[DoodleDawg]

It shows a certain amount of civility.

I understand your point but I submit that civility in D.C. is dead and has been for some time. And the election and its aftermath has made any sort of healing or unity impossible so why even try?

[cuban leaf]

It show’s he’s at least “trying”. Not showing up can actually be used in very damaging ways in the court of public opinion. It’s just not worth it, IMO.

[volunbeer]

I understand your point but I submit that civility in D.C. is dead and has been for some time. And the election and its aftermath has made any sort of healing or unity impossible so why even try?

---

You have accurately measured this. History is going to show this was a fraud so why legitimize it?

[rlmorel]

I think this article is misleading, as Freeper conservative98 points out.

Gingrich did not say "Trump should probably attend Biden's inauguration."

---

This is the context in the interview:

HEWLITT: “Should President Trump attend the inauguration of President-elect Biden?”

GINGRICH: “Probably. I think that we’ve only had a couple of presidents in history who didn’t. John Quincy Adams didn’t. And the Republicans in 1868 didn’t. But other than those two, it’s a routine. If he does not go, I think he has to explain why. And I’ve written a piece on why I will not give up, in which I’m pretty aggressive about this in general. Not so much the election, but the whole process of where the country is right now, which I think is extraordinarily dangerous. So I think Trump’s got to decide, you know, what best communicates his message. I think his instinct is not to go because he’s convinced the election was stolen."

---

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but this sounds a bit different to me. I know many might say "words have meaning" but this seemed like the back and forth in an interview.