How Many Ways Are There to Plead the Fifth?

 The January 6 Committee has released its first 34 transcripts, consisting mostly of various witnesses taking the Fifth.  By way of reminder, four witnesses -- Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Pete Navarro and Dan Scavino refused to testify altogether and were referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution for contempt.  The DOJ decided to prosecute only Bannon and Navarro.  Meadows apparently cooperated enough to avoid contempt proceedings, and Scavino (presumably) was not important enough to go after.

During the hearing, committee members mentioned that over 30 witnesses appeared and took the Fifth, as is their right. The hearings played excerpts from some of the most prominent witnesses to take the Fifth -- John Eastman (the lawyer who suggested having the Vice President choose which electors to qualify), Jeffrey Clark (the DOJ official who wanted to endorse claims that the election was corrupt), Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. It seemed a safe assumption that many of the others who took the fifth were less well known.  The release of transcripts reveals this to be true.

Many people have expressed outrage at the obscure and innocuous questions that some witnesses refused to answer.  (Roger Stone would not give his age or place of residence).  Others offered in the witnesses' defense that the Fifth Amendment is all or nothing -- one must either answer all questions or none.  The transcripts do not bear that out.  Some witnesses were actually quite cooperative and others only invoked the Fifth for specific subjects. Much to my surprise, these included Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keeper, testifying from jail and later convicted seditious conspiracy.  Enrique (Henry) Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, was also surprisingly cooperative despite excellent reasons not to be.*  Both men gave extensive details on their organizations that other members might see as betrayal.

Other witnesses, by contrast, gave general background information but shut down when the conversation moved to particulars.  Some (including Roger Stone) refused to answer beyond just acknowledging the subpoena they received.  Witnesses Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, rather to the consternation of the committee, refused to even acknowledge the subpoena they received.  (Both men, it should be noted, belonged to the same organization and had the same lawyer, Leslie McAdoo Gordon).  

Also significant -- you could get some idea how important the committee thought a witness was by how many members attended the deposition.  For an an unimportant witness, only one committee member would attend, or sometimes no committee members would attend and staffers would conduct the deposition. More important witnesses rated more committee members.  Jeffrey Clark tipped the scales with all nine members present for his first deposition.  (This is the only deposition of the 34 released that Chairman Bennie Thompson attended).  Six members attended the second deposition.  Clark appears to have been the only DOJ employee willing to use the Department to overturn the election result, which does, indeed, make him important. Five committee members attended the deposition of Roger Stone.  Here again, if there was a link between the corridors of power and the insurrectionists in the street, Roger Stone is the most likely suspect, so he was, indeed, important.  John Eastman scored four committee members, as did Julie Fancelli, a donor and rally organizer who I must admit to not having heard of. Alex Jones scored three committee members, as did Jenna Ellis, Trump's election lawyer.  Michael Flynn rated a mere two.  (Sounds like an insult).

But above all, I must admit to a certain childish fascination with how many different wordings the witnesses found to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.  I began to be interested in that trivial subject during the hearings after noticing that Eastman said, "Fifth," while Flynn said, "The Fifth," and Roger Stone said, "On the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  The depositions released gave a wealth of other wordings. Usually the witness invoked the Fifth, but sometimes the lawyer objected on behalf of the witness.  Often the witness or the witness's lawyer gave an extended invocation of the Fifth Amendment and either offered an abbreviation or was given an abbreviation by the committee. Media members usually invoked the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.  Leslie Gordon, on behalf of her clients, also claimed a rules violation.

Consider, then, the extraordinary array of wordings witnesses and their lawyers chose to say the same thing.

Kathy Berden, Michigan fake elector, "The Fifth, please."

Alexander Bruzewitz, CEO of X Strategies, LLC, "On the advice of counsel, I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Patrick Casey Live stream and paid content. His lawyer said on his behalf, "Same objections, First and Fifth Amendments."

Dion Cini, Proud Boy, "I plead the Fifth."

Jeffrey Clark, "Fifth." 

James DeGraffenreid, Nevada Republican Party official.  Extended speech on the Fifth Amendment, followed by, "On the advice of counsel, I assert the prior privilege."

Enrique de La Torre, associate of Roger Stone, "I assert my Fifth Amendment right."

John Eastman, "Fifth." 

Jenna Ellis, "Pursuant to the advice of counsel, I will invoke my constitutionally protected right to assert the Fifth Amendment." 

Kimberly Fletcher, founder and president of Moms for America, "I decline to answer pursuant to the rights afforded me under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments."

Michael Flynn, "The Fifth." 

Nick Fuentes, racist and rally speaker, "Upon the advice of counsel and in reliance upon the Constitution of the United States, I most respectfully refuse to to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."  (Later just, "Fifth Amendment.:")

Julie Fancelli, donor, protest organizer, "I invoke."  .

Bianca Gracia, founder of Latinos for Trump, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Alex Jones, "On advice of counsel, I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent." 

Charlie Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA, "On the advice of counsel I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right not to testify and decline to answer that question." (Later, "I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right.")

Antonio LaMotta, member, Veterans for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, member, First Amendment Praetorians, both represented by Leslie Gordon, "Rules, First, and Fifth."  

Joshua Macias, member, Veteran for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth, sir."

John Matze, founder and CEO of Parler, "Same objection; Fifth Amendment."  (Spoken by his lawyer, Brian Kelly).

Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, "Based on the advice of my attorney, I'll be invoking my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Mayra Rodriguez, fake elector from Michigan, "I take my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."

Mike Roman, official with the Trump campaign, "The Fifth."

Roger Stone, no stock phrase, but something similar to, "Once again, on the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  Always used full sentences and not just one or two words. 

James Philip Waldron, preparer and presenter of Power Point slide on election fraud, gave one explanation of his invocation of the Fifth and then "Same reply."

Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege." (Like Roger Stone, she would not even give background information).

Garrett Ziegler, aide to Peter Navarro, "I invoke my right to silence," or "I invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment."

______________________________________
*Tarrio was arrested on unrelated charged slightly before January 6, 2021 and took no part in the insurrection, but he as later charged with conspiracy.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: The Importance of Bennie Thompson

I don't know what role Bennie Thompson plays behind the scene in January 6 Committee, although I don't recall any of the clips playing testimony in which he asked questions.  Certainly he has not dominated the public hearings the way that Adam Schiff dominated to first impeachment, or the way (to a lesser extent) that Jamie Raskin dominated the second impeachment.  Thompson's public role has been mostly ceremonial.  He calls the committee to order and adjourns.  He makes brief introductory and conclusory remarks, swears in the witnesses, and often asks a few superficial questions, leaving the in-depth questioning and the presentations to the questioner(s) of the day. 

To the extent that anyone has publicly dominated the hearings, it has been Liz Cheney.  As vice chair, Cheney gives the detailed opening and closing statements explaining in depth what the Committee will present, and what to expect next time.  She also questioned Cassidy Hutchinson, perhaps the most shocking witness to date.  She also asks questions during some of the pre-recorded testimony.  

And it isn't just Liz Cheney who overshadows Thompson.  He is also overshadowed, to a lesser extent, by Adam Kinzinger as the only other Republican on the Committee, Adam Schiff as first impeachment manager, and Jamie Raskin as second impeachment manager.  Any really, every member of the Committee has had as least one day in the spotlight -- one opportunity to ask witnesses and present evidence -- except for Thompson.

Bennie Thompson

And yet I have come to the conclusion that Thompson brings something to the Committee that none of the others could offer, and that there is a reason why Nancy Pelosi chose him.  Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say, there is a reason Pelosi chose a 74-year-old Black man from Mississippi.  And yes, I understand at this point that right wingers will be outraged that I suggest that race should be a factor.  To which I say, Thompson's race is a factor -- as is his age and state of origin.

You see, Thompson was not old enough to had any major role in the civil rights movement, although apparently he did take part in voter registration drives.  But he was part of the first wave of Black candidates to run for office.  And, as such, he met with every dirty trick the white establishment could find to thwart election results, regardless of the vote total.  And so what to the other Committee members was a shocking, unheard-of, almost unthinkable event was, to Thompson, an all-too-familiar story.

And that, I believe, is what has made his contribution to the Committee, however quiet and low key, of indispensable importance.

Trump and Pence are Goofus and Gallant

 

 Donald Trump and Mike Pence spawns a lot of jokes about the libertine President and his uptight, rather prudish Vice President.  For those of us old enough to remember Bill Clinton, it struck a chord.  A lot of them sounded very much like jokes about Bill Clinton and Al Gore.*

But Trump and Pence go well beyond Clinton and Gore.  But with the latest story about how Pence meticulously catalogued the government documents in his possession and turned them over the proper authorities, suddenly I realized who Trump and Pence are. They are Goofus and Gallant.  For anyone (including me) who is not old enough to remember Goofus and Gallant, they were apparently a cartoon giving lessons to children.  Goofus showed children what not to do; Gallant showed children what to do.  And suddenly Trump and Pence made a lot more sense.

Goofus runs off with random government documents, including some marked "Top Secret."  Gallant meticulously catalogues his documents and hands them over the the proper authorities.

Goofus gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate pie when everyone else just gets one.  Gallant has a plate of fruit for dessert.

Goofus discards his wives as soon as their beauty starts to fade.  Gallant has been married to the same woman for 37 years. Goofus grabs women by the pussy.  Gallant avoids any potentially compromising situation with any woman.

Goofus responds to a fire in an iconic cathedral with unsolicited advice that fire fighters have already rejected as impractical. Gallant responds with reverence and compassion.

And, of course, Goofus responds to losing an election by egging on a mob baying for Gallant's blood.  Gallant won't let even a howling mob keep him from his constitutional duty.

But here is the thing.  The comparison may be apt in more ways than one because, let's face it.  Everyone hates Gallant.**  He's just too much of a goody-goody.  Any one good thing that he does will no doubt meet with approval.  But being constantly so good is hard to read as other than a rebuke to the rest of us for not living up to Gallant's standards.

And that, of course, is the secret to Trump's appeal.  He gives us permission to be Goofus.  In fact, he celebrates our inner Goofus as "authenticity" and dismisses Gallant as mere snobbery.  And let's face it.  Everyone would rather be Goofus than Gallant. We just don't want everyone else to be Goofus.

__________________________________________________________

*Example: When the impeachment report came out detailing everything Bill Clinton did that met the legal description of sex used at his deposition, the joke was that Tripper Gore would have to explain half of that stuff to Al.  When rumors of the peepee tape came out, someone joked that a very uncomfortable staffer is now explaining to Mike Pence what a "golden shower" is.

**When I searched for imagines of Goofus and Gallant, at least half were spoofs of some kind.

Applying Trump's Razor to the Mar-a-Lago Raid: He's a Patrimonialist

But her emails!

The lessons of the Mar-a-Lago raid for Trump supporters should be obvious.  Don't go out on a limb to defend Donald Trump.  He will saw it off every time.

The lessons for our side are to remember, reality is almost never as juicy as your imagination.  I learned that the hard way with Trump/Russia.  My imagination filled in all sorts of sordid details.  The truth was bad, but nowhere near as bad as what I had imagined. And furthermore as someone (don't remember who) pointed out, our most lurid speculations play into the hands of Trump supporters.  They eagerly publish our side's most lurid fantasies, and then claim vindication when the truth turns out not to be quite that bad.  

So stop speculating that he wants to sell top secret documents to the highest bidder (they are too hot to handle) or that he is using them for blackmail, or that he is hiding something deeply incriminating.*  Instead, it is best to apply Trump's Razor -- that in trying to understand The Donald, but stupidest explanation that can be reconciled with the available facts is usually right.  The stupidest explanation here is that Trump took the documents home as a keepsake, a sort of hunting trophy.  He refused to turn them over because he had no real concept of what top secret documents are and thought that government documents were his own personal property.  He resisted turning them over because why should he turn over his personal property?  In other words, Trump was being a patrimonialist, treating the government as his private property and making no distinction between public and private patrimony. Nothing deeper or more sinister was at work.  Of course, what is the point in having a trophy unless you can show it off?  Especially if you have an ego like Donald Trump's.  No sinister plot is needed to make letting Donald Trump get his hands on top secret documents a very bad idea.**

And, incidentally, all this is further proof of why Ron DeSantis, though clearly dangerous, is a better choice than Trump. At least he understands that top secret documents are not his private property.

_________________________________________

*That last motive sounds particularly implausible.  It is not clear that Trump recognizes that anything can incriminate him.  Remember, this is the man who releases the readout of the Ukrainian extortion call because he thought it made him look good, who said that his call to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to change the vote count was "almost as perfect," and who couldn't fathom what was wrong with a rampaging mob baying for his Vice President's blood.

**It also reminds me of Conor Friedersdorf's prophetic warning:

Absurdly, many seem to have convinced themselves that Trump, who won’t release his tax returns, as every presidential candidate has for decades, will be better on transparency; that a man whose finances we don’t even know, who used his charitable foundation to illegally funnel money to an attorney general investigating him for fraud, will be better on conflicts of interest; that an erratic man who blurts all manner of things out on Twitter and has shady ties to Vladimir Putin will somehow be a more trustworthy guardian of classified information. Trump is likely to be worse across all those metrics!

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: I Will Never Confuse Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney Again

 

Hovering over the January 6 Committee hearings was an absent presence, a man who never testified, never even took the fifth, but knew perhaps more than anyone else about what was really going on, who had cooperated just enough to seriously incriminate himself, but not enough to get off on a plea. If there was any sort of coordination between the White House and the rioters, this is the one who would know it.

I refer, of course, to Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff at the time of the election and aftermath.  

Confession:  I have been known to confuse Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney.  Consider all they things they have in common.  Both have the initials MM. Both were elected to Congress from a Carolina state.  Both were leaders of the Freedom Caucus, along with Jim Jordan.*  Both left Congress to serve in the White House, including as White House Chief of Staff.  Both were loyal Trumpsters.  The main difference, so far as I could see, what that Mulvaney looked so much more Irish than Meadows.  (Meadows is actually quite handsome).

Mulvaney, it must be emphasized, was a very much a loyal Trumpster.  As director of the Office of Budget Management (OMB), Mulvaney withheld military aid to Ukraine, a policy opposed by essentially everyone else, and described by National Security Advisor John Bolton as a "drug deal" between Mulvaney and envoy Gordon Sondland. Mulvaney refused to testify at the first impeachment hearings.  As chief of staff, Mulvaney encouraged the insane decision for the Trump Administration to have the entire Affordable Care Act overturned in court against the better judgment of William Barr.

So Mulvaney's credentials as a Trump supporter are beyond dispute.  But, as luck would have it, in March, 2020 Mark Meadows took over as White House Chief of Staff, while Mulvaney became special envoy to North Ireland.  As such, Mulvaney was out of the country during the attempt to overturn the election and took no part in any aspect.  He resigned in protest after January 6 and later became a CBS commentator.

Meadows, by contrast, was in the thick of things.  Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Meadows was devastating.  Liz Cheney hinted without actually saying that Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Rudy Giuliani may have been involved in planning the insurrection.  Hutchinson confirmed that Meadows (1) discussed the rally with Giuliani, (2) warned that it might get violent, (3) planned to travel to the Willard Hotel to make plans with Giuliani, but Hutchinson talked him out of it, (4) when she tried to warn Meadows that a riot was starting at the Capitol he twice closed his car door on her and seemed uninterested when he did find out, (5) Meadows spent the rest of the day sitting on a couch, scrolling through his phone, strangely indifferent to the riot going on, and doing nothing to talk any sense into Trump. 

Mulvaney could only describe Meadows' response as a sort of nervous breakdown.  He said it was Hutchinson's testimony that convinced him that Trump's behavior was criminal.  I have to wonder whether Mulvaney, listening to what Meadows was doing during those fateful days, ever wonders if he would have done any better under the circumstances.  Does he ever say to himself, "There but for the grace of God go I"?

_____________________________________________________

*Jim Jordan, on the other hand was impossible to confuse with the others because (1) his initials were JJ, (2) he stayed in Congress, (3) his schtick of showing up in his shirtsleeves, (4) his signature style of yelling and ranting, and (5) the whiff of scandal over the University of Ohio wrestling team.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: Donald Trump is a Stone Cold Sociopath

 The usual phrase to describe the latest revelations about Donald Trump is "shocking but not surprising."  And I must say the revelations about Donald Trump during the January 6 hearing have been quite shocking, but (mostly) not so surprising.  And they have made fleshed out what should have been clear for a long time -- Donald Trump is a stone-cold sociopath.

Trump's reaction to the concept that there were laws barring what he wanted to do was blank incomprehension.  His reaction to Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn making blatantly illegal proposals to seize voting machines was to say that at least they were doing something.  Donald Trump's reaction to Justice Department officials saying that they did not have the authority to seize voting machines, and did not even have the technological expertise of the Department of Homeland Security was to call Ken Cuccinelli at Homeland Security and say, "I'm sitting here with the acting attorney general. He just told me it's your job to seize machines. And you're not doing your job."*  His reaction to a violent mob rampaging at the Capitol was to rejoice and not understand why no one else was rejoicing.  It took great pressure to force him to urge the mob to be peaceful. His reaction to hearing the mob call out to hang Mike Pence was to say that Mike Pence deserved to be hung and to send out a tweet urging them on.  His only comment at the end of that shocking day was to say, "Mike Pence let me down."  He did not think the mob at the Capitol did anything wrong, nor could he see anything wrong with killing his own Vice-President!

Another way of putting it is to quote Dave Barry, who described Wall Street speculators as having "the ethical standards of tapeworms."  The comment is funny, not just because tapeworms have no ethical standards at all, but because the whole idea of a tapeworm having ethical standards is self-evidently absurd.  Tapeworms are incapable of having ethical standards.  They're tapeworms!  Tapeworms can't help sucking the nutrients out of their hosts.  It's what they do.  They are incapable of doing otherwise.**  

Well, Donald Trump has the ethical standards of a tapeworm.  Not only does Donald Trump have no ethical standards, the whole idea of Donald Trump having ethical standards is self-evidently absurd.  Donald Trump is incapable of having ethical standards.  He's Donald Trump!  Donald Trump can't help evaluating events solely in terms of his own interests.  It's what he does.  He is incapable of doing otherwise.

It is also unclear to me whether Donald Trump has any concept of objective reality apart from his personal interests.  It is not clear he can distinguish between wanting to win and actually winning, or between the size of crowd he saw from his specific vantage point from his inauguration to the entire crowd on the ground and so forth.  Once again, I am reminded of when John Hinkley, Jr. shot and wounded President Reagan and got off on a plea of insanity.  An outraged columnist asked if Hinkley was sane enough to know that he was loading bullets, not raisins and firing a gun, not a roman candle.  Certainly, I think that Trump has that much sense of objective reality.  He understands objective reality well enough to know that it is not in his interest to jump off Trump Tower and try to fly by flapping his arms.  Whether he might think that a follower whose loyalty he was starting to question should prove it by jumping off Trump Tower and flapping his arms to fly I could not say.

All of this is why the question of whether to prefer Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis should be a complete no brainer.  Yes, I grant, DeSantis is a fairly typical Republican these days who appears to believe no Democrat can legitimately win an election,*** that media may not legitimately criticize Republican politicians, regulatory agencies and law enforcement may not legitimately investigate or prosecute Republican politicians, corporations may not legitimately express "woke" viewpoints, local government may not differ from state policy, social media may not legitimately ban any right-wing post, and (presumably) that it should be a defense to any crime that it was done to advance the Republican Party or platform.  Yes, he is smarter and more competent than Trump and would no doubt be more effective. And no, these are not just ordinary policy disputes. They are part and parcel of the entire Republican Party's apparent belief that it is entitled to a monopoly on political power and that its opponents are illegitimate by definition.

But Ron DeSantis is not a stone cold sociopath.  He is, no doubt, a cynical opportunist and authoritarian, but he is not a stone cold sociopath.  A President DeSantis would understand the difference between his wishes and objective reality, even if he chose to lie about it. He would not throw his plate at the wall when someone told him news he didn't want to hear.  He would understand what was wrong with a mob rampaging through the Capitol, howling for his Vice President's blood.  I do not doubt that, if elected, DeSantis would implement something like Trump's plan to remove civil service protections from some 50,000 mid-level managers in the federal government and replace them with loyalists.  But I would expect him to put his loyalists to more traditionally Republican uses.  Until recently, I would expect a Republican to act as an economic royalist and use this power simply to halt all economic regulation of any kind.  Times having changed and the Republican Party have moves somewhat away from economic royalism, I would expect a President DeSantis use regulatory power to bar all "woke" policies and punish companies that express any "woke" opinions, but to otherwise refrain from all economic regulation. 

But I would expect a President DeSantis to focus on typical conservative targets such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service, with the goal of gutting them, except to punish "wokeness."  I would not expect him to focus on the "daddy" branches of the government, such as the Justice Department, the intelligence community, or the Pentagon.  He might bring some pressure to bear to let them know they were never to investigate any Republican office holders or candidates, and that ordinary crime should be forgiven if done on behalf of the Republican Party or right wing causes.  But I would not expect him to use the government's coercive mechanism to rig the election apparatus (at least not to the extent that Trump apparently plans to), or to persecute political rivals and allies who "betray" him. 

I would expect a President DeSantis to push for a de facto Republican one-party state and seek as much as possible to use the federal bureaucracy to advance the fortunes of the Republican Party.  But I would not expect him to push for a de facto personal dictatorship, or to be a patrimonialist, equating his private business fortunes with the public good. 

 In short, I would expect DeSantis, or any other Republican President to seek a de facto one party state, but also wish to maintain at least the facade of democracy and the rule of law.  

I would expect democracy and the rule of law to mean as much to Trump as, well, to a tape worm.

_________________________________________

*To quote the full account:

President was very agitated by the acting attorney general's response, and to the extent that machines and the technology was being discussed, the acting attorney general said that the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has expertise in machines, and certifying them, and making sure that the states are operating them properly. And since DHS had been mentioned, the president yelled out to his secretary, get Ken Cuccinelli on the phone. And she did in very short order. Mr. Cuccinelli was on the phone. He was the number two at DHS at the time.

I was on the speakerphone. And the president essentially said, Ken. I'm sitting here with the acting attorney general. He just told me it's your job to seize machines. And you're not doing your job.

**And this can act to their disadvantage as well.  I remember as a child when our cat got deworming medicine I asked if the tapeworms might recognize that the drug was bad for them and refuse to partake.  The answer -- tapeworms soak up what is there, good or bad.  They cannot do otherwise. 

***At least for President, Congressional majority, or statewide office or legislative majority in a red or purple state.  I do think Republicans are willing to concede Democrats a minority in both houses, control in certain hopeless blue states, and maybe even big city governments in red states.  Hence the wish to limit municipal autonomy.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee Hearings: Should We Miss the Republicans?

So, as we watch the Select Committee hearings, a certain haunting questions won't go away.  Should there be Republican nominees?  

Just by way of quick reminder, Republicans rejected forming a blue ribbon commission to study the insurrection, so the House voted for a 13 member committee with eight members to be chosen by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and five by Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.  Pelosi then chose seven Democrats, including both impeachment managers, and Liz Cheney.  McCarthy chose five Republicans, including Jim Jordan.  Pelosi then rejected both Jordan and Jim Banks as inimical the the committee's mission.  McCarthy then withdrew all his nominees, so Pelosi appointed Adam Kinzinger as the only other Republican willing to serve.

The result has been -- unusual.  Committee hearing do not follow the same rules of evidence as a  trial, but traditionally they have been an adversarial process, with partisan divisions and aggressive cross-examination of witnesses by the minority party.  (Jim Jordan is particularly notorious in this regard).  Committee hearings also tend to involve into preening and posturing, with each committee member asking the witness many of the same questions and being more focused on showing off than eliciting information. 

Without those things, the hearings really do seem sometimes not to be "real" committee hearings, with a proper adversarial process, but something more staged and predetermined.  Opponents refers to the hearings as a show trial.  I think it would be more accurate to call them a documentary.  On the one hand, what's wrong with that?  Good documentaries can be informative.  This is certainly a good documentary.  But documentaries do not leave a lot of room for spontaneity, or opposing views.  

And so, yes, I saw the committee show a selection of videotaped testimony and wondered if it was deceptively edited.  Of course, the entirety of their deposition testimony would have gone on for hours and hours and much of it was presumably deathly dull.  And, yes, I can absolutely imagine that Republicans would insist on showing witness testimony in its entirety precisely to bore to audience into tuning them out. Still, the Democrats would have had a majority of 8-5 or at least 7-6 (depending on which way Liz Cheney wanted to go) and should have been able to make some reasonable rules, allowing each party to submit the parts of videotaped depositions it considered genuinely relevant, but not long portions intended solely to confuse and bore.

Even live testimony, if brief, felt staged. Longer testimony had more give and take, more spontaneity, more feeling of reality. But not the real genuineness and spontaneity that goes with hostile cross-examination in an adversarial process.  At the same time, "real" hearings can degenerate into round-robins of each committee member asking the same question, speechifying, preening, and posturing.  The January 6 Committee avoided this problem by having only one or two members ask questions at each hearing.  They could have set the same rule for Republicans -- only one member is allowed to cross examine per hearing.  The Democrats took care to give each member a chance to shine, but by all means, let the Republicans decide who to put forward.  Whether they wanted to have a difference member cross-examine each time, or to have Jim Jordan ranting and raging each time should be entirely up to them.

There is only one problem here.  It presumes that the Republicans are good faith actors with good faith disagreements.  It presumes that Republicans are prepared to concede the committee some degree of legitimacy and do not want to destroy it altogether.  The evidence rather suggests otherwise.  Others have pointed out that Republicans' opportunities to undermine, obstruct, selectively leak, and even pass information on to Trump and his inner circle, would probably have completely sabotaged the Committee.

In other words, good faith Republicans could have contributed to the Committee's mission to get to the bottom of things by challenging them and forcing them to prove everything.  Bad faith Republicans could (probably) have sabotaged the committee and made it unworkable.  And given the choice between that and a committee that seems just a little too slick, too scripted, and too much like a documentary instead of a committee -- well, I think what we have now is very much the better choice.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee Hearings: Personal Details Matter

 

Look, I know we are not supposed to pay attention to the personal details at the January 6 Committee hearing, but can we be real?  First of all, that is just not how our brains work. The substance of what people say is simply not as memorable as their personal details.  Did anyone not watch Michael Luttig and notice that he was t a l k i n g   v e r y   s l o w l y?  Or watch the videos of Eric Herschmann and not get distracted by the painting on his wall and wonder if it was a panda?

So, yes, let me comment on a few personal details.  

Michael Luttig

Michael Luttig talked very slowly.  Furthermore, that fact, together with his tendency to speak in vague generalities rather than concrete specifics, created the distinct impression that he had some sort of cognitive impairment.  This is not to deny that Luttig is a brilliant legal mind, but he reminded me of an old lawyer I once worked for. His friends assured me that he was once a brilliant legal mind, and I think the old fund of knowledge was still there, but he could not access it at a normal processing speed.  Luttig came across either like that, or like someone struggling with aphasia -- the thoughts are there, but he has great difficulty translating them into words.  Reading the transcript without hearing Luttig's voice, his words sound learned, but also garbled and also a bit evasive, as if he were having trouble accessing old knowledge.  For instance, on the historical precedent of the Vice President's role, Luttig said:

I do know what Mr. Eastman was referring to when he said that there was historical precedent for doing so. He was incorrect. There was no historical precedent from the beginning of the founding in 1789 that even as mere historical precedent as distinguished from legal precedent would support the possibility of the Vice President of the United States quote, "Counting alternative electoral slates that had not been officially certified to the Congress pursuant to the Electoral Count Act of 1887." I would be glad to explain that historical precedent if the committee wanted, but it — it would be a digression.

and later:

Let me explain very simply, this is what I said would require a digression, that I would be glad to undertake if you wished, in short, if I had been advising the Vice President of the United States on January 6th, and even if then Vice President Jefferson, and even then Vice President John Adams, and even then Vice President Richard Nixon had done exactly what the President of the United States wanted his Vice President to do, I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the Vice President overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent.

Some people were impressed by the "lay my body across the road" comment. I, personally, would have preferred to hear what these historical precedents actually were and came away with the suspicion that Luttig was having trouble accessing them. Greg Jacob, the other witness, explained that Thomas Jefferson, presiding as Vice President, accepted the certificate from Georgia despite some small technical flaw that cast no doubt upon the outcome.

Eric Herschmann has very strange things on his wall:  Eric Herschmann did not testify in person at his deposition, but instead gave a video deposition from either his home or office (it was hard to tell).  Either way, we got to see his wall hangings that were -- well, bizarre is a bit strong, so let's just say highly unconventional. There was a large painting of what appeared to be a panda, reflected in water, and a baseball bat labeled "justice."  Herschmann was a bit coarse, though no more so than the circumstances called for, but it was really hard not to be distracted by the mysterious painting on the wall.  Also, the baseball bat was creepy.  What are be supposed to think of a federal prosecutor who thinks of justice as a club for bashing people?

Liz Cheney burnished her image as a woman of the people by asking questions from her country cabin. Also, I am learning to recognize Liz Cheney's voice and tell when she is the one asking a question, even if she is off-camera. 

What is it about Jason Miller and the mask?  I mean, as a Trumpster, Miller is firmly principled against masks.  While there were some masks at the committee depositions, most witnesses did not wear them, even when they were fairly close to other people.  Yet Jason Miller, who appeared at least somewhat isolated, wore a rigid-looking, rigidly attached mask.  Did he just think his natural face was not creepy enough and he wanted to add to the effect?

John Eastman and his lawyer

John Eastman's lawyer was also quite attention-grabbing.  Herschmann told Eastman to "Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."  And we did, in fact, get to see Eastman with what was presumably his lawyer.  They were an interesting study in contrasts -- an old, withered-looking bald guy, together with a younger man with a full head of hair and a scholarly beard just starting to gray, wearing a bow tie for some reason.  Certainly Mr. Beard-and-Bowtie acted like a lawyer, taking notes, engaging in occasional brief, whispered conferences with his client, and sometimes just giving directions with a nod or a glance before Eastman said, "Fifth."

Shay Moss

There are clear class distinctions in dress.  After interviewing a parade of witnesses from to corridors of power, the Committee put on Shay Moss, and she was clearly different.  And I don't mean that she was the first Black witness to testify.  Chairman Bennie Thompson is also Black, but he walks the corridors of power and looks the part.  Shay Moss was clearly an outsider.  Her clothing and hairstyle did not look out of place.  But it was impossible to miss her weight (she said she had gained 60 pounds from stress), her false eyelashes, her heavily plucked eyebrows, the tattoos on her forearms, and especially her long, pointed, garishly painted finger nails. And I don't mean these things as criticism.  They simply showed that this is not just some insider game within the halls of power.  Regular folks are affected, too.*

And finally, witnesses are more effective who testify live than by deposition, and at length than briefly.  This should not be surprising.  Whenever the Committee showed clips of witness testimony, you just had to wonder if they had been deceptively edited.  Witnesses who testified in person, but briefly, could still sound rehearsed.  Only a live witness with extended give-and-take gave the impression of spontaneity and reality.  The longer-testifying witnesses, except for Luttig, were the most effective.  Greg Jacob, Rusty Bowers, Brad Raffensperger, Gabriel Sterling, and Cassidy Hutchinson were the most effective witnesses. I would also give points to BJay Pak (US attorney for Georgia who investigated claims of fraud), Al Schmidt (Republican election commissioner for Philadelphia), and Ben Ginsberg (Republican elections lawyer), although all would have been better if they were given longer to testify.  And Shay Moss, as a reminder how ordinary people are affected by Trump's lies.

__________________________________________________

Ayres and Tatenhove

*I suppose I should also put in a word for Steven Ayres and Jason Van Tatenhove. They, too, were clearly not from the corridors of power.  Ayres wore a suit, but one that would not pass muster in the corridors of power, and in the manner of one who obviously does not normally wear suits.  Tatenhove did not dress up at all.  But neither of them are regular folks and relatable in the way that Moss is.  Tatenhove, in particular, is a former Oath Keeper, which puts him well outside the mainstream.  Ayres, by contrast, is a regular guy who just happened to be part of the mob. But to a lot of people that would disqualify him from regular guy-dom.

Day 8 of the January 6 Committee Hearings

Day 8 of the January 6 Committee hearings focused on what Trump was doing during the insurrection.  It featured two witnesses, both loyal Trump supporters until the actual insurrection, but was not witness-oriented.

Once again, I have been open to persuasion either way on whether Trump knew he was inciting a a violent insurrection and intended to do so.  The hearing shed no light on that subject.  I have never believed Trump had any role in planning the insurrection, and the hearing confirmed that such a thing would simply not have been possible under the watchful eye of the White House staff.  Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony raised some intriguing questions whether Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and perhaps Rudy Giuliani were involved, and whether Mark Meadows had inside knowledge.  However day 8 shed no light on the subject.  So what did the day reveal?

Oval Office dining room

First, it showed that Mike Pence and his Secret Service guards believed themselves to be in serious danger to the point that many guards called their families to say goodbye.  It confirmed that Trump wanted to go the the Capitol and became enraged when his driver and Secret Service detail refused to take him, and the the White House motorcade was on standby 45 minutes to an hour waiting for the Secret Service to decide whether it was safe to go to the Capitol.  The Committee also reported that Trump learned about the violence within 15 minutes of leaving the stage.  That raised an immediate question in my head -- did he sit for 45 minutes to an hour in the presidential limo or SUV waiting for clearance?  How frustrating!  The answer appears to have been no, Trump's driver took him back to the White House, where he waited for clearance in the White House dining room, watching Fox.*  The Committee also showed what was on Fox at the time of each Trump tweet, to give us an idea of what he knew at the time.

The Committee did not quote Trump's tweets individually.  I had to look them up. At 1:49, Trump tweeted a recording of his speech.  The Committee did comment on this. At 2:24 he made his most infamous tweet:

Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!

The Committee mentioned a more conciliatory tweet at 2:39 but did not quote the exact words.  They were, "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"  This was presumably what Don, Jr. was referring to when he said, "The Capitol Police tweet is not enough."  There were two important revelations about this tweet.  One was that the Oath Keepers immediately picked up on the significance of what was not said.  There was no call to refrain from violence against members of Congress.  The other was that, while Trump was apparently willing to ask his followers to spare the Capitol Police, it took a great deal of pressure and arm twisting to get him to include the part about staying peaceful.  

At 3:12, Trump sent out another Trump, barely even mentioned by the Committee, somewhat more strongly urging calm, "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"  Once again, there was no call to go home, or to refrain from harming members of Congress.  Trump never put in a call to the military, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Mayor of Washington, D.C. to call out any forces to put down the revolt.  He did call up Republican members of Congress to pressure them to vote against certification.  He appeared to think the rampaging mob was an acceptable form of pressure on law makers.

Trump sent out his stand-down video about an hour later, at 4:17.  The Committee took some pains to point out that by the time he sent it, it was clear that the insurrection had failed, that the fighting had by no means ended, but that the outcome was clear.  The video was effective.  The rioters did, indeed, take it as a command to go home and went home.  Also of interest: There was some talk of having Trump call a press conference to denounce the violence, but White House staff decided against it.  They feared that he would make even more inflammatory remarks.  Pat Cipollone said that the entire White House staff, including Mark Meadows, advocated taking stronger measures to stop the riot.  Cassidy Hutchinson has called the Mark Meadows part into questions.  And at least one unnamed White House staffer did not want to send out a video denouncing the violence for fear of handing the media a win. (Seriously!).  After getting Trump to make his video (no easy task), the White House staff were too emotionally drained to do any more that day.  Elaine Luria, the Committee member speaking at the time, was outraged.  Drained!  What about the Capitol Police and others who still had to contend with the mob?  What about Congress, who reconvened and met into the wee hours of the night to finish their job?  But I am more sympathetic with the White House staff.  You try spending three hours trying to get a 74-year-old, 250 pound orange man-baby to do his most elementary duty.  And then consider the time and effort it would take to get him to do any more.

Perhaps the most emblematic, most shocking but least surprising, revelation of the hearing was Trump's remark to an unnamed White House staffer before  retiring to the residential wing.  "Mike Pence let me down!"  That was all the events of the day meant to Trump.

____________________________________________
*By the way, the Committee showed a picture of the White House dining room.  It is a rather modest affair -- more elegant than a cafeteria, but certainly nothing like a state banquet hall or even a well-furnished private dining room.

Day 7 of the January 6 Committee Hearings

 

 So, with (what might be) the grand finale of the January 6 hearings coming up, what about day 7?  We finally heard from Pat Cipollone.  His testimony (so far) was not as explosive as Cassidy Hutchinson's, but it was, nonetheless, revealing.

There had been rumors before of Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani urging Trump to use the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security to overturn the election, but (so far as I can tell) this is the first detailed, publicly available account of the meeting.  It appears that the meeting took place on December 18, 2020.  Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell (lawyer representing Trump in his suits to overturn the election), and Patrick Bryrne, former CEO of Overstock.com showed up at the Oval Office unannounced.  Rudy Giuliani showed up somewhat later.  This was highly irregular behavior.  Pat Cipollone, Eric Herschman and perhaps others hurried to the Oval Office, presumably fearing what craziness these manifestly crazy people would be introducing.  "They must have set a land speed record," Sidney Powell commented. The proposal was apparently to have the Justice Department seize voting machines and appoint Powell as special counsel to investigate voting fraud. Given that (a) federal officials interfering in an election is illegal and (b) Powell was completely nuts, this proposal generated serious pushback.  Cipollone said that using federal authority to seize ballots was "a terrible idea" with "no legal basis."  I think that is fedspeak for saying it was illegal, but the Committee could not actually get him to use the "i" word. Naturally, Trump's only thought was that at least Flynn, Powell, and the others were proposing some alternative for him to stay in power.  The others were advising him to concede the election, which Trump saw as a non-option.

I was not entirely clear who all the participants were, especially on the White House side.  Certainly Pat Cipollone and Eric Hershman testified. Michael Flynn took the fifth, no doubt wisely.  Powell and Giuliani, neither of whom has the sense to come in out of the rain, both testified. We never heard anything about Patrick Byrne, not even whether he was subpoenaed.

Not revealed before -- the meeting went on for six hours and turned into a shouting and cussing match. (Presumably there were some calm intervals.  I don't see how anyone can sustain a shouting and cussing match for six hours).  Sidney Powell commented on how "disrespectful" Cipollone and the others were to the President and let us concede her a point.  It is hard to be respectful while engaged in a shouting and cussing match. The parties yelled loud enough that White House staffers (including Hutchinson) could overhear them. The meeting eventually migrated into the public reception areas of the residential wing.  It continued until eleven minutes after midnight, at which point the visitors were escorted off the premises, the plan defeated.

At 1:40 a.m., i.e., an hour and a half after the meeting ended with the proposal to seize voting machines, Donald Trump sent out his infamous tweet, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th.  Be there, will be wild."  That does appear to have been Trump's last ditch attempt to sway the outcome.  The Committee demonstrated in detail how militias such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers took this as a literal call to arms and started planning an insurrection. The Committee did not present any evidence that Trump anticipated that his tweet would have this effect, much less intended it. 

I also found one part of the testimony quite disturbing.  Numerous witnesses testified that they told Trump that after the Electoral College voted on December 14, the game was up and he had to concede.  Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, were quote as saying much the same.  On the one hand, it is good to hear that they believed it was eventually necessary to acknowledge the election result.  And I understand why it was important for Republicans like McConnell to say, "The Electoral College has spoken," rather than "The people have spoken."  It is a firm principle on the part of Republicans these days that we are a republic, not a democracy, and that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, chooses a president.  Otherwise, how would Republican presidents who won the Electoral College but not the popular vote be legitimate?  

On the other hand, apparently none of them saw the need to concede the election when the vote outcomes became known, only after the Electoral College actually held its vote. In other words, it is apparently the "sane" and "rational" Republican view that if they lose the popular vote in key swing states, it is perfectly acceptable to ask state legislatures to overturn the result and appoint an alternate slate of electors.  Only if the attempt fails does the candidate have to concede defeat.

Prepare for rough seas ahead for US democracy.

General Overview of the Select Committee Hearings to Date

So, the January 6 Select Committee has held six hearings so far.  What do I have to say about them?  Many things, probably none very original, but I will start with an overview and then get to my impressions.

The hearings may be said to take up where the second impeachment trial left off.  The Democrats' presentation in the second impeachment trial was impressive, but incomplete.  There was a great deal the impeachment managers did not know.  This allowed for Michael Van Der Veen's defense that Congress had not adequately investigated the insurrection and therefore denied Trump due process.*  The Select Committee hearings are the fruits of a full investigation.  

So far the Committee has drive home the point that a lot of people who are not political junkies may have missed -- the January 6 insurrection was not an isolated incident. It was the culmination of a two-month attempt to overturn the election, mostly without the resort to violence.  The impeachment managers discussed Trump's earlier attempts to overturn the election through the states, the Justice Department, and the Vice President, but their overall focus was on January 6, so they may have given the earlier attempts short shrift.**

So how did they do?

I must say, I was decidedly underwhelmed by the initial hearing -- the one that set forth what to expect.  It played a few snippets of depositions, had some very brief and rehearsed-seeming live witness testimony, and mostly speeches.  I was somewhat more impressed with Bennie Thompson's opening speech about the importance of respecting election results and the orderly transition of power.  We all know how impressed George Washington's contemporaries were when he did not take advantage of his prestige and popularity to become a military dictator.  Thompson pointed out that in some ways Lincoln was even more impressive.  Faced with a civil war he could not seem to win and an opponent (in George McClellan) who wanted a negotiated settlement that allowed some southern states to secede and quite possibly the failure of the entire enterprise, Lincoln nonetheless refused to cancel the 1864 election and unconditionally pledged to abide by the results.***

Benjamin Ginsburg

The Committee started its second hearing (the first substantive one) in the right place -- by showing that there was no election fraud and that Trump knew it.  It started with the Fox commentator who first called Arizona for Biden and asked him to explain the "red mirage" -- a well-known phenomenon that makes the Republican appear to do much better at the outset than real results show.  That was still brief and still had a scripted, pre-rehearsed feel.  Things got more spontaneous when various officials -- all Republicans -- explained why various allegations of voter fraud were false.  It was not possible to refute every fraud allegation Trump made.  Bill Barr commented that Trump's fraud allegations were a sort of game of whack-a-mole -- no sooner did the Justice Department refute one allegation than he simply came up with another.  But the Committee did call on Republican officials to refute some of the better-known allegations.  I particularly liked Benjamin Ginsberg, a longstanding Republican elections lawyer, who explained why Donald Trump's lawsuits were not at all like normal elections lawsuits and had no merit.  I liked that detail.  All too many Trump opponents have been too quick to concede the legitimacy of suing to overturn the election. The Committee could probably have held a hearing on the lawsuits, but if its goal was to focus on actual illegality, then the decision is understandable.

I don't understand the timing of the third hearing, which addressed the pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results.  I would have started with the clear case that there was no fraud and that Trump knew it.  I would then move to his actions, possibly that lawsuits and definitely with pressure on state officials to overturn elections.  I would then have moved to pressure on Congress and the Justice Department and then to the Vice President.  This is both in chronological order and order of escalation. But although the timing was odd, the hearing was powerful. It was strengthened by having only two witnesses, thus allowing them to testify at greater length than the earlier hearings, and to show some life and sponteneity.****  John Eastman was the unwilling "star" of the hearing, which focused on his utterly insane theory that the Vice President (but not every Vice President, certainly not Al Gore in 2000 or Kamala Harris in 2024) could unilaterally decide which electors to accept and which to reject, and whether any of his actions were criminal. Certainly White House lawyer Eric Herschman thought Eastman's actions were illegal.  It was at this hearing that we had the satisfaction of hearing Hershman's recorded testimony, " I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it." And we got to see Eastman respond to a wide range of Committee questions by taking the fifth

Shaye Moss

The fourth hearing addressed pressure on state officials to change the outcome.  It was painful to watch because of all the hearings it has the most relevance for future elections and seems the most a relic of a more innocent time.  The election result held because Republican state officials unanimously held firm against Trump.  State Republicans are now in the process of replacing their state officials to ensure that such a thing can never happen again.  Rusty Bowers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, was a faithful Trump supporter and a devout Christian. Much as he wanted Trump to win, his conscience and faith did not allow him to go against the law and his oath of office.  His anguish was apparent, but his resolve was unshakeable.  We also heard from Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State who supported Trump but stood firmly against any attempt to get him to change the vote and Gabriel Sterling, a high-ranking Georgia election official who during the Georgia recount angrily told President Trump to stop making false accusations of fraud because they were endangering election workers. 

These men are heroes.  Much as we may disagree with their politics, they put country ahead of party and principles above personalities.  All three discussed the threats and harassment their received from angry Trump supporters accusing them of fraud.  The witnesses also refuted some of the allegations of fraud in Arizona and Georgia.  If the Committee had wished to, presumably they could have stretched the matter out for six hearings, one for each of the contested states.  And the whole thing had a deep air of tragedy to it because it seems impossible for any Republican to behave that way anymore.  The Republicans of all swing states are in the process of purging their party of anyone who would ever certify a Democratic victory as legitimate, and forcing any who stay on to recant their views as a condition of remaining.  Indeed, even during the hearings, the Chairman commented that the Otero County Commission in New Mexico had refused to certify even a primary election.  The hearing ended with Shaye Moss, a rank-and-file election worker in Georgia who was falsely accused of falsifying the vote describing the threats and harassment she, her mother, and her grandmother received over the election.  Everyone at the election office was driven from their jobs by threats. If I could make Trump supporters watch just one of the hearings so far, it would be this one. More than any other hearing, it showed the full extent of violence and extremism among (an admitted minority of) Trump supporters.  And it shows that this is not just a dispute in the corridors of power.  Ordinary people are harmed by these false accusations.

The fifth hearing was in a reasonable order.  It moved from pressure on state election officials to pressure on the Justice Department to overturn the results.  Jeffrey Clark was to the fifth hearing what John Eastman was to the third -- the offstage villain who all the witnesses denounced.  Like Eastman, Clark took the fifth when called to testify in front of the Committee  The hearing detailed Clark's plan to have the Justice Department declare the election in Georgia fraudulent and ask the state legislature to appoint a new set of electors.  The plan was thwarted when all senior Justice Department officials threatened to resign en masse and leave the Department completely unworkable.  This hearing did not have the same air of tragedy as the previous one.  The Justice Department, after all, remains safely out of Trump's hands and will not be used to subvert the next election.  As for what happens next time a Republican is elected President -- that is still some distance off, while the subversion of state election machinery is underway today.

Cassidy Hutchinson

The sixth hearing, of course, had only one witness -- Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.  This is the only hearing so far to feature only one witness to give an inside view of he White House on January 6.  The view was disturbing, to put it mildly.  Up until now I have been skeptical of people who treat communications between the White House and the Willard Hotel (where the rally organizers were staying) as sinister.  Of course the White House coordinated closely with the rally organizers.  That was never a secret.  The rally may have been scandalous and indecent, but there was nothing illegal about it.  I saw it as important to maintain a sharp distinction between the White House communicating with the rally organizers (publicly known and perfectly legal) and the White House communicating with the planners of the insurrection, a thing for which there was no evidence so far as I was aware.  Well, I still don't think Trump had any role in planning the insurrection, but Hutchinson raised at least some questions about some of his advisors.  Hutchinson seemed to imply that Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone at the Willard were talking to the Proud Boys, which at least implies a role in planning the insurrection.  Mark Meadows wanted to attend the meeting in person, but Hutchinson persuaded him to attend only by telephone.  Also among Hutchinson's testimony:

• The White House had definite warnings of the potential for violence on January 6.  (Up till then, there had been ample evidence of signs of potential violence, but no way of knowing whether these reached the White House).  Meadows seems to have been aware that there was a real risk of violence.
• Donald Trump knew some people in the crowd were armed (this is confirmed by contemporaneous police broadcasts) and wanted to allow them into his immediate vicinity.  Contrary to some people's interpretation, this did not necessarily mean he wanted to sic an armed crowd on Congress, only that we wanted to maximize the crowd on camera and was not afraid of their weapons.
• Trump's proposal to walk to the Capitol with the crowd was not empty posturing.  He had the day before to attend the certification.  (What he intended to do was not clear).  He also asked the Secret Service to drive him to the Capitol and became irate when they refused.  Hutchinson repeated a second-hand account that Trump tried to forcibly seize control of the car.  This has been disputed, but it is confirmed by multiple witnesses and contemporaneous texts that Trump wanted to go the the Capitol and was irate when the Secret Service told him it was not safe.
• Trump was well aware that crowds were calling to "Hang Mike Pence" when he sent out his tweet denouncing Pence.
• Trump seemed unable to fathom that there was anything wrong with hanging Mike Pence, or that he had lost the election.
• Throughout the whole ordeal, Mark Meadows sat on his couch, reading his phone and rejecting any attempt to talk sense to Trump.

The usual phrase for Trump's latest antics is "shocking but not surprising."  But I will have to say, Hutchinson's testimony was so shocking that I was actually surprised.

And another hearing is coming up tomorrow.

_______________________________________________________

*Along, of course, with his argument that Congress had unduly delayed and should have tried the impeachment before January 20, i.e., within 14 days.

*I went back and listened to the presentation, particularly Ted Lieu and Madeleine Dean to see just what the managers said. With regard to pressure on state officials, the Select Committee differed from the impeachment managers mostly in giving more detail, presenting witness testimony, and discussing possible crimes. With regard to the Justice Department and the Vice President, the impeachment managers knew about Jeffrey Clark's role and the threat of mass resignations, but John Eastman was not yet known. Lieu mentioned that Trump wanted to appoint special counsel to investigate the election, but not that he proposed to appoint one of his own election lawyers who had brought so many absurd lawsuits.  The impeachment managers also knew of Trump's private attempts to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the election, but not as many details as the Select Committee.

***Another example is Trump's hero, Andrew Jackson.  Jackson is currently unpopular among liberals as a slave holder and instigator of the Trail of Tears.  Nonetheless, he respected election results.  In 1824 the vote was split four ways.  Jackson won an electoral and popular plurality but not a majority.  Henry Clay, then in the House, appears to have swayed the House to choose John Quincy Adams in exchange for being named Adams' Secretary of State.  Jackson was understandable outraged, but nonetheless accepted the result, took part in the inauguration, and lived to fight another day -- by winning a solid majority in 1828.

****Although I personally thought one witness would have been better, for reasons I will get to later.