what the right wing spin machine was saying. Having done that, I'm content.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Does it make sense to you that the Trump movement deliberately tried to destroy itself, and that Trump led the effort?

Trump wanted his mob to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election so that he could remain in power.

That's so absurd, there's nothing I can say.

I agree that it is so absurd that he wanted that, and that they were willing to follow his bidding, but the evidence is clear that that is exactly what happened. It is telling that some of Mr. Trump's most avid supporters such as Mick Mulvaney, Andrew McCarthy, and the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner have become convinced that it is true.

[N.E. Brigand]

Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was watched by more Americans (albeit on multiple stations) than watched any one game of this year's NBA finals except the last one.

That's pretty remarkable given that it was a daytime hearing during the work week, and all the NBA finals games were in prime time. Do you have the numbers, or a link to the information?

Cassidy Hutchinson testimony set audience record for a daytime Jan. 6 hearing (Los Angeles Times)

The audience Tuesday was 13.2 million people. NBA Finals ratings can be found here (Game 6 had 14 million viewers; Game 5 had 13 million viewers).

That said, the article points out that far more people watched the Watergate hearings.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Meanhile, independent journalist Hunter Walker (who has been published by Yahoo and Rolling Stone, among others), reports that he heard two months ago from a law enforcement source that "D.C. Metropolitan Police officers affiliated with the presidential motorcade shared a story of Trump demanding to be driven to the Capitol and getting into an altercation with Secret Service on January 6." Walker was unable to obtain independent confirmation of the story at the time and didn't publish. But I think this shows that whether the story is true or not (and as has been noted here several times, these particular details are at most of secondary importance), Hutchinson didn't make it up.

Update: from CNN:



Now to be sure, I think these people should testify under oath, just like I think those disputing this story should do so!