I’ll admit to being a bit mystified by the January 6th evidence that major media chooses to focus on. Is it *interesting* that some personalities from FNC texted Meadows on January 6th? Sure. Does it rank in the top 500 most important pieces of evidence regarding January 6th? No.
Major media has some excellent lawyers working for it who do a good job—and could probably do an even better job—directing Americans to the January 6th evidence most significant for future coup-plotter prosecutions. And a text from Laura Ingraham ain’t it. Let’s get serious here.
I think major media was excited about the FNC texts because they gave certain outlets a chance to goose a competitor, report on people it knows viewers love to hate, and point out far-right hypocrisies. But are any of those tasks *new and important* ones—or are they old standbys?
To be clear, I’m not an “either/or” person; I’m always a “both/and” person. I’m glad these texts were reported on, I’m just questioning what far more important potential criminal evidence Americans are not focusing on right now because of the excessive air devoted to these texts.
I recognize one reason members of Congress are focused on those texts is they underscore how much Meadows can testify about that isn’t privileged, which in turn underscores his Contempt of Congress in being unwilling to testify about *anything*. Media must make *that* point more.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
