First Open Testimony Before January 6 Committee

On Thursday (6/9), the 1/6 Committee did something special. They had an evening (8-10 PM) open hearing (the title comes from CSPAN). It was carefully crafted with video and help from a media expert with experience in television. Or, as a NPR article leads: "A former TV news executive is producing the Jan. 6 hearings." For those who need it, Just Security has crafted a "scorecard" of a few pages to summarize the different aspects to come. 

I surely would find such a scorecard helpful since there are so many details.  Links on this website help to some sense to keep track of things in various cases.  I find this a standard thing.  Something comes up (such as the threat to Kavanaugh's home, which soon led to an indictment spelling out details) and people make general comments. But, specific details are important, and to truly understand them, you often need to research the question.  Few do.  It can be overwhelming.

Testimony from Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards, who was abused and injured on that day, made clear that no reasonable person could doubt the crowd’s viciousness and anger. Filmmaker Nick Quested testified that the mob appeared well organized. This was no spontaneous uprising.

I watched the two hours (which had at least one break) and it went by rather fast.  [ETA: That media expert might have helped here, including suggesting the value of a crisp session.  There will be multiple sessions and I assume each will have a theme of some sort. A useful "episode" approach. I am not a usual watcher of committee hearings -- there was a recent one in the House with some good abortion related content -- but a basic part of these things is "the show."  Remember too an important thing: this is a united effort, the two Republican members being on board.]  

Washington Post had various commentaries, including a general summary.  I will quote from more than one article here.  As often is the case, my focus was not completely on the video. For instance, I was making and eating dinner.  I actually missed a couple key moments, including a basic point.  

So, it was good that the chair, Bennie Thompson, in a brief press briefing afterwards underlined the idea the invasion of the Capitol was carefully planned. One of the two witnesses was a documentarian and he noted how Proud Boys was there early, before the attack.  They provided a front guard of sorts, leading the way when the mass of the protests came.   

As noted on Twitter, a core purpose of the filmmaker was to show how the people there themselves admitted a conspiracy.  The other witness both had emotional power and underlined this was not just a trivial matter. 140 police members were hurt.  Talk about slipping on blood hits home this is not just a bunch of protesters, maybe just misguided.

“In actuality, I was none of those things,” she said. “I was an American standing face to face with other Americans asking myself many times, many, many times how we had gotten here.”

One approach was to use Republicans in the video clips, leading with Bill Barr (who screwed over the Mueller Investigation and was the official fix back to the Iran Contra Days) calling the whole "election was stolen" thing "bullshit."  (Office Edwards continued the expletives in a fashion by quoting some chants though spelling things -- "F-U-C-K")  Ivanka Trump, looking uncomfortable, noted she was aware and accepted what he had to stay.  Her hubbie however thought White House Counsel threatening to quit was basically "whining."  

We also had video of the violence of the day (which we also saw during the impeachment trial), which is important for people to remember.  This is not "legitimate political discourse," as Republicans framed the protests in general when they read co-chair of the committee (Liz Cheney, who shined -- we need to respect and honor such moments of principle) out of the party.  As the WP noted:

Republicans sought this week to cast the committee as partisan and illegitimate. Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the Republican conference chair, argued on Wednesday that the hearings are designed to distract voters from other issues such as inflation and crime, and called them “a smear campaign” against Trump. As the hearing unfolded, the Twitter account for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee tweeted images of violence during Black Lives Matters protests in 2020. “All. Old. News,” the Republicans tweeted.

(Fox News was airing Tucker Carlson, without commercials, but Fox Business did air the opening.  I am not sure if they aired the whole opening, but Newsmax did air at least some of the video of the invasion of the Capitol.  The major networks otherwise did air them, which makes sense since it is not only Friday night, but it's the summer recess.)

They could have stepped up. Ten more Republican senators could have convicted Trump in the impeachment trial, removing any chance of him running again.  After all, less than ten voted to challenge the electors on 1/6, as compared to about 2/3 of the House Republicans.  This is not some horse race. You want THESE guys to run the Congress and/or handwave the travesty of it happening?  FUCK YOU. 

In reference to the first witness, one blog that regularly has people wondering what Merrick Garland is doing, had a picture with a caption in part:

Proud Boys members Zachary Rehl, left, and Ethan Nordean, left, walk toward the U.S. Capitol in Washington, in support of President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021. A federal judge on Tuesday, Dec. 28 refused to dismiss an indictment charging four alleged leaders of the far-right Proud Boys, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Charles Donohoe, with conspiring to attack the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

 I am concerned with the speed and scope of the process, including some of the sentences asked for low level types.  And, the calendar scares you to, since we are going to be in the presidential season before you know it.  But, it is not like they are doing nothing here.  I will believe prosecution of Trump or a few other top people when I see it.  BTW, FU to the Manhattan prosecutor for not bring an indictment against him even for fiscal crimes.  

(One thing that is real troubling to be is the ability of people to stonewall and there not being a practical means of contempt of Congress to address it.  People basically forget the second count in the first impeachment, Trump's broad stonewalling of Congress.  The Supreme Court, contra the tapes case, helped, by delay and giving him more means to delay.)  

I think the whole thing started on the right foot.  We had little bits that were basically news (apparently) such as certain House members (including one person cited by name) asking Trump for a pardon.  I don't know how much really new came out, but this is about bringing the information out to the public, including in a fuller way than we had time with for the impeachment.  Which after all had no witnesses.  

I don't know what this will wrought or how people not already inclined to be impressed (Chris Hayes impressed at the time? okay) took it.  But, I think it is an important thing to do and put out there. Some eat this stuff up, leading some to remind people of John Oliver's "we got him!" .gif about suggesting us to CALM DOWN. 

Some basically are resigned to nothing happening, all the bad guys getting away with it, and so on.  They can point to how people so far are though this Eeyore approach at some point is tiresome and overheated.  Not only do you have to fight and basically do best you can, life isn't all or nothing.  It's a messy process.  And, I think this all helps it all.  

A few online spoke about how watching the video of the attack of the Capitol was hard, including how it really pissed them off.  I appreciate that. It should be tough.  It also reminds, even reading some cynical, seen it all, etc. sorts, that deep down people respect our nation and our republican system of government.  That they are really upset at it being screwed over.  That it does matter.  That might be the core thing about this process.

ETA: Rick Hasen, who was impressed with the opening, has counseled the committee to make sure to address the future. I think they will, especially since that is often the concern of such after action committees.  Also, that was an ongoing theme at this point with both impeachments -- "he can do this again ... fool us once ... etc."   

Kate Shaw has a good piece on the Electoral College's role in all of this, including its openness to abuse.  Can we just get rid of it?