Prep for the January 6 Committee Hearings: Focus on 18 USC 372

I’ve got some potentially unwelcome news for you: Given the time zone differential, I think it unlikely I’ll stay up to watch tonight’s prime time hearing of the January 6 Committee. Hopefully, though, I’ll have reviewed it and posted on it by the time most of you wake up tomorrow.

That said, there seems to be a requirement somewhere that everyone do a big prep post of what to expect.

For example, Brookings did legal analysis of Trump’s legal exposure, laying out the evidence and legal background for charging him under 18 USC 371 and/or 1512(c)(2) and (k). I did a (actually, several) versions of that post too. But I posted it back on August 19, 2021.

The Brookings analysis misses a number of things, however. While it cites Judge Amit Mehta’s decision finding it plausible that Trump entered into a conspiracy with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (this is a much lower standard than the one DOJ would need to charge Trump), it doesn’t mention Mehta’s decision that Trump may have liability for aiding and abetting the assaults at the Capitol. Similarly, neither Brookings nor anyone else I’ve seen have noticed DOJ’s recent addition, in the same indictments in which they charged the militias for seditious conspiracy (Oath Keeper, Proud Boys), of 18 USC 372 charges, which is a conspiracy to prevent by force or intimidation any person from discharging his duties.

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

As I’ve noted of late, the only other January 6 defendants charged with a 372 conspiracy are George Tanios and Julian Khater, for the alleged attack on Brian Sicknick and others. In the same way I was screaming in August that TV lawyers need to pay attention to how DOJ was using 1512(c)(2) (which they’ve finally started doing), I’m going to start screaming about 372 now. I think the 372 charges are designed to do more than backstop the showier conspiracy charges. Insofar as Mike Pence was acting in his role as President of the Senate on January 6 (and so would be included in the language about preventing by intimidation Members of Congress from carrying out their duties), it might be easier to charge people like John Eastman or Peter Navarro with 372 than with 1512. That’s because parts of this conspiracy didn’t rely on obstructing the vote certification, it relied on preventing Pence from doing his job.

Plus, Brookings remains, as virtually all such analysis does, far too focused on the events in the Willard, and far too little focused on the Capitol. It’s as if they don’t believe, or can’t conceive, how closely Trump is tied to the violence at the Capitol.

Hopefully, tonight’s hearing will change that focus. As the NYT first reported, documentarian Nick Quested and officer Carolyn Edwards will testify tonight.

When the committee on Thursday evening holds the first in a series of public hearings scheduled for this month, the two people said, it intends to present live testimony from Nick Quested, a British documentarian who was filming the group with its permission during the riot, and from Caroline Edwards, a Capitol Police officer who was injured, according to videotape of the incident, by a rioter who had been in a conversation moments earlier with one of the Proud Boys indicted on the sedition charge.

Mr. Quested spent a good deal of the postelection period filming members of the Proud Boys, including Mr. Tarrio, and is considered by the committee likely to have been a witness to their conversations planning for Jan. 6. Mr. Quested had accompanied the Proud Boys to pro-Trump rallies in Washington in both November and December 2020, and was on the ground with members of the group on Jan. 6 when several played a crucial role in breaching the Capitol.

Mr. Quested was also present with a camera crew on the day before the attack, when Mr. Tarrio met in an underground parking garage near the Capitol with a small group of pro-Trump activists, including Mr. Rhodes of the Oath Keepers. Late in the day on Jan. 6, Mr. Quested and his crew were with Mr. Tarrio in Baltimore, filming him as he responded in real time to news about the riot.

Ms. Edwards, a well-respected Capitol Police officer, is believed to be the first officer injured in the attack, and suffered a concussion during the assault.

Such testimony will explain how the Proud Boys kicked off the entire riot before Trump even finished. Edwards’ assault figures in language added to the Proud Boys indictment when Tarrio was added.

Seconds before 12:53 p.m., BIGGS was approached by an individual whose identity is known to the grand jury. The individual put one arm around BIGGS’s shoulder and spoke to him. Approximately one minute later, this individual crossed the barrier that restricted access to the Capitol grounds. This was the first barrier protecting the Capitol grounds to be breached on January 6, 2021, and the point of entry for NORDEAN, BIGGS, REHL, Donohoe, and PEZZOLA.

This assault — one implicating the Proud Boys in that exchange with Samsel — is the kind of thing covered by 372. A victim impact statement was read in a detention hearing for Samsel, which focused on how much lasting damage the assault had done to Edwards health and ability to work.

With Edwards and Quested’s testimony, I expect the Committee will show that the attack was far more than a disorganized mob, but instead was coordinated, almost like a dance. That coordination includes Alex Jones and his entourage, the Pied Pipers of insurrection, ordered to lead thousands to the attack on the Capitol.

The coordinated events at the Capitol are why another point missed by the legal analysis I’ve seen so far is so important. The Willard is actually the wrong place to start a prosecution of Trump. You can’t hold Trump responsible for the attack on the Capitol unless you first show that he was instrumental in mobilizing the people there — whether by inciting them at the rally, advertising the riot itself in ways rioters took to be orders, or coordination with the militias. All the other stuff just broadens the conspiracy to include the legal talent.

Trump wielded the mob as his weapon. There are witnesses to his premeditated plan to do that in the White House. But to show that those mobilized by Trump responded to his orders, you need to rely on their testimony.

And abundant testimony already shows that thousands would not have rioted except for Trump’s orders or his promises to meet supporters at the Capitol (and Alex Jones’ similar promises, used to move bodies around to form a second front of attack).

Enrique Tarrio thinks this focus is all being coordinated with DOJ. In the wake of the sedition indictment rolled out on Monday, Zach Rehl’s attorney Carmen Hernandez moved for permission to issue a press release responding to the indictment. Hernandez wants to note that Rehl is not, himself, accused of any violence.

Without adding a single factual allegation concerning Mr. Rehl, the government today filed the Third Superseding Indictment in the instant case, nearly 1-1/2 years after Mr. Rehl was first indicted and detained pretrial and just two months before he is scheduled to begin trial. Mr. Rehl is now charged with seditious conspiracy, an offense that requires the government to prove that Mr. Rehl “conspire[d] to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States.” Yet, the Third Superseding Indictment does not allege that Mr. Rehl used force at any time nor encouraged anyone to do so.

I think Rehl’s problem is not so much the conspiracy indictment, it’s that he’s the least culpable of the remaining defendants, on the hook for actions that Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Enrique Tarrio are alleged to have taken, and arguably included in the Leader indictment when others (like Ron Loehrke, who remains charged by complaint with civil disorder) were more instrumental to the success of the assault on January 6.

Tarrio has a different problem, however. Thus far, he’s the only one to have joined, in part, in Hernandez’ motion. He wants to issue a press release claiming that the only reason DOJ charged him with sedition is to make a big stink with the January 6 investigation.

The government filed the Third Superseding Indictment on June 6, 2022 to coincide with the January 6th Select Committee Hearings which are scheduled to commence on June 9, 2022 on prime-time TV. Additionally, the select Committee has announced that the hearings will commence immediately and with the central focus of Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys. Documentary producer, Nick Quested who was “imbedded” documented via video recording the events on January 6, 2022 which Mr. Tarrio was not present for. This suspiciously seems orchestrated at the highest levels of government. This Honorable Court should raise caution as to the true intent of why the Government filed a Third Superseding with trumped up allegations with no new supporting facts on the eve of the January 6th Select Committee Hearings.

As the Court is aware, Mr. Tarrio has always been cooperative with law enforcement and has always complied with judicial orders in the past. Mr. Tarrio even voluntarily appeared before the January 6 Select Committee and answered questions honestly without invoking his right to remain silent. In accordance with Local Criminal Rules 57.7, Undersigned seeks the authority of this Honorable Court to make a press release with full compliance of the Protective Order entered by the Honorable Court [D.E.82]

It’s not true that there are no new supporting facts. The sedition indictment added the Tarrio reference to the Winter Palace, seemingly evidence that he intended to occupy the Capitol thereby making it impossible for members of Congress to do their jobs (again implicating 18 USC 372).

At 7:39 pm, PERSON-1 sent two text messages to TARRIO that read, “Brother. ‘You know we made this happen,” and “I’m so proud of my country today.” TARRIO responded, “I know” At 7:44 pm. the conversation continued, with PERSON-1 texting, “1776 motherfuckers.” TARRIO responded, “The Winter Palace.” PERSON-1 texted, “Dude. Did we just influence history?” TARRIO responded, “Let’s first see how this plays out.” PERSON-1 stated, “They HAVE to certify today! Or it’s invalid.” These messages were exchanged before the Senate returned to its chamber at approximately 8:00 p.m. to resume certifying the Electoral College vote.

But as I noted the other day, the discovery index the government provided as of last Thursday did not yet reflect the cooperation of Charles Donohoe and may not reflect the cooperation of Louis Colon.

Tarrio may not be entirely wrong about some coordination, however — but it may work in the opposite direction.

Multiple reports on the January 6 Committee have indicated that they’re packaging their public hearings up with an eye towards making admissible evidence available to DOJ and other law enforcement investigations. Along with speech and debate and executive privileged testimony, the January 6 Committee has greater ability than DOJ to obtain the testimony of journalists than (under Merrick Garland’s media guidelines) prosecutors at DOJ can.

That’s why the prominent inclusion of Quested is of particular interest. As of last Thursday, there was just one reference to Quested in the Proud Boy Leaders discovery index (though his work is included in open source videos). But whatever testimony he provides tonight will become accessible to prosecutors, who have just one more week before deadlines on discovery start kicking in.

There’s one more detail that I expect the Committee to include that has gotten too little focus: the other bodies.

Because QAnon mobilized bodies in less direct ways than the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, that effort is in some ways more accessible to Congress than to DOJ (because Congress doesn’t need to show probable cause to obtain evidence). And thus far, at least, the Committee’s efforts at understanding the role of the 1st Amendment Praetorian — militia associated more closely with Mike Flynn — have been more public than those of DOJ.

55 replies
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    I’m hoping that the Jan6 Committee will present evidence that a purpose, perhaps the primary purpose, of the attack on the Capitol was to extend the “hard deadline” for counting the electoral college votes. That’s what ties together the false allegations of fraud, the fake elector scheme, the Cruz-Hawley proposed delay, and the seditious conspiracy of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, et. al.

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah, but that is already understood by informed people who care. And I doubt this scripted and staged dog and pony show will have any influence whatsoever on the DOJ process. I have extremely low expectations as to any net effect from this. Also believe the House Dems have once again shot themselves in the foot by bragging about how scripted and staged it will be. That plays right into the hands of the GOP and Fox News, they will leap all over this, and they should. I would were I them.

      • Peterr says:

        The J6 committee is battling the Ghost of Hearings Past — the Mueller hearings, Benghazi hearings, etc. — which have the not-undeserved reputation of equating “Congressional Hearing” with “Snoozefest.” The committee has chosen to telegraph that These Hearings will not be like Those Hearings; that is, these will have drama and flow.

        Many here at EW (myself included) have lamented that too many hearings are structured in order to produce press clips for future campaign ads of the committee members, rather than being structured to produce meaningful evidence and insight into the subject at hand. My own repeated rant has been something along the lines of “Let all the members make their opening statements, then give the staff counsel the floor to ask the witnesses questions in a form and fashion designed to advance the investigation.” Multiple rounds of 4 minute questions does not create a good hearing.

        Call me crazy, but I think that this is more or less what they are going to do, and they’ve been trying to lay this out to the world to get the world to watch.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, even I am hard pressed to watch or care about this staged garbage. The Dems are just feckless dopes.

          • Peterr says:

            Given a choice between feckless dopes and apologists for violent insurrectionists, I’ll take feckless dopes every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


            • bmaz says:

              My mileage does vary. Am tired of watching the Dems and their useless, geriatric and fossilized leadership not do squat competently. Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn are worthless. She caused both impeachment actions to be truncated stupid affairs without exploring and presenting real evidence. And now she is leading yet another shit show. Democrats and the nation deserve better than this pathetic garbage. The only people that are going to take jack shit out of this charade are already believers. This is just dumb, at least so far, and will not move any needle one micron.

              • Peterr says:

                To their credit, or maybe because the committee demanded it, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn seem to have kept their hands off the committee’s work. The committee has clearly NOT rushed its work in order to get in front of the cameras, though they are clearly aware that the November elections may truncate their work if the GOP takes control next January.

                Generally speaking, this committee has worked more like the Intelligence Committees than Oversight Committees. That is, they have put their head down and done the work that needs to be done, mostly behind the scenes, rather than engaged in lots of grandstanding and posturing. The months of this quiet work gives me confidence that this will be more than a charade.

                But I’m surprised at you, bmaz. When lawyers have asked me in voir dire if I can keep an open mind, I’ve answered yes. As a defense attorney, I’d think that you’d be the last person to say “I’ve made up my mind before an opening statement has even been made.” You’re not the lawyer for a party here, but part of the jury. Can you not at least wait to see the evening unfold before you dismiss it as dumb and ineffective?

                • bmaz says:

                  Leadership has not “kept their hands off” of squat. And Bennie Thompson does not have authority to do anything without Pelosi approving. No, I do not have an open mind, I have understood all along. And I think staging a scripted commercial is simply pathetic.

              • wetzel says:

                You are right, bmaz. This is one spectacle among many. We will watch. We have our weird politics hobby. It is on our Youtube.

                It won’t move the needle, but it will add factual evidence and testimony. True history. Evidence and testimony. Public opinion doesn’t tune into hearings. It does to criminal convictions.

                It’s unlikely the hearings will save Congress, though. For the Dems to be losing Congress after all that is just like every other thing. Please don’t remind me of every similar failure for the last forty years. The Democrats!

            • Wajim says:

              Wow. Like-minded people more cynical than I am! And yet I save some small hope that before I die . . .

      • WilliamOckham says:

        I agree that the scripted dog and pony show won’t have any influence the DOJ process. I don’t think that’s the intent and I don’t think it would be useful to try that. In my view, having a producer for hearings like these has real potential. It’s roughly equivalent to doing hard-hitting investigative journalism, but with subpoena power. More than anything else, the committee needs to tell a story. Hiring a professional with experience telling stories on the screen seems like a solid strategy. We’ll have to wait and see how well they pull it off.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          That’s what has raised my hopes too, WO. Like you say, we shall see. I can share, though, that I once created a presentation with 972 slides and 5 pieces of music. It was about 30 minutes long. I had a captive audience of colleagues: some friends, some foes.

          The content was a visual evolution of the city and the library system from 1864 – 2015. To my surprise, it received a standing ovation. And everyone was attentive, nobody was bored. I think what helped was the pace, many familiar faces & places, and the way the music was coordinated.

          Naturally, I’m expecting professionals to do a far superior job than I could ever hope to do. I wonder if there will be music!

        • ducktree says:

          But Billy Wilder is dead as a door nail. Paraphrasing John Williams, when he was asked by Spielberg to compose the score for “Schindler’s List”, he told Spielberg that there were better composers than he. Spielberg replied, “Yes, but they’re all dead.”

      • Randy Baker says:

        Since the tiny portion of adults who watch FOX compared to the aggregate of ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN etc. are either fascist or at least not particularly concerned with the niceties of democracy and constitutional government, I think whatever FOX says about the hearings is immaterial to their efficacy. What likely will matter is whether and how much those hearings engage the large number, perhaps the majority of adults, who do have some interest in these institutions, but otherwise are largely disengaged from politics.

  2. Rugger9 says:

    Semi OT, the leading GQP candidate (topping the polls, apparently) for MI Governor just got arrested by the FBI. As I’ve noted before, the sedition plan is still operating even though the front lines have changed locations. This is after several other GQP candidates were kicked off the ballot for fraudulent signatures submitted to join the race. Law-n-order party, indeed…

      • Rayne says:

        I don’t know about that. There’s a schism in the MIGOP which may widen with the hearings’ progression. Recall former MI secretary of state Terri Lynn Land didn’t sign the false electors’ certification opting not to participate; there’s a paywalled article in the Detroit Free Press today in which Betsey DeVos says “I quit after Jan. 6 because Trump crossed ‘line in the sand’.” Old school GOP will be more inclined to pay attention to them than the much more radical MIGOP like Meshawn Maddock and her husband Matt as well as the insurrectionist gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley arrested today.

  3. Retired guy says:

    Sharing my bingo card, written for myself a couple days ago, as an old guy with time on my hands.

    I expect each hearing to release enough new narrative to own the news cycle for a couple days. Here is what I am looking to hear from this series of public events:

    1. Evidence of a call for violence at the Capitol from the White House to the actual rioters. Names and documents, likely from Dec 19, 2020. Also the intervening amplifications, and variations for several types of audiences. Likely a compact network at the top. Also the actions and communications to hide the plan for a March to the Capitol.

    2. Evidence of a link between the call for the violent riot and the evident delay of the national guard arrival the day of the riot. Show the active steps taken and actors.

    3. Evidence of coordinated communications from the Trump campaign requesting the alternate elector slates for the 6 disputed states + New Mexico. Names and messaging.

    4. New evidence that the former president was actively supporting the violence as it was happening.

    5. Documentation that the violent Capitol breach was the final option in a larger plan to overturn the 2020 election. This could be a document from the White House right after the election, and another around the end of December 2020. (There is plenty of evidence of the first part of the plan: (1) frivolous lawsuits to cast doubt (2) alternate electors from the 6 disputed states (3) rallying members of state legislatures and the US Congress to challenge the real electors, (4) pressure the Vice President to intervene. It might have been improvised from all the crazy ideas thrown on the wall. There is evidence the 2020 plan was sketched in 2016.)

    Bonus item 1: A thread of evidence that explains the chanting of “Hang Mike Pense” and the gallows erected in front of the Capitol. This is missing from prosecution public documents.

    Bonus item 2: reference to the online forum, thedonald dot win, where much violent planning for Jan 6 happened, though it is not mentioned in any prosecutor documents.

  4. Molly Pitcher says:

    According to the NYT, “Ryan Kelley, a candidate for Michigan governor who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, is arrested by the F.B.I.”

    “Ryan Kelley… was arrested at his home in Allendale, Mich., on Thursday morning, according to Mara R. Schneider, a special agent with the F.B.I.

    Mr. Kelley is the first person running for election in a major state or federal race to be charged in connection with the attack.

    According to a criminal complaint, Mr. Kelley was charged with committing violence against a person or property on restricted grounds, damaging federal property, disorderly conduct and entering a restricted building or grounds without permission. All four charges are misdemeanors…

    An F.B.I. agent described Mr. Kelley’s actions in a filing to the court, saying at one point that Mr. Kelley appeared to use his phone “to film the crowd assault and pushing past U.S. Capitol police officers.” The filing also said that Mr. Kelley used “his hands to support another rioter” who was pulling down a metal barricade, and that he gestured “to the crowd, consistently indicating” that it should continue moving toward the entrance to the Capitol. ”

  5. Alda Earnest Goodpeople says:

    Thoughts on whether the failures of Brookings to properly capture the full extent of Trump’s exposure has anything to do with its President being an alleged lobbyist for Qatar (in the context Qatar was a tenant for empty offices in Trump Tower in Devin Nunes’ CA)?

    What could go wrong there in the context that Qatar is behind Jeffrey Epstein’s Musk’s bid for Russia’s Twitter to return Jeffrey Epstein’s and Russia’s Trump to Russia’s Twitter?

    • Rayne says:

      I know you’ve only had 14 comments at this site (under multiple screennames) so perhaps it’s not clear to you most readers here don’t need this much background material in the form of links.

      Please avoid multiple links in comments related to the hearings or your comments may sit in auto-moderation until we can get around to clearing them.

      • Alda Earnest Goodpeople says:

        No worries, I will avoid providing links here in the future. Like you guys do in your articles, I wanted to provide links so others could follow up on contributions and understand the basis, but thanks to your explanation, I do appreciate why I should not, cheers.

      • Alda Earnest Goodpeople says:

        Not sure what you mean Bmaz? What are you objecting to? Epstein’s known clients, friends, associates, and general orbit? Why is that offside?

        Understanding the names in that book and the events and actors between 2016-2022 is in fact extremely enlightening…

        Trump (page 80), Kushner’s Ivanka Trump (page 54), MBS (page 49), Rupert Murdoch of Fox News (page 39), David Koch (page 31), pro-Russia Henry Kissinger (page 31), and the Proud Boys’, SCL’s, and Cambridge Analytica’s UK “royal” ‘leaders’ (page 16), for starters.

        Why must we focus on only some parts of the puzzle?

        Quoting Andrew Weissmann from Marcy’s June 3rd article, “One of my strengths—and simultaneously one of my flaws—as an investigator is the desire to turn over every rock, go down every rabbit hole, try to master every detail. In this investigation, that tenacity was as much an asset as a curse: The inability to chase down all financial leads, or to examine all crimes, gnawed at me, and still does”.

        Amen Weissmann, Amen.

  6. Zirc says:

    While I am quite invested in what will come out of the hearings, I have no desire whatsoever to watch them. I can’t explain it. I just can’t make myself do it.


    • Rayne says:

      If you’re fairly up to speed on the background and players, hearings like tonight’s can seem remedial. In short, you’re not the target audience.

      • Lester Noyes says:

        I will watch for the same reason I occasionally watch network news – to see/hear what they’re showing/telling America what to believe about a particular story/issue.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          I don’t mean to be rude but I have a particular dislike for this particular meme. For me it shows simple bias with a refusal to listen or keep an open mind and worse a knee jerk reaction to ignore facts. Perhaps it’s really that it suggests a conspiracy minded choice to believe ‘they are controlling us”.
          That said I rarely watch any news media preferring print where I can mull over what’s written and compare several sources. Skepticism is good but a blanket “they’re telling me what to think” doesn’t cut it.
          This brings me to my main concern. A congressional hearing is not a corporate news program running on sound bites. It’s an actual event. It’s over now and I found it viable. Emptywheel is excellent at analyzing the ongoing Jan 6 DOJ cases. These hearings are the next step and may reveal what comes next for those at the top. I look forward to EWs breakdown of the hearings. Cheney talking about crimes committed by *rump brought back just how historical this is and I will continue to watch. Then I can compare my reactions to the informed analysis at EW.

    • Tom says:

      Perhaps what you’re feeling is an illustration of the old saying: “It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.”

      • LeeNLP says:

        One rejoinder I’ve read is “If that were true, and known to be true, how would it be possible to travel hopefully?”

        • Tom says:

          Not sure how to reply to that, but it reminds me of what Samuel Johnson said about people who get married for a second time; i.e., that it represents a triumph of hope over experience. So I will travel hopefully for the next couple hours and see what the Committee has to present, though I keep remembering what Trump said about shooting a person on 5th Avenue.

    • JohnJ says:

      Guilty admission:
      I plan on skipping it and coming here tomorrow for all the expert dissection and highlights. I have enough extreme stress right now that the typical MSM mischaracterization is not good for my health.

      I do that with most important stuff; skip the MSM and see if it is important enough to rate discussion at Emptywheel.

  7. Savage Librarian says:

    Great post, Marcy! Thank goodness we now live in a streaming media environment. Electrical storms here seem to have shifted from a historical 4-5PM time slot to 8PM. So, if power is knocked out, there are alternatives.

    It’s my understanding that some of the testimony of Ivanka and Jared may be in the 1st hearing. And Staci Burk from the 1st A Praetorians also has some convincing testimony, but I don’t know when that will be included.

    On my wish list, I’d like to see more about Cleta Mitchell and her interactions with Eastman, Meadows, and Ginni T., as well as their interactions with each other.

    Thanks for the 372 info. I’m hoping this is a successful pursuit. And, if it is, I hope that it also strengthens avenues for local officials and employees who are threatened by violence or adverse actions during the performance of their daily duties.

  8. JohnJ says:

    Guilty admission:
    I plan on skipping it and coming here tomorrow for all the expert dissection and highlights. I have enough extreme stress right now that the typical MSM mischaracterization is not good for my health.

    I do that with most important stuff; skip the MSM and see if it is important enough to rate discussion at Emptywheel.

  9. Jonf says:

    I’m an old guy. I never imagined I would ever see a Jan 6 insurrection. For me I continue to think someone needs to pay a substantial price for that riot especially since, so far as I know, there is not an iota of proof the election was stolen. But I am not at all sure the Dems will handle this effectively. Still I want to hear what they have to say. And if the gods are listening it may dispel some of the lies surrounding that day and provide some incentive to lock some of the bastards up for a long time and prevent anymore of this. God speed and do your job well. I look forward to Ms Wheeler tomorrow.

    • bmaz says:

      DOJ doesn’t care about these “hearings”, they will have close to zero to do with DOJ locking people up.

  10. harpie says:

    It would be quite astounding if you stayed up to cover this hearing, Marcy!
    [I’m hoping the daytime hearings might get some Marcy-Live!-tweeting!]
    I have no doubt that when you do get around to it, it will be more informative than most!

    I guess I’ll be watching right at the Committee website [there’s also a link to watch at YouTube],
    so I don’t have to listen to other people’s hot takes about it:

    06/09/2022 Select Committee Hearing

    The committee will present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, and provide the American people an initial summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power. The committee will also preview additional hearings.

    And I’ll be following along with Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix at Just Security’s Twitter feed:
    1:48 PM · Jun 9, 2022

    We’ll be live-tweeting the #January6thCommitteeHearings!
    @rgoodlaw and @justinhendrix will take the reins of the Just Security account.
    [Background info and links here]

    Also, really looking forward to being able to share with everyone
    at RAYNE’s promised post about the hearing.

  11. Doctor My Eyes says:

    I generally share Bmaz’s view, but I hold out moderate hope that the hearings will reflect an understanding that more is at stake than the re-election of Democrats. I hold out no such hope that media coverage will reflect such understanding.

    Thanks to Harpie for the viewing and commentary tips.

Comments are closed.