Success of the 1/6 insurrection committee will ONLY be determined when 45 and his minions are indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned. These fascists are tearing apart our democratic country.
It's successful if it motivates Democratic voters to save the House and take the Senate. The House committee can send criminal referrals to the Justice Department, but only the department can bring charges. The panel is working with a sense of urgency to build its case ahead of this year’s midterm elections, when Republicans could retake the House and dissolve the committee.
Watched pots never boil.
In the 17 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 250 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing. So far approximately 40 guilty pleas. The only active charges for sedition are against the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, one count of seditious conspiracy and one count of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties.
It could be that superseding indictments could be filed against other defendants.
There are also several viable civil damage cases that could bankrupt the perpetrators.
It could be that at least 4 federal grand juries and several state grand juries may bring indictments for organizing the insurrection and for obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress. The Mueller case is still viable with the SDNY.
Merely making Trump look bad for historical records is UNACCEPTABLE. He and all of his close enablers must see prison terms! I was suspended from Twitter by saying he deserves the death penalty based on our laws…how is that a threat? But I can say it here. That would be the appropriate justice to put an end to this bold attempt to help Putin take the US down! BUT, 40 years in prison will do the trick for me. I will not trust our current Democratic politicians outside of the progressives, ever if this does not have punishment for the worst monster ever to occupy the White House!
I seem to recall the Second Impeachment Hearing, the one led by Jamie Raskin of Maryland. That second hearing was well-run, truthful, and compelling, in my view. And Raskin and his colleagues proved the case. But that hearing essentially left us with Trump still in charge of his legions and able to use his time (until now) to push a false and debilitating narrative, simply because the Republicans in the US Senate chose the rule of Trump over the rule of law and the COnstitution. The same thing may very well happen this time around as, once again, we have an extremely well-run hearing under way, we have good and serious committee members, we even have an inspiring vice chair in CHeney who is able to express what will happen, ultimately, in a single poignant phrase. However, members of the US Congress will persist in pushing the counter narrative that Trump was somehow not responsible for any of the events of Jan 6th, that his Big Lie was more important, more truthful, more merited than the findings of the Committee. With this being the case and with a substantial number of loyal Trumpists among the population and Congress, we can't rely on the Department of Justice to deliver as, till now, Trump seems to waltz away, giving some truth to his idea that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and fly away free as a bird. He is telling us that he is more powerful than the Constitution he is seeking to destroy and that may be true in this moment, as it has been leading up till now. However, if the Committee on Jan 6th does its job as they have begun, we will find the Truth and that will be the Committee's achievement for the record. We can't count on the Department of Justice to pursue the truth, we just can't (that itself is a commentary on our sad state) but we can hope that we finally know something approaching the full truth about not only Jan 6th but the past seven or eight years of Trump involvement in a sphere in which he never belonged and did not deserve any role whatsoever.
Unlike you (I guess), I have absolutely no idea how this thing will play so I am less than confident about referrals to the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland. (I also wonder how anyone is able to gaze into a crystal ball and tell us what will happen, I guess because I have no crystal ball and do not expect to acquire one.) However, this is--in my view--a question of whether we are going to grab the reins some of us--even some of our leaders--dropped and leave the rule of an individual behind in order to revert to the rule of law. (I don't know that this is what will happen but I am crossing my fingers that this proves out.) I don't expect the conversion of many of The Big Lie folks and their ring-leaders in Congress to a burning desire to return to the rule of law and reject the alternate sphere of Trump, Ginni Thomas, Carlson, Hannity, and Graham...But I also hope you are right and that Merrick Garland also opts for the rule of law and decides to pursue criminal charges wherever warranted...I guess I'm cautiously optimistic but I still don't have a crystal ball or know which way the wind will blow.
There is still no guarantee that the procedure will be followed, even in a case that appears open-and-shut. We are assuming that Merrick Garland is keeping his DOJ cards pretty close to the vest and we are also assuming that that is the right-and-proper approach to such matters but that is assuming a lot, especially since the Dems (and a good many of them) are more concerned with keeping everyone in line and with holding on rather than asserting the rule of law unequivocally. So far, the Committee seems concerned with ferreting out the Truth and this is a very good thing and long overdue but they also are cognizant of the need not to offend the voters, many of whom are bound-and-determined to stick by their leader and the rule of the individual. But they also need to realize that, ultimately, they can't have it both ways, they can't sugar-coat it for a few at the expensive of the entire written code. (They seem to be on the right track right now.)mI also do not know how much weight (of any) our public servants give to their own (and their fellow servants') Oaths of Office. If the members of Congress had insisted that such oaths meant more than just a meaningless lip-service sentence or two, think what we would have missed: throwing innocent "illegal babies" in cages at the border; building a useless ineffective wall; using a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent; bribing and extorting the legitimate leader of a country threatened with invasion and war; giving tax-cuts to the wealthiest of citizens; impeding efforts to deal with covid-19; denying climate change and retreating from efforts to deal with it; delaying infrastructure, housing, education, and employment issues,' interference of private citizens (Ginni Thomas) in efforts to overturn a valid election; racial unrest and violence against people of color, gays, women; going backwards on privacy rights of all...the list is virtually endless and everything has to be put on hold while we spend our energies, attention, and funds dealing with the fundamental question of what we really are as a nation. I do not know that Merrick Garland & the DOJ will step up to the plate and help us answer this question and my doubt and lack of certainty is itself a sign that I have lost confidence in the power of the government to pursue the question and resolve it, hopefully for good.
Raskin is wonderful! I agree with you that we cannot allow this level of crime to get privileged treatment. We are watching and so is the international community. The thing to remember is that these crazies make up under 30% of the voting public. We will have to bring this country to a stand still if they even try to give this a pass. I do believe the witnesses & time put into this committee finding will be different than trying to get impeachment through Congress without sufficient votes. I’m counting on that.
I agree with everything you said and I fully appreciate what this 1/6 Committee is attempting to achieve. So far, the Committee is seeking to represent the people and they are doing an exemplary job of it. We cannot let this go without some sort of legitimate response as Trump and his GOP Trumpies planned and executed a coup attempt against our duly elected government. That is the bottom line and Cheney is correct with her eloquent remark: Donald J Trump will be gone, his tenure in office and non-office will be over but the GOP members will live with dishonor and disgrace in perpetuity. That will be their (er) legacy. Well-deserved and permanent. This is really a discussion as to what the United States is as a country: is our country one where an individual is the rule, where an autocrat makes all the decisions and accepts no opposition (this sounds mostly like Russia, doesn't it?) or is our country one where written documents, decisions, and laws govern each and every person, where the elected leader of the country faces the Constitution and rule of law in the same way and with the same legal response as an ordinary citizen who wields no particular political power? This entire thing is an attempt to answer that fundamental question. It is right that the inquiry proceed with maximum preparation and the most honest, truth-seeking individuals we can find as this is not a process that belongs to a political party or individuals predisposed to one (self-serving) view or another. It is an examination that belongs to all of us and our public servants chosen to carry out the inquiry had better be focused on finding the Truth and, then, acting accordingly. If the Republicans in Congress cannot see this for what it is, if they insist on making it a partisan dispute, they are missing the intent entirely and they should be dismissed from the legislative body in which they were elected to serve. (Cruz, McConnell, MJT, Jordan, Boebert, Lee, Gaetz, and all others of like partisan mind, take note: gather your briefcase and leave! You are not fulfilling your duty to your constituents and you are not abiding by the Oath of Office you once took! This is a study in what the US means at its core and it is right and proper that this study is accurate, truthful, and deliberate as it seems to be. The Truth makes us all free. If that is not the goal of the Republican Party, they have no role in our government and do not deserve a seat at the table.
You're a bit more confident in that than me. Proud Boys leader & Oath Keeper Lead got 6 months probation! That’s less than a wrist slap BUT I think we’ll find out that they got that in exchange for damning evidence.
As long as Bunkerboy is 1) Barred from running in 2024, 2) IMPRISONED, or 3) In the ground, I'll be happy. If their's one thing we Americans know about cowardly trumplicans, it's that they will IMMEDIATELY collapse when Herr Führer is gone! (Pardon the possibly offensive title, but Bunkerboy DOES adore Adolf, so shouldn't we gift him that?)
I have a predictably darker take on measuring the success of the 1/6 hearings. Firstly, I want to split hairs on what measuring success even means. Are we talking about quantitative measures or qualitative measures. Just to be intentionally annoying, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the difference is between objective and phenomenological measurement, here. It's a dirty job, etc, etc, etc!
Objectively, the hearing appears to have been modestly successful from a screen to eyeball perspective. I think the event planners did a >great< job in conforming the length of the event to the attention span of likely viewers - about as long as a movie - no more, no less. There’s an old Vaudeville adage that lives on to this day in the entertainment world: “Always leave ’em wanting more!” I found myself wanting to hear more. About 2' '20" into the klatsch recording, Ms Lofthouse expresses how she and others found the presentation unexpectedly enjoyable and Dr Reich echoes that sentiment. >That< in itself is a measure of success. And from a purely objective, quantitative perspective, it seems to have kept around 20M other viewers interested, as well: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/media/ratings-january-6-hearings/index.html Note: Nielsen seems to have had a squabble with several networks in '21 which led to having their national ratings accreditation suspended: https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/nielsen-national-ratings-suspension-media-rating-council-1235053949/ I don't know if that has been resolved, but since they were cited for undercounting, I could suspect that any inaccuracy in the numbers they give for the audience would likely be flawed in the same way - undercounted, if anything.
From a phenomenological perspective, Ms Lofthouse and Dr Reich put their finger on the most subjective measure of all. They enjoyed it, citing they liked the way the whole presentation was put together. I'm sure that nano-sample of the viewer U explains why the 20M viewers kept their eyeballs stuck on the screen for 2 hours. I'd call that a great success.
Here's the "however," and it's a >big< "however." Dr Reich put his finger on it when he said "I don't know how you measure something like that." Subjective surveys are possible, but >valid< subjective surveys require much careful planning. Are you going to use multiple choice questions? What sort of multiple choice questions would they be? How do you eliminate your own subjective bias from the kind of questions you ask? Is multiple choice even possible for the question you seek to answer? If not, how do you interpret short-answer type questions? And on, and on. Keep in mind here that formulating a reliable measurement instrument takes weeks and weeks do devise, and the finding would be - at best - ephemeral. Not only that, it would be an instantaneous, lagging indicator, by the weeks and weeks of development time on a political question, where a week in politics is an eternity - as we have all heard said.
The point here is that the question posed on how to measure the success of the 1/6 hearings is nebulous. It has no focus. In order to measure the success of the hearings, you must first formulate a clear idea of what you consider your idea of H0 for success. And here's a hint, if you are even modestly sophisticated, it should be clear at a glance that there are multiple possible H0's for that kind of question. If what you're >really< asking is whether success involves a particular outcome in November, you'll only know by conducting exit polls based on an H0 such as: "The 1/6 hearings changed the way I would have otherwise voted," where H1 = "The 1/6 hearings did not change the way I would have otherwise voted," and where a week is an eternity in politics.
The question in my mind is: "Were these candidates nominated by all Republicans in their respective states, and if not, who didn't turn out for the Republican primaries, and would it have made a difference in the respective outcomes had those who >did not< vote in the primary >had< voted."
(I'm thinking the Rob Portman types, who would simply walk away rather than vote against the Q-publicans - as opposed to having an actual spine, like Cheney.)
Ironic statement—regarding "These fascists" . . . as your side is in complete control of the Legislative and Executive branches. They are responsible for the state of the union. 45 is not in office. Own it.
Words have meanings. I offer Henry Wallace's observation and welcome your response.
"A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party."
Who is my side? The side opposed to Fascism? or is my side the entirety of the "Anti-Trump Movement?" What do you mean by "responsible for the state of the union?" that Majority rules, so Majority owns? Has the economic damage from COVID-19 now become the Democrats' damage? If inflation was lying about for many years like an IED, does the person in charge own the detonation of the bomb?
Your comment reeks of passivity. I am not free of responsibility if "their inflation" was caused by many years of irresponsible policy. It's still my government that contributed to it. Tribalism never leads towards civic harmony.
Whether or not you intended that way, your opening sentence is straight from "V for Vendetta." (The movie. Not the graphic novel.) I like it - along with how you followed-up!
An excellent if wordy description. I prefer a condensation as follows:
" A regime exercising totalitarian control over the social, civic, an psychological aspects of the subject population with neither consent or permitted dissent."
I rather think inflation operates more like a merchant's scale than an IED. True, always present and active.
Too many dollars on one side of the scale and the inflation side of the scale rises.
Too few—or an optimal number of dollars—on one end and the inflation side falls.
Henry’s wordiness was intended to lay a prosecutor’s foundation for his argument:
“If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. “
“Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”
“American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.”
“Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.”
‘nuff said. A million people back then was 1% of the USA population. Lotsa Fascists.
Just laughing at how he turned my comment around, I thought it was cleverly done, not the state of the democratic party. I am only a registered Democrat so that I can help get the progressives within the party elected. My druthers as a Bernie supporter (amongst others) would be to be able to register as a Democratic Socialist. I can't stand the establishment Democrats beholden to and reliant on the monied interests. (Curious as to what you mean by the butterflies reference though.)
What about Dejoy who wants to limit mail in voting because tRump was convinced that it enhances voter fraud? He also ordered a fleet of gas guzzling vehicles for the postal service.
The two hour January 6 Hearings on Thursday evening, June 9, were enthralling. The opening statements by Chairman Bennie Thompson and Co-chair Liz Cheney were brilliant. Testimony by Officer Edwards revealed uncanny bravery, and there was not a dull moment in the program.
My take away from today's discussion was YAY!! at last, someone with influence is telling the Democrats to get some courage, forget about collecting larger and larger pots of money and start telling the truth. It's corporate greed folks, not just supply chain not putin or Zelensky, You want prices lowered, tell corporate America, ENOUGH, If we have to return to victory gardens, if we have to let the Jones's have more crap than we do, so be it.
Something puzzles me, and I hope that some of you may shed some light in my tunnel. I have pondered the Republican psyche that draws them toward celebrity (no matter how lacking in intelligence, and integrity). Since the 1960's Republicans have elected no fewer than 5 (6 if you count OZ) second or third tier celebrities to public office. And, I'm shamed to admit, my State, California, is the worst offender. Beginning in the 1960's the Republicans sent third string, half-assed, dancer George Murphy to the Senate, followed by has-been, wannabe, Ronald Reagan, first to the Governorship of our own State, then to the President of the whole Country. Followed by fourth rate action hero, Arnold Schwarznegger, to the Governorship. (Frankly I think we'd have been better off with his plastic doll) Then in 2016 the worst celebrity of all tRump (at least he didn't come from California) Now Pennsylvania, of all places, has selected Oz to run for the retrumplican senator. I do blame the national media for pandering to this thirst for celebrity, at the same time I despise them for putting profit over integrity. Any ideas? Thanks, Fay Reid
I understand what you're are saying that Trump will be held accountable in History. But won't an indictment send a more powerful message not only to the historians that will write this chapter of our history but also to those that sill adhere and cling to Trumpism.
An indictment and conviction would send the most powerful signal, but a historic record such as the committee is compiling will be hugely important as well.
Mr. Patriot: Republican leadership waived an adversarial hearing. Validity approved by Supreme Court. So far approximately 40 guilty pleas. A couple of convictions after trial. Even Giuliani, Ivanka and Kushner came forward. Don't expect cultists will be moved. But some have. 99% of taxpayers lost big on the the "cuts." If you donated to Trump charities he stole your money on false pretenses. If you donated to fund the wall Bannon et al stole your money. If you are paying attention, McConnell and McCarthy both gave contemporaneous speeches admitting that this was an insurrection. Barr called the big lie "Bullshit." Cultists have to choose between Trump and Pence. Which side are you on?
I agree, even if it is overturned by the 6 justices from hell, the indictment and conviction would stand as Notice that regardless of the retrumplicans and their toady minions, the Citizens of the United States stand in duty to the Rule of Law, and the Constitution whereby we are governed.
Jun 11, 2022·edited Jun 11, 2022Liked by Heather Lofthouse
I really loved today's segment. It had me laughing out loud at times, in particular "the democrats are just wusses" comment. And when Heather said "shift the narrative" and you said it sounded like she had said "shit" through the mask, I couldn't help thinking about what was going on Fox during the hearings as they unabashedly "shit" on the committee's narrative. Right on, guys!
As for the hearing itself, it was spellbinding, all of it. It confirmed what I thought must be going on behind the scenes on Jan 6 but that had not yet been brought to the light of day, that this epic f**k up could be laid at the feet of TFG and those that enabled him. The testimony of Officer Edwards and the new footage that was provided brought me to tears, and brought me back to that day, where I watched as it happened live, just the surrealism of what was going on, not unlike the morning of 9/11 when I turned on the television in the morning to see one of the towers on fire and then a minute later watched as a second aircraft hit the second.
I can't wait to see what the follow on hearings bring to light!
If we end up using the 14 th Amendment to keep anyone with a connection to the insurrection from holding public office that will show the value of these presentations of the January 6 committee and it could very well stop the erosion of our republic and our Constitution.
Supposedly 20 million Americans watched the first presentation of what happened, by the Jan 6 committee. That's apparently as many viewers as turn in to see the NFL playoffs. The forthcoming second public session of the committee will not take place in prime time (commercials before democracy, you know - it's the American way) but rather in the morning on Monday, and we'll learn much from the size of the viewership and the media coverage of the event.
The "conversion", as it's called, of first public presentation viewers to the second presentation will indicate, as it always does in series, the impact of the initial public hearing and give us an idea of how many people will hang around for the subsequent hearings.
Apparently the committee knew that it needed to have a very strong and gripping presentation in its first public hearing. We'll see this Monday whether they were effective.
Personally, my hope is that the public hearings settle into a high level of viewership and take hold of the news cycle. I am hopeful that from this point forward, positive events and actions regarding the insurrection increase in number and severity. One that I noticed has already started to occur is fewer uses of the word "riot" to describe what went on at the Capitol and an increase in the use of the terms "insurrection" and "attempted coup." These are initial and very positive indicators of the effect of the first hearing.
I should add that this morning I checked Fox News online for any coverage of the Jan 6 committee hearing, and of course it was virtually all negative, with the comments by readers enough to really make your blood boil. The "riot", you know, was really the fault, the failure of the Capitol police and nothing else. I considered putting my own viewpoint into the comments but reluctantly decided to avoid all the negativity and personal attacks that would result. Call me chicken, but I don't need that level of nastiness on a Saturday morning.
Porter ; as far as the way the presentations are rated or evaluated, I think the fact that many people are working on a Monday morning should be factored into any 'impact' statements. My cable carrier did not honor my request to have it recorded on my DVR, do i missed the Thursday June 9 initial hearing. Others have said they had been given the wrong time slot.
I don’t diminish older votes particularly since I am one. It’s only that you can’t judge success of a series if one is broadcast in prime time and another on a weekday morning when people are at work.
Success of the January 6 committee can be claimed if they do an excellent job in informing the public. So far, so good.
I think all Democratic members of Congress and candidates could help amplify the message if they were as relentless about presenting the truthful narrative about January 6 as Republicans are about repeating their lies.
House Republicans are doing a parallel partisan "investigation" to determine why there was so little security that the police were overwhelmed. They have been blaming Nancy Pelosi, even though Mitch McConnell had equal responsibility, and, as we saw, alleged Commander-in-Chief Trump sat back and did nothing.
This led me to thinking that Republicans aren't proactive in preventing problems or responding appropriately, with respect to many issues. For example, why should the U.S. Capitol have to become a fortress to protect it from a rampaging mob of U.S. citizens, who were incited by the President of the United States? Why should schools be turned into hardened prisons where children shake in fear of being shot by a zealous gun toter or beaten up by school police, when restricting access to guns would solve the problem? Why do Republicans respond to inflation by blaming Biden and lobbying to build a pipeline that will do nothing to mitigate inflation? And their solution for crime is to lock up as many Black people as possible (thereby denying them the right to vote).
It's a common response by Republicans to major problems to offer absurd solutions, which unfortunately are taken up and promoted by other GQP cultists.
For me, the immediate success of the House Select Committee's hearings would be the infiltration of truth into the narratives carried by Trump supporters. I know so many families literally torn apart by Trump's spin. Of course, it must not stop there, but that would be the beginning, and may it be a veritable avalanche of consequences! I am deeply grateful to all the members of the Committee. Their work is superlative.
I think this is a great question, is there any way to read the podcast transcript? I'm Deaf and can't follow along. Thanks for the refreshing, honest email everyday!
In the early years of the Obama administration, a decision was made not to investigate and hold accountable Bush administration officials responsible for torture and other crimes. (So much for Obama’s 2008 campaign promises about investigating wrongdoing and upholding the rule of law.)
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder explained to GQ in 2010: "You only want to look back at a previous administration if you feel you really have to. . . . Because it has a potentially chilling effect. If people who work in this administration today think that four years from now, or eight years from now, the decisions they make are going to be examined by a successor administration, you don't want that to happen. So that's a political consideration."
In his 2011 book “With Liberty and Justice for Some,” Glenn Greenwald claimed that what was going on there was part of a longstanding pattern: “By protecting their predecessors, politicians preserve and strengthen a culture in which illegal activity by the powerful goes unpunished, thus ensuring that they too can commit crimes while in office.”
Hopefully current Attorney General Merrick Garland won’t follow the pattern by using such political, low, and self-serving reasoning to give Trump and other high-level Republicans a pass concerning Jan. 6.
Ditto the mini-insurrection in-house in the Iran-Contra affair. The President acted and spent money against the Congress' explicit orders. The felon Oliver North dressed up in his military bureaucrat's suit paid for by tax dollars, and lied about it to congress. Ho-hum, Papa Bush pardoned the perps.
Thank you Joe, it always bothered me that the Obama administration allowed the corrupt "Wall Street bankers, brokers, and hedge fund managers" to keep their ill gotten gains and escape scot-free while millions of retired Americans lost everything and slipped into abject poverty. Fortunately for me, although I turned 80, I was still full-time employed in a job I loved, that paid well.
I’m worried that the only success will be measured in the historical record, and that as a last gasp of democracy in our republic, if we can’t find a way to persuade young people that any vote for the GOP who believe the election was stolen is a vote for a toxic form of government that will be worse than the uncomfortable inflation of the moment.
There's plenty more to come from the J6 committee. I honestly believe the country will explode if trump is not held accountable for his actions. His cronies need to be held accountable too.
Success of the 1/6 insurrection committee will ONLY be determined when 45 and his minions are indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned. These fascists are tearing apart our democratic country.
It's successful if it motivates Democratic voters to save the House and take the Senate. The House committee can send criminal referrals to the Justice Department, but only the department can bring charges. The panel is working with a sense of urgency to build its case ahead of this year’s midterm elections, when Republicans could retake the House and dissolve the committee.
Watched pots never boil.
In the 17 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 250 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing. So far approximately 40 guilty pleas. The only active charges for sedition are against the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, one count of seditious conspiracy and one count of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties.
It could be that superseding indictments could be filed against other defendants.
There are also several viable civil damage cases that could bankrupt the perpetrators.
It could be that at least 4 federal grand juries and several state grand juries may bring indictments for organizing the insurrection and for obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress. The Mueller case is still viable with the SDNY.
I shudder to think what could happen if the committee sends recommendations to indict to the DOJ and they don’t do anything about them.
Merely making Trump look bad for historical records is UNACCEPTABLE. He and all of his close enablers must see prison terms! I was suspended from Twitter by saying he deserves the death penalty based on our laws…how is that a threat? But I can say it here. That would be the appropriate justice to put an end to this bold attempt to help Putin take the US down! BUT, 40 years in prison will do the trick for me. I will not trust our current Democratic politicians outside of the progressives, ever if this does not have punishment for the worst monster ever to occupy the White House!
I can’t believe they did that to you. Treason is punishable by death. You were just stating a fact. I agree with everything you say.
I even challenged it but they stuck with decision. I just stated a fact.
That’s patently unfair.
Elon Musk most likely disagreed. He wants money from the autocrats' supporters. Still has a chunk of Twitter. So much for 'free speech absolutism'.
Seeking Reason ; I agree.
I seem to recall the Second Impeachment Hearing, the one led by Jamie Raskin of Maryland. That second hearing was well-run, truthful, and compelling, in my view. And Raskin and his colleagues proved the case. But that hearing essentially left us with Trump still in charge of his legions and able to use his time (until now) to push a false and debilitating narrative, simply because the Republicans in the US Senate chose the rule of Trump over the rule of law and the COnstitution. The same thing may very well happen this time around as, once again, we have an extremely well-run hearing under way, we have good and serious committee members, we even have an inspiring vice chair in CHeney who is able to express what will happen, ultimately, in a single poignant phrase. However, members of the US Congress will persist in pushing the counter narrative that Trump was somehow not responsible for any of the events of Jan 6th, that his Big Lie was more important, more truthful, more merited than the findings of the Committee. With this being the case and with a substantial number of loyal Trumpists among the population and Congress, we can't rely on the Department of Justice to deliver as, till now, Trump seems to waltz away, giving some truth to his idea that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and fly away free as a bird. He is telling us that he is more powerful than the Constitution he is seeking to destroy and that may be true in this moment, as it has been leading up till now. However, if the Committee on Jan 6th does its job as they have begun, we will find the Truth and that will be the Committee's achievement for the record. We can't count on the Department of Justice to pursue the truth, we just can't (that itself is a commentary on our sad state) but we can hope that we finally know something approaching the full truth about not only Jan 6th but the past seven or eight years of Trump involvement in a sphere in which he never belonged and did not deserve any role whatsoever.
Th impeachment "jury" was stacked. This is different. A referral will be sent to the Justice Department.
IMHO there are 7000 potential defendants. Not just Trump.
Unlike you (I guess), I have absolutely no idea how this thing will play so I am less than confident about referrals to the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland. (I also wonder how anyone is able to gaze into a crystal ball and tell us what will happen, I guess because I have no crystal ball and do not expect to acquire one.) However, this is--in my view--a question of whether we are going to grab the reins some of us--even some of our leaders--dropped and leave the rule of an individual behind in order to revert to the rule of law. (I don't know that this is what will happen but I am crossing my fingers that this proves out.) I don't expect the conversion of many of The Big Lie folks and their ring-leaders in Congress to a burning desire to return to the rule of law and reject the alternate sphere of Trump, Ginni Thomas, Carlson, Hannity, and Graham...But I also hope you are right and that Merrick Garland also opts for the rule of law and decides to pursue criminal charges wherever warranted...I guess I'm cautiously optimistic but I still don't have a crystal ball or know which way the wind will blow.
That's the procedure. I don't predict, I just say that approximately 7000 potential defendants could be exposed.
The civil cases are another matter.
There is still no guarantee that the procedure will be followed, even in a case that appears open-and-shut. We are assuming that Merrick Garland is keeping his DOJ cards pretty close to the vest and we are also assuming that that is the right-and-proper approach to such matters but that is assuming a lot, especially since the Dems (and a good many of them) are more concerned with keeping everyone in line and with holding on rather than asserting the rule of law unequivocally. So far, the Committee seems concerned with ferreting out the Truth and this is a very good thing and long overdue but they also are cognizant of the need not to offend the voters, many of whom are bound-and-determined to stick by their leader and the rule of the individual. But they also need to realize that, ultimately, they can't have it both ways, they can't sugar-coat it for a few at the expensive of the entire written code. (They seem to be on the right track right now.)mI also do not know how much weight (of any) our public servants give to their own (and their fellow servants') Oaths of Office. If the members of Congress had insisted that such oaths meant more than just a meaningless lip-service sentence or two, think what we would have missed: throwing innocent "illegal babies" in cages at the border; building a useless ineffective wall; using a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent; bribing and extorting the legitimate leader of a country threatened with invasion and war; giving tax-cuts to the wealthiest of citizens; impeding efforts to deal with covid-19; denying climate change and retreating from efforts to deal with it; delaying infrastructure, housing, education, and employment issues,' interference of private citizens (Ginni Thomas) in efforts to overturn a valid election; racial unrest and violence against people of color, gays, women; going backwards on privacy rights of all...the list is virtually endless and everything has to be put on hold while we spend our energies, attention, and funds dealing with the fundamental question of what we really are as a nation. I do not know that Merrick Garland & the DOJ will step up to the plate and help us answer this question and my doubt and lack of certainty is itself a sign that I have lost confidence in the power of the government to pursue the question and resolve it, hopefully for good.
what is IMHO?
In My Humble Opinion
In My HONEST Opinion.
I understand the Justice Dept. has already approached the Committee for information,what was the results of their plea?
The Committee asked them to wait.
Because there's So Much More to come...
Yes I know that,I was wondering what's happened since then.
Raskin is wonderful! I agree with you that we cannot allow this level of crime to get privileged treatment. We are watching and so is the international community. The thing to remember is that these crazies make up under 30% of the voting public. We will have to bring this country to a stand still if they even try to give this a pass. I do believe the witnesses & time put into this committee finding will be different than trying to get impeachment through Congress without sufficient votes. I’m counting on that.
I agree with everything you said and I fully appreciate what this 1/6 Committee is attempting to achieve. So far, the Committee is seeking to represent the people and they are doing an exemplary job of it. We cannot let this go without some sort of legitimate response as Trump and his GOP Trumpies planned and executed a coup attempt against our duly elected government. That is the bottom line and Cheney is correct with her eloquent remark: Donald J Trump will be gone, his tenure in office and non-office will be over but the GOP members will live with dishonor and disgrace in perpetuity. That will be their (er) legacy. Well-deserved and permanent. This is really a discussion as to what the United States is as a country: is our country one where an individual is the rule, where an autocrat makes all the decisions and accepts no opposition (this sounds mostly like Russia, doesn't it?) or is our country one where written documents, decisions, and laws govern each and every person, where the elected leader of the country faces the Constitution and rule of law in the same way and with the same legal response as an ordinary citizen who wields no particular political power? This entire thing is an attempt to answer that fundamental question. It is right that the inquiry proceed with maximum preparation and the most honest, truth-seeking individuals we can find as this is not a process that belongs to a political party or individuals predisposed to one (self-serving) view or another. It is an examination that belongs to all of us and our public servants chosen to carry out the inquiry had better be focused on finding the Truth and, then, acting accordingly. If the Republicans in Congress cannot see this for what it is, if they insist on making it a partisan dispute, they are missing the intent entirely and they should be dismissed from the legislative body in which they were elected to serve. (Cruz, McConnell, MJT, Jordan, Boebert, Lee, Gaetz, and all others of like partisan mind, take note: gather your briefcase and leave! You are not fulfilling your duty to your constituents and you are not abiding by the Oath of Office you once took! This is a study in what the US means at its core and it is right and proper that this study is accurate, truthful, and deliberate as it seems to be. The Truth makes us all free. If that is not the goal of the Republican Party, they have no role in our government and do not deserve a seat at the table.
LANAE ISAACSON ; Very well said!
I think if the senators who voted not to impeach are asked whether the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers should be investigated and prosecuted, 2/3 will agree.
I think if you ask them whether members of Congress who sought pardons should be investigated, a preponderance would agree.
I think if you ask whether people who conspired to render a coup should be prosecuted, a few of those senators would agree.
You're a bit more confident in that than me. Proud Boys leader & Oath Keeper Lead got 6 months probation! That’s less than a wrist slap BUT I think we’ll find out that they got that in exchange for damning evidence.
The point is that even people who voted to acquit Trump approve of the investigation.
They are charged with sedition conspiracy and haven't yet come to trial.
IMHO DC can charge them with felony murder.
As long as Bunkerboy is 1) Barred from running in 2024, 2) IMPRISONED, or 3) In the ground, I'll be happy. If their's one thing we Americans know about cowardly trumplicans, it's that they will IMMEDIATELY collapse when Herr Führer is gone! (Pardon the possibly offensive title, but Bunkerboy DOES adore Adolf, so shouldn't we gift him that?)
He definitely loves Putin and thinks the war criminal is a 'genius'.
I have a predictably darker take on measuring the success of the 1/6 hearings. Firstly, I want to split hairs on what measuring success even means. Are we talking about quantitative measures or qualitative measures. Just to be intentionally annoying, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the difference is between objective and phenomenological measurement, here. It's a dirty job, etc, etc, etc!
Objectively, the hearing appears to have been modestly successful from a screen to eyeball perspective. I think the event planners did a >great< job in conforming the length of the event to the attention span of likely viewers - about as long as a movie - no more, no less. There’s an old Vaudeville adage that lives on to this day in the entertainment world: “Always leave ’em wanting more!” I found myself wanting to hear more. About 2' '20" into the klatsch recording, Ms Lofthouse expresses how she and others found the presentation unexpectedly enjoyable and Dr Reich echoes that sentiment. >That< in itself is a measure of success. And from a purely objective, quantitative perspective, it seems to have kept around 20M other viewers interested, as well: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/media/ratings-january-6-hearings/index.html Note: Nielsen seems to have had a squabble with several networks in '21 which led to having their national ratings accreditation suspended: https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/nielsen-national-ratings-suspension-media-rating-council-1235053949/ I don't know if that has been resolved, but since they were cited for undercounting, I could suspect that any inaccuracy in the numbers they give for the audience would likely be flawed in the same way - undercounted, if anything.
From a phenomenological perspective, Ms Lofthouse and Dr Reich put their finger on the most subjective measure of all. They enjoyed it, citing they liked the way the whole presentation was put together. I'm sure that nano-sample of the viewer U explains why the 20M viewers kept their eyeballs stuck on the screen for 2 hours. I'd call that a great success.
Here's the "however," and it's a >big< "however." Dr Reich put his finger on it when he said "I don't know how you measure something like that." Subjective surveys are possible, but >valid< subjective surveys require much careful planning. Are you going to use multiple choice questions? What sort of multiple choice questions would they be? How do you eliminate your own subjective bias from the kind of questions you ask? Is multiple choice even possible for the question you seek to answer? If not, how do you interpret short-answer type questions? And on, and on. Keep in mind here that formulating a reliable measurement instrument takes weeks and weeks do devise, and the finding would be - at best - ephemeral. Not only that, it would be an instantaneous, lagging indicator, by the weeks and weeks of development time on a political question, where a week in politics is an eternity - as we have all heard said.
The point here is that the question posed on how to measure the success of the 1/6 hearings is nebulous. It has no focus. In order to measure the success of the hearings, you must first formulate a clear idea of what you consider your idea of H0 for success. And here's a hint, if you are even modestly sophisticated, it should be clear at a glance that there are multiple possible H0's for that kind of question. If what you're >really< asking is whether success involves a particular outcome in November, you'll only know by conducting exit polls based on an H0 such as: "The 1/6 hearings changed the way I would have otherwise voted," where H1 = "The 1/6 hearings did not change the way I would have otherwise voted," and where a week is an eternity in politics.
DZK ; Without being scientific at all, the hearings gave big football viewing records a 'run for their money', LOL!
Superbowl?
probably
LATE COMMENT: If the measure of these hearings' success is their impact on primaries, the results are equivocal. Predictably, the Q-publicans have deaf ears: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics/nevada-new-mexico-election-deniers/index.html?utm_term=16553761505043d9eb3746302&utm_source=cnn_Five+Things+for+Thursday%2C+June+16%2C+2022&utm_medium=email&bt_ee=gi61P%2B7DDLaB2cfY4qgd3BQPsMom0H2ESGFMF1w3K5chvQXbLwY6fx6CdyT9fBjR&bt_ts=1655376150507
The question in my mind is: "Were these candidates nominated by all Republicans in their respective states, and if not, who didn't turn out for the Republican primaries, and would it have made a difference in the respective outcomes had those who >did not< vote in the primary >had< voted."
(I'm thinking the Rob Portman types, who would simply walk away rather than vote against the Q-publicans - as opposed to having an actual spine, like Cheney.)
Ironic statement—regarding "These fascists" . . . as your side is in complete control of the Legislative and Executive branches. They are responsible for the state of the union. 45 is not in office. Own it.
Words have meanings. I offer Henry Wallace's observation and welcome your response.
"A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party."
Who is my side? The side opposed to Fascism? or is my side the entirety of the "Anti-Trump Movement?" What do you mean by "responsible for the state of the union?" that Majority rules, so Majority owns? Has the economic damage from COVID-19 now become the Democrats' damage? If inflation was lying about for many years like an IED, does the person in charge own the detonation of the bomb?
Your comment reeks of passivity. I am not free of responsibility if "their inflation" was caused by many years of irresponsible policy. It's still my government that contributed to it. Tribalism never leads towards civic harmony.
NB See: https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/1864/Henry%20Wallace_The%20Danger%20of%20American%20Fascism.pdf
Whether or not you intended that way, your opening sentence is straight from "V for Vendetta." (The movie. Not the graphic novel.) I like it - along with how you followed-up!
An excellent if wordy description. I prefer a condensation as follows:
" A regime exercising totalitarian control over the social, civic, an psychological aspects of the subject population with neither consent or permitted dissent."
I rather think inflation operates more like a merchant's scale than an IED. True, always present and active.
Too many dollars on one side of the scale and the inflation side of the scale rises.
Too few—or an optimal number of dollars—on one end and the inflation side falls.
Thx for your thoughts.
RGK. Remind me not to ask you for the time.
Don't ask me for the time.
You must live in another universe.
LOL! The "blue pencil" strikes again! LOL!
Henry’s wordiness was intended to lay a prosecutor’s foundation for his argument:
“If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. “
“Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”
“American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.”
“Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.”
‘nuff said. A million people back then was 1% of the USA population. Lotsa Fascists.
Thank you Steve O'. Reveal the nihilist's and the shallowness of their 'tools'. Thanks for 'making' the time that so many others won't or can't.
At least the ineptitude of the democrats hasn't made them fascists.
I rather think it has. It's just that they're terrible at everything.
Nice comeback, I have to admit that you made me laugh!
Sorry, Jim -- I'm not laughing. Manchin and Sinema are, however. If they were REAL Democrats, we'd be in a very different place.
[They sure don't LOOK like butterflies ...]
Just laughing at how he turned my comment around, I thought it was cleverly done, not the state of the democratic party. I am only a registered Democrat so that I can help get the progressives within the party elected. My druthers as a Bernie supporter (amongst others) would be to be able to register as a Democratic Socialist. I can't stand the establishment Democrats beholden to and reliant on the monied interests. (Curious as to what you mean by the butterflies reference though.)
RGK Publishing ; 45 did a lot of damage and installed actors that are still there, not to mention stacking the Supreme Court!
Every POTUS chooses cabinet-level appointees.
Every POTUS likewise nominates Justices for SCOTUS when seats are vacated.
Most of the damaging "actors" strategically installed hated 45. fbi. cia. doj. The list is long.
What about Dejoy who wants to limit mail in voting because tRump was convinced that it enhances voter fraud? He also ordered a fleet of gas guzzling vehicles for the postal service.
Big deal, the filibuster and all sorts of dirty money influence 'control', and don't forget Corporate media!
Please continue your good work and wise advice. We NEED it!
The two hour January 6 Hearings on Thursday evening, June 9, were enthralling. The opening statements by Chairman Bennie Thompson and Co-chair Liz Cheney were brilliant. Testimony by Officer Edwards revealed uncanny bravery, and there was not a dull moment in the program.
My take away from today's discussion was YAY!! at last, someone with influence is telling the Democrats to get some courage, forget about collecting larger and larger pots of money and start telling the truth. It's corporate greed folks, not just supply chain not putin or Zelensky, You want prices lowered, tell corporate America, ENOUGH, If we have to return to victory gardens, if we have to let the Jones's have more crap than we do, so be it.
Something puzzles me, and I hope that some of you may shed some light in my tunnel. I have pondered the Republican psyche that draws them toward celebrity (no matter how lacking in intelligence, and integrity). Since the 1960's Republicans have elected no fewer than 5 (6 if you count OZ) second or third tier celebrities to public office. And, I'm shamed to admit, my State, California, is the worst offender. Beginning in the 1960's the Republicans sent third string, half-assed, dancer George Murphy to the Senate, followed by has-been, wannabe, Ronald Reagan, first to the Governorship of our own State, then to the President of the whole Country. Followed by fourth rate action hero, Arnold Schwarznegger, to the Governorship. (Frankly I think we'd have been better off with his plastic doll) Then in 2016 the worst celebrity of all tRump (at least he didn't come from California) Now Pennsylvania, of all places, has selected Oz to run for the retrumplican senator. I do blame the national media for pandering to this thirst for celebrity, at the same time I despise them for putting profit over integrity. Any ideas? Thanks, Fay Reid
I understand what you're are saying that Trump will be held accountable in History. But won't an indictment send a more powerful message not only to the historians that will write this chapter of our history but also to those that sill adhere and cling to Trumpism.
An indictment and conviction would send the most powerful signal, but a historic record such as the committee is compiling will be hugely important as well.
I guess any action is better than none, but I'm still hopeful of indictment.
Mr. Patriot: Republican leadership waived an adversarial hearing. Validity approved by Supreme Court. So far approximately 40 guilty pleas. A couple of convictions after trial. Even Giuliani, Ivanka and Kushner came forward. Don't expect cultists will be moved. But some have. 99% of taxpayers lost big on the the "cuts." If you donated to Trump charities he stole your money on false pretenses. If you donated to fund the wall Bannon et al stole your money. If you are paying attention, McConnell and McCarthy both gave contemporaneous speeches admitting that this was an insurrection. Barr called the big lie "Bullshit." Cultists have to choose between Trump and Pence. Which side are you on?
From his/her statement this person sound like a retrumplican foxter.
Not mutually exclusive.
I agree, even if it is overturned by the 6 justices from hell, the indictment and conviction would stand as Notice that regardless of the retrumplicans and their toady minions, the Citizens of the United States stand in duty to the Rule of Law, and the Constitution whereby we are governed.
I really loved today's segment. It had me laughing out loud at times, in particular "the democrats are just wusses" comment. And when Heather said "shift the narrative" and you said it sounded like she had said "shit" through the mask, I couldn't help thinking about what was going on Fox during the hearings as they unabashedly "shit" on the committee's narrative. Right on, guys!
As for the hearing itself, it was spellbinding, all of it. It confirmed what I thought must be going on behind the scenes on Jan 6 but that had not yet been brought to the light of day, that this epic f**k up could be laid at the feet of TFG and those that enabled him. The testimony of Officer Edwards and the new footage that was provided brought me to tears, and brought me back to that day, where I watched as it happened live, just the surrealism of what was going on, not unlike the morning of 9/11 when I turned on the television in the morning to see one of the towers on fire and then a minute later watched as a second aircraft hit the second.
I can't wait to see what the follow on hearings bring to light!
Thanks to you both for what you do!
If we end up using the 14 th Amendment to keep anyone with a connection to the insurrection from holding public office that will show the value of these presentations of the January 6 committee and it could very well stop the erosion of our republic and our Constitution.
That is a terrific idea
Supposedly 20 million Americans watched the first presentation of what happened, by the Jan 6 committee. That's apparently as many viewers as turn in to see the NFL playoffs. The forthcoming second public session of the committee will not take place in prime time (commercials before democracy, you know - it's the American way) but rather in the morning on Monday, and we'll learn much from the size of the viewership and the media coverage of the event.
The "conversion", as it's called, of first public presentation viewers to the second presentation will indicate, as it always does in series, the impact of the initial public hearing and give us an idea of how many people will hang around for the subsequent hearings.
Apparently the committee knew that it needed to have a very strong and gripping presentation in its first public hearing. We'll see this Monday whether they were effective.
Personally, my hope is that the public hearings settle into a high level of viewership and take hold of the news cycle. I am hopeful that from this point forward, positive events and actions regarding the insurrection increase in number and severity. One that I noticed has already started to occur is fewer uses of the word "riot" to describe what went on at the Capitol and an increase in the use of the terms "insurrection" and "attempted coup." These are initial and very positive indicators of the effect of the first hearing.
I should add that this morning I checked Fox News online for any coverage of the Jan 6 committee hearing, and of course it was virtually all negative, with the comments by readers enough to really make your blood boil. The "riot", you know, was really the fault, the failure of the Capitol police and nothing else. I considered putting my own viewpoint into the comments but reluctantly decided to avoid all the negativity and personal attacks that would result. Call me chicken, but I don't need that level of nastiness on a Saturday morning.
Porter ; as far as the way the presentations are rated or evaluated, I think the fact that many people are working on a Monday morning should be factored into any 'impact' statements. My cable carrier did not honor my request to have it recorded on my DVR, do i missed the Thursday June 9 initial hearing. Others have said they had been given the wrong time slot.
Well if the second presentation is in the morning they will only get an audience of retired people. Not a fair comparison if you think about it.
Yes but those of us retired old fogies will certainly fill you in on what happened {:-)
Oh I will be there, being old as dirt
Maggie Mac ; there will be a good idea of how many older voters watched. Every vote counts.
I don’t diminish older votes particularly since I am one. It’s only that you can’t judge success of a series if one is broadcast in prime time and another on a weekday morning when people are at work.
I qualify as older too. I have Monday off and will watch. When the numbers compare to football viewing that is promising.
Success of the January 6 committee can be claimed if they do an excellent job in informing the public. So far, so good.
I think all Democratic members of Congress and candidates could help amplify the message if they were as relentless about presenting the truthful narrative about January 6 as Republicans are about repeating their lies.
House Republicans are doing a parallel partisan "investigation" to determine why there was so little security that the police were overwhelmed. They have been blaming Nancy Pelosi, even though Mitch McConnell had equal responsibility, and, as we saw, alleged Commander-in-Chief Trump sat back and did nothing.
This led me to thinking that Republicans aren't proactive in preventing problems or responding appropriately, with respect to many issues. For example, why should the U.S. Capitol have to become a fortress to protect it from a rampaging mob of U.S. citizens, who were incited by the President of the United States? Why should schools be turned into hardened prisons where children shake in fear of being shot by a zealous gun toter or beaten up by school police, when restricting access to guns would solve the problem? Why do Republicans respond to inflation by blaming Biden and lobbying to build a pipeline that will do nothing to mitigate inflation? And their solution for crime is to lock up as many Black people as possible (thereby denying them the right to vote).
It's a common response by Republicans to major problems to offer absurd solutions, which unfortunately are taken up and promoted by other GQP cultists.
You measure the success of the January 6 investigations by how many of Don Trump and his traitorous Republican co-conspirators get sent to prison.
I'll settle for convictions, since I fully expect the 6 lame brains on the Supreme Court to let "poor Donnie" off the hook
Good morning! Scientist, conservationist, activist, Berkeley neighbor - Deborah Moore - would be a wonderful interview:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahxmoore
For me, the immediate success of the House Select Committee's hearings would be the infiltration of truth into the narratives carried by Trump supporters. I know so many families literally torn apart by Trump's spin. Of course, it must not stop there, but that would be the beginning, and may it be a veritable avalanche of consequences! I am deeply grateful to all the members of the Committee. Their work is superlative.
I think this is a great question, is there any way to read the podcast transcript? I'm Deaf and can't follow along. Thanks for the refreshing, honest email everyday!
In the early years of the Obama administration, a decision was made not to investigate and hold accountable Bush administration officials responsible for torture and other crimes. (So much for Obama’s 2008 campaign promises about investigating wrongdoing and upholding the rule of law.)
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder explained to GQ in 2010: "You only want to look back at a previous administration if you feel you really have to. . . . Because it has a potentially chilling effect. If people who work in this administration today think that four years from now, or eight years from now, the decisions they make are going to be examined by a successor administration, you don't want that to happen. So that's a political consideration."
In his 2011 book “With Liberty and Justice for Some,” Glenn Greenwald claimed that what was going on there was part of a longstanding pattern: “By protecting their predecessors, politicians preserve and strengthen a culture in which illegal activity by the powerful goes unpunished, thus ensuring that they too can commit crimes while in office.”
Hopefully current Attorney General Merrick Garland won’t follow the pattern by using such political, low, and self-serving reasoning to give Trump and other high-level Republicans a pass concerning Jan. 6.
Ditto the mini-insurrection in-house in the Iran-Contra affair. The President acted and spent money against the Congress' explicit orders. The felon Oliver North dressed up in his military bureaucrat's suit paid for by tax dollars, and lied about it to congress. Ho-hum, Papa Bush pardoned the perps.
A den of thieves
Thank you Joe, it always bothered me that the Obama administration allowed the corrupt "Wall Street bankers, brokers, and hedge fund managers" to keep their ill gotten gains and escape scot-free while millions of retired Americans lost everything and slipped into abject poverty. Fortunately for me, although I turned 80, I was still full-time employed in a job I loved, that paid well.
I’m worried that the only success will be measured in the historical record, and that as a last gasp of democracy in our republic, if we can’t find a way to persuade young people that any vote for the GOP who believe the election was stolen is a vote for a toxic form of government that will be worse than the uncomfortable inflation of the moment.
There's plenty more to come from the J6 committee. I honestly believe the country will explode if trump is not held accountable for his actions. His cronies need to be held accountable too.
Not just Trump! Potentially thousands of criminals.