Apparently Trump pushed back. Here is the collusion he was up against:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1484223625850875905/photo/2 https://files.catbox.moe/bwnx05.jpeg
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1484223625850875905/photo/1 https://files.catbox.moe/2be0l4.jpeg
Talking heads are like lawyers in that they will advocate for whoever is their client.
McEnany bad-mouthed Trump before she was working for him, was very good at defending him when working for him, but then went to work at FOX. After the sham election who was she working for? Who has Hannity really been working for?
Apparently they will say anything we want to hear so long as they can pull the strings against us when it counts.
The other option is that Hannity et al may have been right?
Having the president rant and rave about the election being stolen works for a while but quite quickly people take sides. We know the election was stolen but saying the same for yet another full TV interview was not going to change anyone's mind and could alienate some who had no strong opinion either way.
Also, were mayor Giuliani and attorney Powell really giving the best advice and following the optimum route to get things righted? They are certainly both very able people and they both pursue the truth but was that the best way given the time available and the full might of the Deep State and their plan ranged against them?
Just a thought.
So what is the logic here? It is okay to tell the truth once, twice, maybe three or more times---but when some people get tired of it, one must stop telling the truth? On that principle, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn should have kept his manuscripts in his desk drawer.
I do not know the context of the phone call between McEnany and Hannity. Was it intended as a command from Hannity to Trump to shut him up or was it the interviewer indicating how he would like a particular interview to go? Many scenarios are possible and I was just trying to suggest some alternative views.