House January 6 Committee: Public Hearings – Day 1 [UPDATE-1]

[NB: Any updates will be published at the bottom of this post. /~Rayne]

This post and comment thread are dedicated to the House January 6 Committee hearings scheduled to begin Thursday June 9, 2022, at 8:00 p.m. ET.

Please take all comments unrelated to the hearings to a different thread.

The hearings will stream on:

House J6 Committee’s website:

House J6 Committee’s YouTube page:

C-SPAN’s House J6 hearing page:

C-SPAN’s YouTube page:

Check PBS for your local affiliate’s stream: (see upper right corner)

Twitter is carrying multiple live streams (NBC, PBS, Washington Post, Reuters, CSPAN, Bloomberg):

MSNBC will carry coverage on their cable network with coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. ET as well as on MSNBC’s Maddow Show podcast feed. Details at this link.

ABC, NBC, CBS will carry the hearings live on broadcast and CNN will carry on its cable network.

Fox News is not carrying this on their main network. Their weeknight programming including Tucker Carlson’s screed will continue as usual and will likely carry counterprogramming.

Twitter accounts live tweeting the hearing tonight:

Brandi Buchman-DailyKos:

Scott MacFarlane-CBS:

Chris Geidner-Grid News:

JustSecurity’s team live tweeting:

If you know of any other credible source tweeting the coverage, please share a link in comments.

Marcy will not be live tweeting as the hearing begins 2:00 a.m. IST/1:00 a.m. UTC/GMT. She’ll have a post Friday morning Eastern Time. Do make sure to read her hearing prep post, though.

An agenda for this evening’s hearing has not been published on the committee’s website.

~ ~ ~

Any updates will appear at the bottom of this post; please bear with any content burps as this page may be edited as the evening progresses.

Again, this post is dedicated to the House January 6 Committee  and topics addressed in testimony and evidence produced during the hearing.

All other discussion should be in threads under the appropriate post with open discussion under the most recent Trash Talk.

To new readers and commenters: welcome to emptywheel. New commenters, please use a unique name to differentiate yourself; use the same username each time you comment.

Comment policy

Community guidelines

If you are leaving a comment, please be concise; 100 words is the optimum length.

If you are sharing active links your comment may be delayed by auto-moderation.

If contributors and moderators seem slow, it’s because they’re dealing with higher than usual volume of comments including trolling.

Caution: moderators will have much lower tolerance for trolling.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 7:30 P.M. ET 10-JUN-2022 —

According to Scott MacFarlane-CBS there will be a total of six House J6 Committee hearings this month.

House J6 Committee hearing schedule (as of eve 6/10/2022):

Monday June 13 — Hearing: On the January 6th Investigation
10:00 AM | 390 Canon HOB
Host: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Wednesday June 15 — Hearing: On the January 6th Investigation
10:00 AM | 390 Canon HOB
Host: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Thursday June 16 — Hearing: On the January 6th Investigation
1:00 PM | 390 Canon HOB
Host: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Tuesday June 21 — Hearing: On the January 6th Investigation
**10:00 AM ET | Date-Time-Place Subject to Confirmation**
Host: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Thursday June 23 — Hearing: On the January 6th Investigation
**8:00 PM ET | Date-Time-Place Subject to Confirmation**
Host: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack

Date, time, and location of the next three hearings have been published on the U.S. House of Representatives’ calendar. The last two have not yet been confirmed and published.

262 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    One more time: please note the caution above. Thanks.

    Trigger warning: some of the video, audio, and testimony may contain violence.

    Ugh. I’m listening and watching some now and it’s nauseating.

    • Rayne says:

      I’m glad Bennie Thompson is opening this hearing with the antebellum frame.

      I believe he’s made an error, though, about 8:10-8:12 p.m. when he implied the conspiracy began after all legal remedies had been pursued in the courts. IMO there will be evidence that co-conspirators began before the election, planned in the event the polls did not go for Trump.

      • Tarkeel says:

        For me at least, it’s obvious that most of the framework went down around the 2016 election.

        • d4v1d says:

          I agree. This plan was probably long in the works and America was saved only by the nincompoopery of the conspirators.

    • Eureka says:

      Likewise myself with Ali Alexander’s 11:36 AM tweet to his followers:


      Remain peaceful and rowdy

      Sources are telling me we are gonna try to use 2 hours per state

      — an expectation set for the crowd, one which would have gotten the planners past their magical midnight Rubicon, among other “options” they were working.

      As I’ve noted previously, that pairs just as nicely with Rudy’s/Trump’s desperation dials to stall for time.

      • Eureka says:

        Rudy was then-asking for objections to ten states [as opposed to the three he said McConnell was trying to get it down to], consistent with some of his claims closer to the election re the number of states “cheating” Trump, but I thought the day’s plan started w/six.

        Some interesting language variation with a refresher glance: outlets like WashEx were reporting “the full slate of six states” on 1/5; NPR on 1/6 reported “as many as six states”; optimistic-leading Fox on 1/6 said “at least six states”.

        • Eureka says:

          And as we learned much later, the Eastman Memo (foisted upon Pence by Eastman & Trump 1/4) was for seven states.

  2. harpie says:

    Bill Barr testimony

    8:11 PM THOMPSON: “January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup.”

      • Douglas Erhard says:

        I’ve been meaning to ask Billy Barr if he still believes in the Unitary Executive.

        And, if so, does it apply to Democratic presidents as well?

  3. harpie says:

    8:16 PM CHENEY: Trump tweet 6:01 PM

    8:18 PM TRUMP: [re: “Hang Mike Pence!”] “Maybe our supporters have the right idea. Mike Pence deserves it.”

    • pseudo42 says:

      Two sentences ahead of that Cheney said “Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than half a dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th.” To those who saw reps seeking pardons as the main new item, AFAIK “deserves it” is another new item. And to those who consider that there have to be cliffhangers to compete with whatever streaming mini-series is trending, “deserves it” could be teasing a substantive plot point, not just a macguffin. And consider that this a.m. TFG denied saying “deserves”. He seems to think it would look bad if people were to believe he said it.

      Other new stuff anyone?

      Changed nym at mods’ request.

  4. Rayne says:

    Yow. I did not expect Jason Miller to give some of the first recorded testimony we heard tonight.

    8:25 p.m. Holy cats, they whipped out Ivanka’s testimony this early, that she understood from Bill Barr the election was lost?

    • Rayne says:

      8:35 p.m. — Removing @MSNBCDaily because I have no idea what’s going on there, there’s no live tweeting at either that or @MSNBC.

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      I was surprised at Ivanka’s testimony as well. But I wasn’t surprised that Kushner described Pat Cipollone threatening to resign as “whining” — Jared came off like the smug, smarmy asshole I thought he was.

  5. harpie says:

    8:22 PM J MILLER
    8:23 PM MEADOWS: [mid to late NOVEMBER] “SO, there’s no there, there?”
    8:26 PM IVANKA
    8:29 PM Jeffrey CLARK / DOJ
    8:30 PM DONOGHUE

    • Rayne says:

      No, hon, a Democrat gave her the job and the mic to put the screws to members of her own party.

      She’s a shiv.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          You and me both…

          I find it… odd… and more than just a little disquieting… to find myself approving of a Cheney…

      • Xboxershorts says:

        I am quite cynical re any Cheney. I am not convinced of the purity of her motives or her magnanimity in serving.

        I would not be surprised at all if, down the road, Liz tries to parlay the exposure she gets on this select committee into a future presidential campaign.

        • Belyn says:

          Who knows, she may welcome a break from campaigning. She can always go after one of Wyoming’s senate seats in the future. She will have many job offers out of politics. Imagine her speaker’s fees and book sales.

        • Tracy Lynn says:

          Although I recognize that the situation is very different, didn’t Lisa Murkowski run as a write-in and retain her senate seat? Perhaps that is a path forward for Liz.

        • bmaz says:

          Last I read, Cheney’s unfavorable rating was at 70% with all voters in WY. So that is not likely.

        • Rayne says:

          You realize, of course, that’s what GOP voters are saying about the Democrats on the committee as well.

          Cheney’s political aspirations are effed right now in Wyoming; she doesn’t have cred outside her state sufficient for another run for any office. Unless a third moderate party arises or a moderate faction within the GOP overtakes the MAGAs, she has no path to the presidency.

        • Al Ostello says:

          Cheney could simply run for Prez as an independent in 2024 (and every Prez election until the end of time) :D

        • Rayne says:

          She would fare about as well as Ross Perot while fragmenting the GOP but not the Democratic Party.

        • LizzyMom says:

          That actually may be okay for Liz at this point. She’s clearly fed up with many/most of her Gooper colleagues. If she could manage to keep a DeSantis or any other Trump-Lite from winning by running a disruptive campaign as an independent, she might feel that that is a good enough reason to follow such a strategy (with the hopes that a pattern of losing would bring some to their senses).

          At least for now. That could change, of course, if/when the Trump Fever ever breaks.

        • Kenster42 says:

          Make no mistake – by doing what she did, Representative Cheney put herself on the fast track to guest spots on cable television, lobbying, think tank assignments and public speaking. She’s done as a politician. Republicans hate her with a passion for breaking Omertà and there’s no way Democrats are ever going to vote for her, regardless of what sunshine they’re blowing up her you know what. Stick a fork in her, she’s done.

        • Xboxershorts says:

          That rep in her own Wyoming may change if the committee presents a clear cut undeniable tale of criminality that the MAGAts can’t deflect anymore. Not so sure that’s even possible anymore.

          Of course, a presidential run ain’t as dependent on state level support as say…a house or senate run.

          Then again, it may just be my own cynicism fueling my speculation too.

        • Rayne says:

          A presidential run is dependent on a party. She’s been virtually excommunicated by the transnational crime syndicate which has completely subsumed the former GOP.

        • Douglas Erhard says:

          Like all Cheneys, her motive is personal.

          In her mind, she was personally attacked on January 6th. And now she gets her revenge. It’s really that simple.

        • Rayne says:

          Are you inside her head? Because if you’re not, you’re guessing at her motives.

          Your logic is also quite weak.

  6. Ed Walker says:

    Not sure this is on point, but I’ve never actually looked closely at her before. She looks so much like Papa Dick. Also worth noting, she is much more direct than that bastard.

      • Rayne says:

        She has a wholly different role to play. Thompson’s role was framing this as sedition defined by American history.

        • Rayne says:

          *shrug* Is he the snappy showman you want? Or is he both an elder Democrat with the cred which will keep a disenfranchised portion of the Democratic base engaged while letting the other members go on a tear to investigate these crimes?

          You’re really not his target audience.

        • bmaz says:

          Nobody is Thompson’s audience. Average citizen has no idea who or what he is. So far, this garbage is not designed to influence anybody.

        • Frank Anon says:

          Perhaps it is slickly produced nonsense. But you live these details and the vast amount of Americans who dont need to see their facts slickly presented. It’s a tight, reasoned and clear presentation.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          I find you intimidating with your brilliance on courtroom trials and your reactions to trolls. I’m saying that I think I know how you will react to me but I must say two things; your cynicism and your anger are palpable. It’s unpleasant and off putting from someone as talented as you. These hearings are about an historical event that pales the Watergate hearings. That the chairman is not as erudite and charismatic as Adam Schiff is a big fat meh. It’s not garbage. It’s literally how our democracy works.

        • hollywood says:

          This “Anybody who cares” oneupmanship is exactly what’s been holding the Dems back. (It’s like old 60s “I’m more radical than you are” tiffs. Just one of many reasons the revolution never came.) The Committee needs to get down and dirty. Thompson speaks to the black community, a sizeable segment of the Dem electorate, not just anybody who cares.

        • timbo says:

          While I agree that Thompson ain’t the most erudite chairman to come along, I still hope that the Committee will move the legal ball forward for the prosecution of the seditionist faction in this country. Was just discussing whether this is or is not more important than the Watergate hearings…I think the consensus at our place was, yep, it’s more important in that this is an attempt to disrupt the Congress and transfer of power by force and intimidation. A failure to respond to this (ongoing) seditious incitement with all legal tools available means that the Republic is crumbling. So this is it—it’s either going to strengthen the Republic or weaken it drastically. So God speed to the Committee and its mission (no matter how dull and pointless it might seem to some).

        • Kenster says:

          Thank you for this. I know it’s not a popular viewpoint. Let’s face it, this has become a virtue signaling extravaganza. Anyone who’s been following this even a bit is well aware of what happened, and positions and reactions to what happened have completely ossified over the last 17 months. This is not moving the needle, it’s showboating.

        • bmaz says:

          I thought it was well done stylistically as a presentation. Just don’t think in a way that will convince anybody not already there. Maybe I am old fashioned, but live witnesses, meaningfully examined, would be better by my eye. Don’t do it only for a few similar presentations. Maybe I am just old fashioned I guess. It could be all that as there are no raving Jim Jordan like brick throwers on the J6 Committee. Go at it relentlessly over however many days and nights it takes. Don’t be afraid of doing so. If this is literally about the existence of democracy in the US, act like it.

        • Purple Martin says:

          He is the Chair of the Committee. Can argue the choice should have been different, but the Chair is the Chair, and leads off.

          It might not be Better, but it is Right.

        • Super Dave says:

          I was nice in an earlier reply to one of your posts. Let me be more direct, even if it gets me kicked off the site. You, sir, are an arrogant ass.

        • Kenster42 says:

          I love Internet tough guys like you – what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here? You can think many things about Senor Bmaz, but he’s nothing if not 100% authentic and uncensored 24/7, and responses like yours are endlessly futile … and amusing, of course. Keep on tilting at windmills, Super Dave. Good luck and G-dspeed.

          [Hey. Butt out. You let us handle the policing here. Get on the topic and stay on it. /~Rayne]

        • thomas paine says:

          I think Pelosi’s choice of Thompson was brilliant – he is serving the same role as Sam Ervin in the Watergate hearings. He is setting the table for Liz Cheney to make the case for Trump’s tyranny. Liz is very effective and the GOP’s worse nightmare.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          Pretty sure she’s their worst nightmare. Their leading female light tells them that their ‘dishonor’ will remain for all of history. Total props.

        • Kenster42 says:

          Is she, though? She’s going to lose her primary to a Trump-endorsed nobody by 28 points and in February 2023 will be a talking head on Fox or CNN. She’ll be a shadow her former self shortly and nothing will change.

  7. harpie says:

    8:33 PM Marc SHORT
    Month before election, Eastman took opposite conclusion.
    8:34 PM Judge CARTER decisions
    8:38 PM 12/18/20 WH meeting
    8:28 PM 12/19/20 “Be there, will be wild! tweet
    8:39 BANNON 1/5/21 “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow!.”

    • Eureka says:

      ^ re: Eastman’s pre-to-post-election turn.

      While we were all laughing at Rudy between a rock crematorium and a sex shop at Four Seasons Total Landscaping:

      Mr. Eastman’s role in Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power began the weekend after the election in Philadelphia, where Mr. Eastman had traveled for an academic conference. At a nearby hotel, Mr. Trump’s closest aides, including Corey Lewandowski, were putting together a legal brief to challenge the results in Pennsylvania.

      Mr. Eastman had put himself on the radar of Mr. Trump’s political aides during the election when Jenna Ellis [shared Eastman’s birther article on twitter…].

      Now, confronting election results that showed Mr. Trump lost, one of Mr. Trump’s aides reached out to Mr. Eastman to see whether he could come over to the hotel to help Mr. Trump’s team.

      Mr. Eastman said he was only in the room for 15 minutes before being ushered out — but it was long enough, he said, for him to catch Covid-19 there, and he became ill for several weeks. By the time he felt better, it was the beginning of December — when Mr. Trump called to see whether Mr. Eastman could help bring legal action directly before the Supreme Court. In the days that followed, Mr. Eastman filed two briefs with the Supreme Court on Mr. Trump’s behalf, but those efforts quickly failed.

      Auspicious COVID time gap.

      Also very roughly note for the timeline this (—>) early December contact marks a shift in the inner circle gatekeeper [Meadows] preference for The Eastman Plan(s) over the Whatever Powell’s Got Going On Scene [see my (linked) comment above about the Ginni-Meadows texts]. I mean, the forces oscillate with opportunism but the gist is that Eastman classed up the place (to their view) with prettier crazy — besides being willing and available.

      • Rayne says:

        I’ve thought for some time now that Eastman’s elevation in profile with the White House after his birther article was the point when the seeds of conspiracy may have first been planted. I would love to know what the internal polling was shortly after the birther piece, what the chatter was at the top of the campaign, who might at that point have begun to think of a Plan B.

        The other parallel we’ve seen to the post-birther article elevation is Bill Barr’s unrequested memo on unitary executive power. It’s as if someone understood the most effective approaches to break into the Trump trust circle.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Along those lines, we need to remember Michael Cohen’s warning when he testified before congress: that should Trump lose the next election, he would never acquiesce to any peaceful transition of power. Cohen put this in the most direct and specific of terms.

          Michael Wolff, in his book Landslide, describes how on election night 2020, in the wee hours of the morning when a timid whisper had arisen suggesting Trump deliver a concession speech, a drunk Rudy Giuliani interceded in the nick of time. Just say you won! Giuliani told Trump. Who did exactly that.

        • Eureka says:

          Relatedly, I feel there are parts missing from the stenographed origin (and reintroduction) story.

          As to The Audition, exactly — as with others who accomplished same with Fox appearances: as I recall some were told specifically to go on Fox to beef themselves up, like BDTS.

          Dunno whether the birther piece (eyes Newsweek) was entirely of Eastman’s initiative or if he was encouraged by the same type of helpful RWnut backgrounders who told people like Whitaker to go on Fox. It’s not necessary that others were involved, but as we see with their many-layered shadow orgs/networks, generally there are.

          I recall the troll who went bonkers in comments at me on your post for merely suggesting that Eastman might have been selected in some way like that (interesting response, perhaps moreso in retrospect of all that’s come).

          Democracy supporters had been openly (in part) wargaming the 2020 election for over a year by that point, based on the autocrats’ own cues. One can imagine what the Trumpers were up to in private.

        • Rayne says:

          That was frightfully prescient, so much so I have a difficult time thinking we won’t see evidence of planning well ahead of the election.

          EDIT: In fact I wonder if at some point Michael Cohen should be interviewed under oath in a closed door session and pointedly asked if there were ever discussions in his presence about a Plan B or C if the election in either 2016 or 2020 didn’t go for Trump.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Aren’t we already seeing exactly that planning already, in the public declarations of people like Mastroiano in Pennsylvania who say straight out they will manipulate the 2024 election? And all the threats of “investigations” of anyone (like Dr. Fauci) remotely associated with Biden/Democrats?

          To me this feels like the slightly more decorous form of the terrorism being adopted by all those GOP candidates brazening guns in their campaign ads, especially in races where they actually have a chance of imposing fascism should they win.

        • Rayne says:

          My point was about the existence of a conspiracy before Election Day 2020.

          Stuff like Mastriano and the MAGAnuts in Michigan are pulling are post-inauguration 2021 conspiracies which are now openly being used as campaign platforms.

        • Rayne says:

          Jenna Ellis was part of the Trump campaign in 2019; I wonder if she teed up Eastman with Newsweek to prep him for access to Trump.

          ADDER: Shouldn’t forget the Eastman piece may itself have had a peg on which to launch based on a Facebook post with what looked like a fake username.
          August 2, 2020 — Facebook post by Drew Sciuridae (last name Latin for squirrel) is the first to make birther claim about Harris
          August 12, 2020 — Eastman’s birther op-ed is published by Newsweek
          August 13, 2020 — Trump repeats the claim in Eastman’s birther op-ed

          (I wrote about this on August 13.)

        • Eureka says:

          Entirely possible as to Ellis. I was leaning Ginni with her listserv(s) of former C. Thomas clerks.** [Aside: Ginni had her loyalist hires/wingnut welfare WH lobbying meeting in January 2019 before Cohen testified but when such issues were very clearly in the air.]

          It’s hard to figure out in these scantly-detailed scenarios who’s the maker(s) and who’s the mark(s).

          IMO they had to go shopping for “clean” lawyers, with (e.g.) Powell then-tied up with the Flynn prosecution ratfuck. Merely a question of who did the shopping/ when/ where/ with whom.

          Whether Ellis +/- Ginni (jointly, severally, or none), with or without others in their shared orgs, there are lots of overlaps (if not simultaneous) among even just those three from TP USA to the Thomas Moore Society, e.t.c., and the fluxes of people who populate them (emphasis on the etc./inbred networks too numerous to list: Groundswell …CNP….).

        • Eureka says:

          **Say hypothetically Ginni was “believing in” Eastman or whatever and it was true both that Eastman didn’t believe he could take that course before the election, and that (he may have been coming round but also) he was sick with COVID and unavailable in late November, that would also make sense of why Ginni was (desperately) pressing Meadows on 11/22 as to the split with Powell. To cycle back thru this thread from the top.

          And with Powell Powelling (and all the rest), Eastman became the last gasp/ even more important. I’d bet Crusader Ginni got to work on Eastman _at least_ at that point in time (we need a lawya!), if not initially.

          Other lawfare-pool-rich orgs, perhaps:

          Ginni’s Liberty Consulting (extant and rather mysterious, AFAIK)

          [also Len Leo was director of the Ginni-led Liberty Central during the Obama admin]:

          Inside the consulting firm run by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

          Published Tue, Apr 5 202210:10 AM EDT Updated Tue, Apr 5 20226:43 PM EDT
          Brian Schwartz

        • Eureka says:

          Now that I see your Adder:

          (1) I forgot about the squirrel! [And that it was August 2, an epic ratfuck anniversary date, coincidence or no]

          (2) Was thinking (in re how it’s hard to trace their secrets) that if we followed them all on FB at the time / thru time, we’d probably be halfway to goal on all this. [Recalling so many articles about Ginni’s FB activities.]

        • Eureka says:

          I was separately going to mention this but now with extra brow-arching because of the anniversary date of that FB post and certain ratfucker relationships:

          In real-time, Ali Alexander was the chief shit-stirrer about Harris on twitter: she’s not really an “American” Black was his main “argument” as I recall it; all very IRA-flavored.

          He was doing this in *June 2019* and got a RT from Junior (and, later, an invitation to the WH). He *may* have revived this around the time of Eastman’s article, but I could be splicing summer (or other revival) memories there so not 100% on that.

          Also, Jane Meyer cites a long relationship between Ginni and AA (via AA’s belonging to Groundswell) in her more recent longform on Ginni. Will grab links next…

        • Eureka says:

          Kamala Harris Is Surging and Birtherism Is Back
          DEJA VU
          The 2020 candidate is facing a play straight out of the racist birther playbook used against Barack Obama when he ran for president.
          Kelly Weill Will Sommer

          Updated Jun. 29, 2019 3:11AM ET / Published Jun. 28, 2019 8:00PM ET

          Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D:

          “What a weird coincidence that a group of accounts, starting with Ali, decided to tweet the exact same thing (verbatim) about Kamala Harris within minutes of each other tonight. #DemDebate2 [screenshots; thread; see screenshot Trump Jr. in replies]”

          11:43 PM · Jun 27, 2019

        • Eureka says:

          Need to explicitly note here that Roger Stone’s OC acolyte/fanboi Jacob Wohl launched an even earlier (Jan. 2019) “mainstream” Harris birther attack, if to briefer and lesser effect, though enough to earn a Snopes entry (and by “mainstream”, I mean such had already floated in known sewers/by prominent neo-Nazis). This I believe is recounted in that DB piece about Alexander’s attack, but is better detailed as I recall in Buzzfeed.

          There’s also a “Christian” blogger lady…

        • Eureka says:

          And here’s *Mayer:

          Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?

          By Jane Mayer January 21, 2022

          Another organizer of the January 6th uprising who has been subpoenaed by the congressional committee, Ali Alexander, also has long-standing ties to Ginni Thomas. […] A decade ago, Alexander was a participant in Groundswell, a secretive, invitation-only network that, among other things, coördinated with hard-right congressional aides, journalists, and pressure groups to launch attacks against Obama and against less conservative Republicans. As recently as 2019, Ginni Thomas described herself as the chairman of Groundswell, which, according to documents first published by Mother Jones, sees itself as waging “a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation.” As Karoli Kuns […] has noted, several Groundswell members—including Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, the fringe foreign-policy analyst—went on to form the far-right flank of the Trump Administration. […] According to Ginni Thomas’s biography in the Council for National Policy’s membership book, she remains active in Groundswell. A former participant told me that Thomas chairs weekly meetings.

          Note: I tried to link a Luke O’Brien article but the page went to “page not found” when I clicked “post comment” so ? if it’s gone or in some nasty bin

        • Rayne says:

          Please share the link to the Luke O’Brien piece and I’ll try to hunt it down some other way. Thanks!

        • Eureka says:

          It was the ew page/this post that went to ‘page not found’ — think the title/excerpt had too many bad words for filters. So look out for it, I will retry again —

          ETA: site still won’t take it, I think bx of problematic words in the title, so will strip that and try again…

        • Eureka says:

          Here’s that Luke O’Brien article (I’m iteratively adding pleasant preface/stripping bad words in hopes it eventually goes thru– maybe this will be the time):

          By Luke O’Brien
          Mar 7, 2021, 10:09 AM EST | Updated Mar 8, 2021

          blockquote omitted; ctrl F for VP’s name to get segment to which I refer which ends with AA at WH social media summit summer 2019

        • Eureka says:

          Still want to know who tf that August 2nd squirrel was; who among this general rat class would have the chops to go that kind of Latinate? Educated ones, one might presume — to include old-school Catholic high-schoolers — but also those accustomed to translating between languages.

          [For some reason, Stone’s old Brazil-directed Portuguese FB page(s) comes to mind. Perhaps because –]

          Foreign language/non-native-speaker-piloted ratfucks and all who commit them aside, Stone’s occasional (2016) ghostwriter, Jerome Corsi, was a chief proponent of the Obama birther grift.


        • Eureka says:

          Be sure to see there at the bottom of comments harpie’s link to a *screenshot of Trump and Eastman doing the twitter-quote-Fox-segment centipede in the year of our troubles 2019 [July 8]”

          [Eastman had the 2019 QRT tweet pinned in Aug 2020]

          At the time I celebrated it as a rebuke of our busy troll who couldn’t deal with known facts about “social” networking in the Trumpian-RW ecosystem. Now see it as a stenography-buster, among other virtues.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Don’t forget Lin Wood. Among this horde of braying attention hogs, he played an active role especially in the 2017-2019 period when power was more up for grabs around Trump. He’s fallen out of the limelight lately, but was pivotal for awhile, especially in tandem with Sidney Powell.

          And thanks for keeping this (not at all a mere side) storyline in view! You’re really helping me keep an eye on the forest despite my tendency to get lost up a tree.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Chicken or egg? Which came 1st? Eastman? Perry? Mitchell? Thomas? Sounds like BFFs Ginni and Cleta were cackling and hatching something. Hope we learn the progression soon.

          “Trump’s Election-Denying Lawyer Is Prepping Right-Wing Activists to Monitor the Next One” – William Vaillancourt, 5/30/22 – Rolling Stone

          “Through the comically misnomered “Election Integrity Network,” Cleta Mitchell is working to undermine elections”
          “It was Mitchell who, having been selected by Trump in August 2020 to lead lawsuits after the election, brought onboard lawyer John Eastman.”

        • Eureka says:

          Excellent, SL, more steno-busters. This also aesthetically pleases, as “Oh I just happened to be in town for a legal conference” rings so hollow. [Also this was just last month and I’d already memory-holed it. But was one source of the nagging about MH’s social diary account being way off. Many thanks, SL.]

          Here’s a better source; pinpoints the when/how, and with Eastman’s words:

          In the filing, Mr. Eastman said he began working for Mr. Trump two months before the 2020 election at the invitation of Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who the Jan. 6 committee said “promoted false claims of election fraud to members of Congress” and participated in a call in which Mr. Trump tried to pressure Georgia’s secretary of state to “‘find’ enough votes to reverse his loss there.”

          Mr. Eastman, Ms. Mitchell and others began preparing to fight the election results well before Election Day, but the effort “kicked into high gear” on Nov. 7 — four days after the election — when Mr. Eastman met with Mr. Trump’s campaign team in Philadelphia to assist with the preparation of an election challenge, the filing said.

          The Politico version is better for linking the filing:

          I believe this is the correct one but don’t have time to re-check it right now.

        • harpie says:

          From the filing linked here:
          Kyle Cheney 02/22/2022

          On September 3, 2020, Dr. Eastman was invited by Cleta Mitchell to join an Election Integrity Working Group to begin preparing for anticipated post-election litigation. Ms.Mitchell, one of the nation’s preeminent election law attorneys, had been asked by President Trump in late August 2020 to undertake such an effort.
          end blockquote

        • Eureka says:

          Yes, thanks, the orig. reference: that’s (also) referenced at the link I gave in linked filing at pdf p 19. but later citing a specific relationship to Trump (which is why everyone was talking about it again on May 20th & after):

          Moreover, as noted in his Declaration, Dr. Eastman’s attorney-client relationship with President Trump as candidate began two months before the November 3, 2020 election (the beginning date of the materials sought by the Select Committee’s subpoena) when he was invited by Cleta Mitchell to join an Election Integrity Working Group to begin preparing for anticipated litigation, and kicked into
          high gear when he was asked to meet with the campaign’s legal team in Philadelphia on November 7, 2020 to assist with the preparation of an election challenge being prepared. Eastman Decl. ¶¶ 25-27 (Dkt. 132-1). That case, Donald J.Trump for President, Inc. et al. v. Boockvar et al., No. 4:20-cv-02078 (M.D. Pa.),15 was filed two days later.

          But something else bothering me about this which is why I quote this particular text: the original account they gave Schmidt and Haberman (back upthread) has a relationship start-date of approx Nov. 7 (when they wanted to hide certain facts). But since the priv. review starts effective E-day, *why is it advantageous LATER/here* to reveal (or claim, imply) that the atty-client relationship existed for ~two months prior to election.

          IOW how/why did this CYA shift, when it was not necess. for this priv. review. i.e. / then what _does_ it bear upon?…

        • Eureka says:

          I have a 12:27 PM reply to this in mod that I botched the daylights out of — apols, rushing — so trying to clarify a smidge:

          Eastman says here (link below) that he’s (extraneously as to the current issue) citing the earlier timeframe of working with Trump to forestall _future_ disputes… so am wondering just what those might be — besides that he’s announcing to the world that he’ll be in big trouble shortly over his pre-election work. When, in the first place, they were trying to cover up the whole thing until conceding to a “happenstance” relationship (“Oh, I was just in town for a legal conf.”) Nov. 7th-forward.

          I’ll apologize in advance for this “clarification”, lol, hard to see in these tiny boxes. Hopefully you got me!

        • Rayne says:

          LOL so there was consciousness of mens rea — if the formal relationship began after the election, it looked less like any legal issue they discussed before the election would be the subject than the outcome of the election itself.

          Sure would like to know what legal conferences were going on that week, hmm?

        • Eureka says:

          It got loosed by the time my other reply went up.

          You better not be trying to lay a jinx on my now over-.500 Fightins’ vs. (I don’t know if you want to claim them) your Dbacks. Let’s make this 10-in-a-row…

          But I have a scheduling conflict w/Super Regionals so will have to get the MLB updates on the side.

          ETA harpie I will look for it, thanks!

        • Eureka says:

          Well, Rayne — that’s the thing: I don’t recall any (which doesn’t really mean anything): but (BOLD THIS) big professional society conferences would traditionally take place at …

          dun dun dun

          the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Which was booked up by the votes being counted there.

          I saw reference to a virtual Philly law fair.on 22 October but haven’t found ref to one at time of election. Haven’t exhausted scouring, tho. Maybe something at one of the Unis like Penn?

          Is it possible that the “conference” he was in town for was for Cleta Mitchell’s EIN? Circle / centipede, be thy name?

        • Eureka says:

          Adding to 1:52 PM to Rayne — maybe the resident attorney could check his old spam folder (or memory of the annual cycle) for wingnut legal meetings…

          But again, I suspect that all might have been a euphemism (heavy lifting there) for Mitchell’s org.

        • Rayne says:

          I’m going to use air quotes around the word “conference” here forward and apply it to all kinds of things for which I need an excuse.

          Going to the bar? [air quote]conference[/airquote]

          Going to the spa for the day? [air quote]conference[/airquote]

          Plotting to overthrow government? [air quote]conference[/airquote]

          ADDER — 3:03 PM ET 12-JUN-2022 —

          Booking a venue for a presser? [air quote]#FourSeasonsTotalConferencing[/airquote]

          You’re killing me, Eureka!

        • Eureka says:

          (cont. from comment in mod)

          There’s a mega-thread around here from recent months where we talked about Ginni’s other BFF Cleta Mitchell’s “Election Integrity Network” (and a bunch of their other orgs; people like Gaffney, DeMint; funders like Uihlein). It was on my mind as we’re sure to find that creepy Uline billionaire with the unspellable name’s cash behind all this [also that was the last time the protective algos found an article so unspeakable as to reject my comment outright. Perhaps society could learn from the dumb algos in such rare instances…]:

      • harpie says:

        hmmm… so “several weeks” [3? 4?] from 11/7/20 =

        – 3 weeks >>> 11/28-29
        – 4 weeks >>> 12/ 5-6

      • harpie says:

        There are three tweets in the TRUMP twitter archive that mention EASTMAN

        Jun 10th 2019 – 11:43 AM Thank you @MarkLevinShow and John Eastman!

        Jul 8th 2019 – 12:40 PM Brilliant Constitutional Lawyer, Dr. John Eastman, said the Special Prosecutor (Mueller) should have NEVER been appointed in the first place. The entire exercise was fundamentally illegal. The Witch Hunt should never happen to another President of the U.S. again. A TOTAL SCAM!

        Dec 6th 2020 – 1:04 AM RT @VicToensing: See Prof. John Eastman 12/3/20 testimony b/4 Georgia legislature re US Constitutional authority of STATE legislatures to…

        • Eureka says:

          ^ That July 8, 2019 Trump tweet is the one that Eastman had QRT’d in thanks (also on July 8, 2019) that Eastman had as his pinned tweet in August 2020 per that 8-15-2020 screenshot you linked on Rayne’s birther post that I had mentioned/linked above:

          Nothing like hitting Trump over the head with a hammer ~ see you liked me even before, you really, really, like me!

          In the avian world such mating lure rituals are called lekking. Eastman had erected a lekking pyre for Trump to admire. Such a total set-up omg…

        • harpie says:


          1/6/21 2:45 PM ET
          From: EASTMAN [at the WILLARD]
          To: JACOB [hiding somewhere in the CAPITOL with PENCE and the nuclear football]
          Subject: Pennsylvania letter

          […] But you know [TRUMP] – once he gets something in his head, it is hard to get him to change course.” […]

          From this email Marcy is tweeting about today:

        • harpie says:

          That was maybe a little after this:

          2:27 AM · Jun 10, 2022

          [Some in TRUMP’s army were chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”] Cheney quotes Trump saying, “maybe our supporters have the right idea. Mike Pence deserves it.”

          I noted in my own prep for these hearings that 18 USC 372 is on the hook too.

          2:24 PM TRUMP tweets:

          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! [Twitter: This claim about election fraud is disputed]

        • Eureka says:

          LOL, right — once something is crowbarred in there, with regular reminders, and unless and until narcissistic whimsy strikes in another direction.

          This — all of this, these regular practices as to loyal-affiliate recruiting, all of the Anonymous Adults in the Room who said since the campaign that whoever had Trump’s ear last would win the idea/action battle etc. — really helps to put Eastman and fervent coup-peddlers like Ginni Thomas et al. on the hook, too.

          From other info it does seem like Trump might have (had to have) let it go if he wasn’t not only enabled but aggressively so at so many turns.

  8. Ravenclaw says:

    Interesting reference to the people at the Willard. Close in time to when she says that they will not be revealing all they know in these hearings, I think?

  9. Rayne says:

    This is good.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I totally agree. And I think “bullshit” works better than “the big lie” as a term of argument. I was gratified to hear that word unbleeped last night, first from Bill Barr and then from MSNBC host Chris Hayes quoting him.

      It didn’t occur to me then to wonder: did the networks (broadcast and other cable) also allow their audiences to hear this, and the more “explicit” language during the attack?

      • Rayne says:

        Coming from Leon Jaworski’s grandson it was an extra special acknowledgment of the degree of bullshit Trump pushed.

        PBS and ABC both allowed “bullshit” to run unbleeped. The use of the word was essential to the story because it conveyed more than a more finessed term would have.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Thanks, Rayne. Anyone know if CBS (or broadcast network NBC) let it run uncensored?

          I’m especially curious about CBS, given Stephen Colbert’s disclosure that network censors made him blur a photo of a European “penis plant,” when they let scenes of violence run unchecked.

        • Rayne says:

          I don’t know if it ran live or delayed on broadcast with/without bleeping. CBS’s YouTube stream is unbleeped.

          As for Colbert and the “penis plant”: it’s weird they went through so much for a show running after prime time, but it may have been based on CBS’s past experience with FCC and right-wing activist groups. Keep in mind it was CBS which aired the 2004 “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show after which an angry horde of more than half a million callers harangued CBS with 65K of those callers dispatched by Parents Television Council’s Brent Bozell III. CBS might be culturally tetchy about some sexual content.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          That sexual content involving a plant? Even for CBS, seems a fetch too far. But then I thought the whole cancel-Janet-Jackson-for-having-a-breast (which Timberlake exposed, not Jackson herself) a harbinger of ugly things to come. I got called “shrill” for pounding that drum about WOC.

  10. harpie says:

    8:42 PM MILLEY: about calls with PENCE on 1/6
    8:43 MEADOWS to MILLEY: We need to establish that TRUMP not PENCE is in charge.
    8:47 KUSHNER: CIPOLLONE was “whining”

    8:50 PM THOMPSON intro to new VIDEO

    • Ravenclaw says:

      Except for all the people who were with him all the way in the many-tentacled conspiracy.

      • Sue ‘em Queequeg says:

        Sorry, I didn’t say that very well. I meant in terms of deciding alone, in spite of so much lack of support. Hardly a new idea, just remarking on how strongly they managed to convey that.

  11. harpie says:

    8:50 PM THOMPSON intro to new VIDEO
    8:58 “We’ve lost the line”
    “Nancy!” chants
    8:59 2:38 Central East Doors

  12. Rayne says:

    Ugh. I’m going to be sick. That crowd rushing toward the Capitol after breaking the line triggers a bad memory from when I was doing reporting during the Bush admin. That horrible feeling of being pinned in place, no escape, as an angry horde comes toward you — I don’t know how CPD members are dealing this this tonight watching and experiencing it all over again.

    • Leoghann says:

      I really hope this footage is seen by some of the jackasses who have accused the CPD officers who survived this of whining.

      • Rayne says:

        There’s already been publicly-accessible video of the attacks on CPD and testimony of other CPD which should have dismissed the accusations. Anyone still claiming CPD was whining is deliberately choosing to ignore facts.

        Makes me so angry thinking of CPD officer Daniel Hodges being crushed in a doorway, photos and video of his crushing shared widely on the internet as just one example.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Normal tourist visit my ass. The GOP spin doctors worked overtime to invent that one.

    Trump was getting constant reports about this violence – more than I remember the MSM giving the public for weeks afterwards – and pleas to stop it. Trump refused, because he wanted the violence to work, to do what he couldn’t achieve at the ballot box: allow him to stay in office through violent insurrection and mob rule.

    A few more people now know what Donald Trump means by “love.”

    • eyesoars says:

      I’ve never been on holiday with Republicans… or anyone else who felt compelled to arm themselves heavily for vacations.

    • Nick Caraway says:

      Yes, I too was struck by Trump’s definition of love. Spoken like a narcissist — they were fighting for HIM, and that was love. For him love is hate for whomever he hates.

      New username per Rayne’s request, hope it serves.+

      [Thanks for the username change. So we beat on… /~Rayne]

    • bmaz says:

      Cannot possibly think of a more useless panel of “color commentary”. JFC, this is a total shit show.

      • grennan says:

        Hey, if the entire electorate were as sharp and well-informed as you are, we wouldn’t need this hearing.

        Its purpose is to reestablish reality; explain the moving parts; and offset, as much as possible, the idea this is a partisan witchhunt. Not to mention reset the mainstream media narrative.

        It’s also going to be the first or second draft of history.

        • timbo says:

          It may also be to embarrass the DOJ to actually start proceedings against many of the obvious criminal players involved here. All these videos and testimony are now in the public domain and can be used to investigate and prosecute individuals and groups further. And this was only one hearing. We’ve got six more (at minimum). So, it’s waaay better than nothing…and that counts for something, even if no one is happy with much or most of it.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Thanks for that, MB. I didn’t know about it, and I’ll listen to Mary Trump talk about anything. Your tip makes me think it’s time for me to enter the big, scary world of podcasts…Now, if I could just find a *book* to tell me how!

      • MB says:

        Easily accessible through YouTube. Her podcast is carried on a YT channel named “Politicon”.

  14. Rayne says:

    Oh fuck me, Chuck Todd babbling on NBC. Cannot with him.

    Going to PBS’s measured and rational analysis.

    • timbo says:

      Can’t be worse than the inane seditious nonsense emanating from FOX news stations and affiliates. I had to switch it away from there and refuse to switch back, even when one of the other folks viewing here was like “I want to see how they’re trying to spit it tho!” (after it was clear that they had some “legal expert” complaining openly there there needs to be “opposing counsel” on the committee, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that there are GOP people like Cheney on the committee who are leading this investigation, etc.)

    • PieIsDamnGood says:

      The investigator used language like, “came into possession of 1776 Returns.” Do we know how that happened? I’d love to see the meta data of that document

      • WilliamOckham says:

        That’s a good question. Some reporters have seen the document. Someone suggested that he may have gotten from his girlfriend.

  15. MB says:

    Awww, a quickie hearing. Less than 2 hours. And it was only Thompson-Cheney tonight. Other committee members have to submit questions to tonight’s live witnesses in writing, which will go forever under the radar…

  16. PieIsDamnGood says:

    I’m nearly as cynical as Dr. Bmaz but that was well done. Keeping member questions to a minimum was a very good choice, and the raw video was powerful.

    • eyesoars says:

      I thought so too. The first half particularly was well organized, moved along, addressed the big lies right off the bat, and used a variety of short clips of Trump’s associates and appointees and Trump himself to make their case.

  17. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Well, I’m dying to hear what people thought (except you, Bmaz). I found it riveting. I think some naive but well-intentioned people may have as well. I found Officer Edwards opening statement to be particularly moving and well-suited to grab conservative but loyal Americans, as was most of her testimony. I’ve actually avoided watching any violent footage of that day, so it was all fresh for me as I expect it was for many low information people. I felt it really brought things home, gave an air of seriousness. I wish it had been less stilted, more smoothly done, but I do think it will have an effect on those Americans left who care about the country and have the attention span.

    A tweet claimed that Fox kept Hannity on without interruption. Dan Rather said Fox slogan should be “For people who can’t handle the truth.”

    • Tom Marney says:

      Last night before the hearing started, I posted a link to a relevant article in response to a reflexively anti-hearings post by a right-wing wackadoodle acquaintance who’s apparently a bit of a thought leader in our community. Here’s his reply:

      Tom Marney … we know the answer Tom. And this article is a TINY window into it. It’s about controlling the minds of America and telling us what to think. If we only had true journalists that reported the facts, showed clear evidence of those
      facts. And didn’t put a panel of talking heads on to tell us how we should feel about those facts, we wouldn’t need more propaganda to try to sway us to March to the bullshit troughs …. but I’m not going to get on my soapbox here. The media has had a huge play in destroying this country. No matter what channel of news you choose, it’s not the truth of facts. You used to at least be able to find raw footage to verify , or dispute a story if you wanted it. But now that is even buried too deep to find.
      The answer to the question is…. that it’s just propaganda. Nothing more.

      Maybe he changed his mind after watching the hearings, but I doubt it. He’s just too far gone.

      If you’re curious, here’s the article I posted, which he must’ve read the title of. It’s good, and just as on-point today as it was yesterday: https://www.thebul…

  18. Rayne says:

    Still just sick thinking about the re-traumatization of officers — and some of their surviving family members — who have to see the attacks on themselves and loved ones to bear witness before the country.

  19. WilliamOckham says:

    One weird and amazing thing about tonight was that Adam Schiff didn’t get to say a damn thing. Think about that. Did anyone expect that it would be just Thompson and Cheney tonight?

    • MB says:

      No. Expected more voices from the committee to be heard. None of ’em are Gym Jordans, so they could’ve been disciplined enough to be concise and not grandstand.

    • timbo says:

      Schiff and Raskin have been talking about the things publicly for a week—they’re roll was to prime the pump as-it-were for tonight. I expect that they will publicly cross-examine some witnesses if there are any inconsistencies or issues that need to be fleshed out before the American public. There’s some sort of plan by this Committee and so far, they seem to have stuck to it through this first two hour public hearing.

    • Eureka says:


      And I think this needs to be as uncluttered as possible by speakers who are not witnesses: there’s enough voice/personality variation in the evidence to track, esp. on introduction — best to keep narrators limited there.

  20. Badger Robert says:

    I noted Trump meeting with Powell, Flynn and Giuliani without counsel present. What evidence of subsequent conduct by the three would DofJ have at this point? Chairman Thompson claims that the DofJ has significant additional evidence. Some may have been derived from Giuliani’s devices,
    That seems to the meeting in which the last ditch scheme was hatched.

  21. bmaz says:

    And now the Grand Poobah of the hearing, Bennie Thompson, is on CNN yakking. What a made for TV shit show.

  22. skua says:

    How to evaluate the effectiveness of this public hearing?

    The evaluation that I’m waiting for is the midterm vote.

    • Rayne says:

      Unfortunately the midterm isn’t a referendum on these hearings alone. SCOTUS is going to issue decisions this month among which one or more may shape the election, and the continued gouging at the gas pump will also affect the outcome.

      • BrokenPromises says:

        That’s about the saddest comment possible about the viability of and hope for our democracy’s survival. *rump’s insurrection ranks with or above the assassination of JFK as an historical event. As much as I am troubled by your view I expect you are exactly right.

    • eyesoars says:

      I expect the media tomorrow will be echoing bmaz’s point of view. I thought it was done well: informative, direct, and let those around the major player tell the story. Of course, I watched the Watergate hearings as a teen, read trial transcripts, and visit, so I’m not the target audience.

  23. ptayb says:

    I think Bill Barr gets the “most sickening” award. Watching him pretend to have a scruple is just too much.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Well, I guess we’ve all just gotten used to Liz Cheney pretend to care about the constitution. The other day when she went on about how we’re a nation that swears allegiance to the constitution rather than to individuals, I thought back to the allegiance to GWB required of potential federal employees during her father’s term as VP. Applicants were asked something along the lines of “In what way do you want to help President Bush.” What she doesn’t like is that the one man is a proxy for a foreign enemy rather than someone who will further the traditional GOP agenda.

  24. Doctor My Eyes says:

    I will remain happily unaware of the guidance of jabbering pundits on tv. But as I sit with just the hearing itself (thanks again, Harpie), I am struck by how very unusual it was. Setting aside from propaganda value (how persuasive) or evidentiary value (what crimes), I have to say that was the most concentrated two hours of bullshit-free truth-telling about an important issue on mainstream television in years.

    • eyesoars says:

      Good choice. The talking heads on my network of choice (ABC) were appalling, by far the worst of the evening. The hearings themselves were much more engaging, direct, and informative.

  25. WilliamOckham says:

    In general, I think the committee accomplished what they wanted to do tonight. It was very effective storytelling. The use of video depositions (especially Barr, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump) worked well.

    If you are familiar with the five act story structure, tonight was the exposition, setting the scene and introducing the characters. I am really wondering if they will stick with the form. Because I hope they will.

        • Peterr says:

          More Nibelungenlied than passion play, IMHO.

          Also, it takes multiple nights to do the whole thing.

      • TCS says:

        I don’t think that you are the target audience of the hearing. Perhaps you should take that into consideration.

        • Belyn says:

          I think this is already reaching people who have been unable to stay abreast of events. Easy for me to forget that there are folks with full time jobs unlike lucky me retired.

    • Rwood says:

      I’m pleased to see a concise plan underlining this hearing, one that takes into account the coming counterattacks from the right-wing media machine.

      Half this new testimony is bait, the kind the Faux Nuz crowd cannot help but take. The committee knows that they will respond with denials and attacks that have no facts to back them up. The committee is right to space these hearings out as it gives the Tuckers of the airwaves time to post their counter attacks and let them simmer, only for the committee to adjust the next hearing revelations and knock those arguments down hard.

      For once the Dems are on the offensive and the right is in a very bad position to counter them. It appears the committee has planned this out with that counterattack in mind. This is the psyops strategy I’ve been waiting 18 months for; I hope they keep it on track all the way to the end.

      • grennan says:

        “for once the Dems”

        When we refer to the universe of people who want to see insurrectionists face justice, using “Dems” reinforces the notion that it’s all a partisan thing. Yes, it’s largely an overlapping category with the Democratic party, but the whole point is that it shouldn’t be.

  26. bmaz says:

    Lol, WoodStein are on CNN saying tonight was “historic”, on a par with Watergate and the Joe McCarthy hearings! They must be gearing up for another book.

    • Rollo T says:

      Serious question: What do you suggest as a better alternative to what they are doing? [ a. no show b. better show c. written report d. criminal pleas & trials e. ______ ]

      • Al Ostello says:

        silly rollo…bitchy online critics don’t offer specific solutions, they just keep on bitching (incessantly)

        • bmaz says:

          If you are going to call me a “bitchy online critic”, you can get the hell out of here.

          And, by the way, the answer is a real hearing with live witnesses and proper examination of them as opposed to a slick scripted infomercial.

        • bmaz says:

          And, to be clear, there was some good content, especially visuals, in it. I have been a critic of House hearings, under both parties, for a very long time, so I guess I still am. I was very much hoping for something different, and this was, kind of. Alas, we shall see how the subsequent “hearings” go, and whether it really moves any needles in the process. My bet is still no.

        • fm says:

          I’m just a lay person who discovered and now follows empty wheel and reads some other articles.
          I have read about many of the facts but Ms. Edwards description of a bloody war zone like something that no police officer has ever been trained for was riveting. Also seeing Barr say Trump’s election fraud claim was bullshit was enlightening, among other new video facts.
          Overall I viewed it as serious, riveting and historic documentary against a despotic president that we were lucky to vote out. I am looking forward to the next chapters.
          I differ with you and think it will change minds. Many voters never read, they watch and that is what this primetime report gives them. The ability to watch the facts.

        • bmaz says:

          It will not change diddly squat. Why not subpoena Barr to come say it live? It was a glorified infomercial.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Of course it was a glorified infomercial. Claiming two hours of primetime TV real estate would be worse than pointless if you failed to make the best pitch possible for the product you are selling.

          I did not anticipate the decisions the committee and their advisors made (e.g., spending the first hour in that risky pseudo-prosecutorial manner). But after Officer Edwards’ final testimony, about not being trained for the “war zone” situation in which she found herself, I decided that their approach had served its essential purpose. I wouldn’t miss the next hearing for the world.

        • timbo says:

          Agree that there’s more visceral drama and that the entire nation would be much more inclined to listen and change its mind with live witnesses under cross-examination, etc. Sadly, the Committee appears to be working in an environment where they may not be able to compel live witness testimony, given that the DOJ seems to be randomly attempting to indict (and/or not) those who have bucked Committee subpoenas, and possible hostile rulings from the wingnuts on the Supreme Court, etc.

        • bmaz says:

          I am so sorry that they are putting on nothing more than a scripted shitshow. But, hey, thanks! It is not about “me”, it is about doing something truly effective. The House Dems, thanks to Pelosi, simply could not even come close to in the two completely failed impeachment attempts. Frankly this looks no better. Put on real witnesses. Examined by professionals. Don’t make it some glossy PT Barnum Carnival scripted TV show. It can be done. Just not by “these” House Democrats.

  27. GonzoDon says:

    I’m intrigued by the revelation that several GOP representatives apparently went hat in hand to Trump begging for him to provide them with pardons in January 2021. Pardons??? Don’t you only beg for a pardon when you know you’ve likely done something criminal?

    This is the tantalizing tip of an iceberg, and I’m eager to learn more about who requested pardons for what, and when. Sounds like there is some solid evidence there. This cannot bode well for a number of disloyal elected Congressional slime. For them, I am about to play the world’s tiniest violin.

    • Notyouraveragenormal says:

      Agree – a fascinating detail. Probably the biggest reveal of the night for me.

    • fm says:

      Yes, Kushner’s revelation that he was only concerned about pardon’s for criminals, Trump supporting and his father?.. rather than the Whitehouse attorney’s possible resigning because Trump had gone rogue was something. The only one I viewed as “whining” was the slime ball Kushner.

  28. Jenny says:

    For me, riveting and informative.

    New footage was powerful for a bigger picture of the violence, however disturbing.

    According to Cheney, Rep. Perry and multiple Republicans sought presidential pardons for the roles in trying to overturn the election. Morning response will be interesting.

    Mr. BS Barr’s resignation letter was totally different than his testimony. Resigning to spend time with family plus praising Trump. Testified he told Trump the election wasn’t stolen and thought it was BS so resigned.

    Will Trump say he doesn’t know Ivanka? Will he leave her out of the will?

    Jared told the House committee he thought the White House attorney’s threat to resign was “I kind of took it up to just to be whining.”

    Trump helped to drive membership higher (tripled) for the anti-government militia, Proud Boys after calling them out.

    “I was slipping in peoples blood,” capitol police officer Caroline Edwards.

    So much more to be revealed …

  29. Ddub says:

    Not terrible but not riveting as it should be.
    A lot of honoring oaths, call to duty and appeals to emotion. In short another poll driven, offend the least amount of people production.
    It was too many words for a visual audience. At least have an info window. It should have been a split screen with video background of what the speaker is saying,
    They should have managed their information much better. Part of that is not underestimating our intelligence in the wrong ways. Use graphics to lay out the organizational structure of the plot.
    Keep pounding the mugshot angle. Mention the ne’er-do-wells with photo to enhance the negative connotations at every step. (Have they never watched Fox?) Get that brush out and start painting!
    The Dems are lucky the case is compelling, they are so last century appealing to the good in people. And bombshell drops, after this, confidence is not high but I should be more positive, I keep telling myself.

  30. paulka says:

    I have never heard reporting or any politician speak about the attempt at a mass casualty event.

    While inside the Capitol, Caldwell allegedly received Facebook messages telling him to “seal” in lawmakers in the tunnels under the Capitol and to “turn on gas.” Other messages appeared to be trying to give him updates on the locations of lawmakers, the affidavit states.

  31. OldTulsaDude says:

    The only thing I found of interest was the revelation that so many Congressmen asked for preemptive pardons.

  32. Savage Librarian says:

    As for an assessment, I’d say the jury’s still out. I’ve read that the last hearing (also in prime time) is the clincher. But, so far, the pacing and editing seems problematic to me. It definitely does not live up to the hype yet.

    Bennie provided some interesting historical perspective. Liz seems like an effective prosecutor. It’s difficult for me to tell who the intended audience is, though. The media? Republicans? Trump? Independents? Certainly not Democrats.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        I think there might be a split screen in the final prime time hearing, showing minute by minute ( maybe not the whole time) what Trump was doing while the insurrection happened. Sounds compelling. Time will tell.

    • timbo says:

      Possibly DOJ is a targeted audience as well. The Committee seems to be in need of shaming DOJ into doing its job in supporting Congressional investigations into this matter, as well as shaming DOJ into holding those who are criminally responsible at the top, the main conspirator, to accounts for seditious incitement.

  33. DAvo says:

    Liz C laid out a pretty damning opening statement. Watched Thompson’s opening statement a second time and found it much more impactful than the first viewing. If what they say is true (I for one believe it is) and they have the evidence, what then?

    There are clearly many experienced legal minds, and the occasional get off my lawn sentiment here but how many have had the resources, and the depth of investigation that was just put in front of us? If the evidence exists to prove the case, then what?

  34. Phaedruses says:

    Watched the video after I got home, about the same time as emptywheel was posting tweets about it,

    Also caught up on events in Ukraine and came across this thread by LTG Mark Hertling, former commander of USAEUR and the Seventh Army.


    Normally I have no problem sleeping. But after watching the first Congressional 1/6 report, I needed to write some things down.

    So many disturbing things:
    -Barr’s comments
    -Kushner’s dismissal of WH counsel advice
    -the witness testimony
    -the extensive new video

    Congresswomen’s @RepLizCheney description of events was masterful & yet extremely upsetting. She described the state of our democracy being in grave danger.

    But it was @BennieGThompson opening remarks, and his comments about our Constitutional oath, that has me wide-eyed 2/

    As a soldier, and a few times as a government official, I’ve taken that oath. I’ve also given it every time I promoted someone or was promoted myself.

    It’s sacred.

    I learned to recite it from memory after being chided by a 1SG for reading it from a card when I was a Captain. 3/

    “You need to have that oath deep in your heart, sir,” the 1SG said to me. “If you read it at a promotion, that means you don’t really know it.”

    He was right.

    Thompson’s recitation of the oath’s history was spot on. Listening to his words, I began thinking of my past. 4/

    As a soldier, I was able to work with other armies. In every country where I served or visited – Europe, Middle East, Korea – I made a point of asking the officers from those countries about THEIR oath.

    The different oaths are fascinating. 5/

    Some armies say they defend the motherland, the fatherland, their king/queen. A few defend their presidents.

    The Israeli army took a few days to refine their oath *after* establishing their state. Tankers used to take this oath at the top of Masada./6

    But ours is the only nation in the world where we take an oath to defend…a piece of paper.

    The Constitution.

    Our ideas, ideals, values, rules & that magnificent aspiration to “form a more perfect union.”

    With all our faults & foibles, we want to defend who we want to be. 7/

    We’re supposed to defend those ideas, ideals & values found in documents & speeches that come from lessons learned, history & our national character.

    We only move society forward by understanding true liberty for every citizen & unblemished rule of law for each individual. 8/

    The results of the 1/6 investigation must provide a cleansing & reset…not just for elected officials or military officers.

    But for all those who believe in who we want to be.

    Yup, First Sergeant was right. We gotta live it, not just say it. 9/


    As a former combat soldier and officer; I agree with him. If we do not live what we want to become, then who do we expect to do it for us????

    …. I think these hearings are going to made a larger difference than the naysayers among the posters here expect.

    • harpie says:

      Here’s the link for that Mark Hertling THREAD:
      12:07 AM · Jun 10, 2022

      Normally I have no problem sleeping. But after watching the first Congressional 1/6 report, I needed to write some things down.

      So many disturbing things:
      -Barr’s comments
      -Kushner’s dismissal of WH counsel advice
      -the witness testimony
      -the extensive new video […]

      The results of the 1/6 investigation must provide a cleansing & reset…not just for elected officials or military officers.

      But for all those who believe in who we want to be.

      Yup, First Sergeant was right. We gotta live it, not just say it. 9/

    • harpie says:

      Here’s the link for that Mark Hertling THREAD:
      12:07 AM · Jun 10, 2022

      – The emphasis on the Oath of Office brought into sharp relief the total abdication of it from Stewart RHODES and his so called “Oath Keepers.”

      – Also, reminded me again of the large proportion of INSURRECTIONISTS who have taken an oath like that.

    • skua says:

      I hadn’t thought that the military would be a targat audience. One perhaps as critical as civilian voters. Makes sense though.

      What do you think of the following; There were many with military training who joined in the Capitol Jan 6 attack and I’ll bet they’d have claimed THEY were defending the Constitution?

      Seems it needs to be made clearer to those who are only somewhat warm to Trump, and the undecided and disengaged, that StopTheSteal was a lie – a lie that sought to destroy the Constitution.

    • harpie says:

      12/23/20 TRUMP pardons MANAFORT, STONE, C. KUSHNER and 23 others

      More about PARDONS:
      The Roger Stone Tapes Previously unseen documentary footage shows the long time Trump advisor working to oveturn the 2020 election, and after the Jan. 6 riot, secure pardons for the former president’s supporters (“A Storm Foretold”) Bennett/Swain March 4, 2022

      After he left Washington [on 1/6/21], Stone lobbied for Trump to enact the “Stone Plan” — a blanket presidential pardon to shield himself, Trump’s allies in Congress and “the America First movement” from prosecution for trying to overturn the election, according to the footage and additional documents reviewed by The Post.

      But the plan, along with a bid by Stone to win pardons for other Trump backers including convicted mobsters, was ultimately thwarted by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Stone said in several conversations that were filmed.

      “Clearly, Cipollone f—ed everybody,” Stone told Steven Brown, a friend then in federal prison in Oregon for a fraud conviction, during a call on Jan. 19, 2021. Cipollone was aware of Stone’s requests for pardons and opposed them, according to a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential matters. […]

      Back in Florida, Stone lobbied for the Stone Plan, which called for Trump to preemptively pardon Republicans including Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Jim Jordan (Ohio), all of whom tried on Jan. 6 to delay or block the certification of Biden’s victory.

      The Post reviewed a Jan. 16 draft of Stone’s plan, which he shared with the filmmakers. Stone did not say whether he had consulted the lawmakers, and some told The Post that he did not. A Cruz spokesman said, “Senator Cruz has no idea what Roger Stone says or does.” A Jordan spokesman said, “Mr. Jordan has never spoken to Roger Stone about pardons and he never sought a pardon because he did nothing wrong.” […]

      • harpie says:

        “I believe the president is for it,” Stone told the filmmakers on Jan. 15. But, he said, the plan faced resistance from “lily-livered, weak-kneed” officials in the White House Counsel’s Office.
        The person who confirmed Cipollone’s opposition to the plan said he particularly objected to preemptive pardons for Republicans in Congress who had not been charged with crimes nor sought pardons themselves. […]

      • harpie says:

        Oh, I forgot about this part:

        On Jan. 15 [2021], Stone told the filmmakers he endorsed a proposal — one that was then not publicly knownfor Trump to install Jeffrey Clark, a loyal senior Justice Department official, as attorney general. Stone outlined a scenario in which Trump would order acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. When Rosen refused, Stone said, Trump would oust him and appoint Clark.

        “Clark, I think, would carry out the order of the commander in chief,” Stone told the filmmakers. News that Trump had indeed considered replacing Rosen with Clark was made public a week later. […]

  35. Randy Baker says:

    I think the D’s reliance on R’s to show Trump knowingly and systematically blitzed the masses with his big lie, glimpses of his to be shown role on causing the attack, and the testimony from the straight arrow cop who was knocked ucs in the fight, recovered and returned to the fight, only to be sliding in blood was good strong stuff. While there was some excess blather, and some of the writing could have been tighter, I think this indicates the 1/6 hearings well could move the needle a few percentage points towards the D’s and concern for democracy among somewhat, but not substantially engaged folks otherwise around the political center. Switching 2%-4% from voting R to voting D likely would change lots of electoral races.— Not that mainstream Dems, whose neo-liberalism for the past 40-50 years helped lay the groundwork for MAGA, are all that great. But at the moment, they are the only non-fascist national political party, and thereby the ones those of us preferring to avoid fascism must back.

  36. Petrus says:

    Interesting to see liberals swooning over Liz Cheney. Apparently we have fallen so far as a nation that opposing naked Fascism is now regarded as a courageous and heroic act.

    [Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name; you commented on May 3 as “Global Yokel.” Pick a name and stick with it. /~Rayne]

    • Rayne says:

      I don’t see anybody here “swooning over Liz Cheney.” You might also check yourself and take a look around this site because we goddamned well know what fascism is and spend a fuckton of time fighting against it.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Actually, opposing “naked Fascism” *is* pretty heroic now if you’re doing it from inside the party of naked fascism.

  37. mospeck says:

    [No. Not that content, not here. There are repeated notes in this post and in this thread that this is dedicated to the House J6 Committee hearing. Go to a Trash Talk thread and post anything unrelated there. /~Rayne]

  38. harpie says:

    Eureka, bringing the conversation here. I think this is what you’re referring to:

    EASTMAN 2/22/22

    […] But to anticipate and hopefully forestall future disputes about materials generated prior to that formal engagement letter, Dr. Eastman’s election-related work on behalf of the President began three months earlier. On September 3, 2020, Dr. Eastman was invited by Cleta Mitchell to join an Election Integrity Working Group to begin preparing for anticipated post-election litigation. Ms. Mitchell, one of the nation’s preeminent election law attorneys, had been asked by President Trump in late August 2020 to undertake such an effort. Id. ¶ 25. After joining the Election Integrity Working Group, Dr. Eastman began conducting legal research and collaborating with academic advisors and other supporters of the President about the myriad number of factual and legal issues he anticipated might arise following the election. Id. ¶ 26. All of that work is therefore classic attorney work product.

    I’m a little lost, but, I guess your question is basically: what communications “collaborating with academic advisors and other supporters of the President” between 9/3 and 11/3 is he trying to keep hidden under attorney work product privilege and why, right?

    Also, note that here he says “three months earlier”…which would make it …8/3/20. [hahahaha!]

  39. harpie says:

    STEPIEN will testify tomorrow.
    3:47 PM · Jun 12, 2022

    Good primer on Bill Stepien, the Trump 2020 campaign manager was just announced as one of the witnesses for tomorrow’s January 6 hearing [link]

    Links to [from 11/9/21]:
    Here’s Why the Bill Stepien Subpoena Is the Most Interesting of the New Batch Until he joined Trumpworld in 2020, Stepien was seen (Bridgegate aside) as a generally respected data guy. How low did he sink?

Comments are closed.