The Peaceful Transfer of Power: What President Reagan Called, “Nothing Less than a Miracle”

I’ve caught up to all of you in the States watching the first January 6 Committee hearing (my Twitter commentary while watching the video is here).

I think the hearing was an effective scene-setter, laying out information in a coherent narrative.

Perhaps the most striking part of the hearing was the degree to which, aside from the two live witnesses, Capitol Police Officer Carolyn Edwards and Nick Quested, the hearing relied exclusively on Republicans to make their case, with clips from:

  • Jason Miller
  • Alex Cannon
  • Matt Morgan
  • Bill Barr
  • Ivanka
  • Mike Pence (from a video appearance at the Federalist Society)
  • Greg Jacob
  • Steve Bannon
  • General Mark Milley
  • Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany
  • Jared
  • Jeremy Bertino
  • Enrique Tarrio
  • Stewart Rhodes
  • A number of Jan 6 defendants, including Eric Barber

If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Jefferson was the only Democratic President named, but a slew of Republican Presidents were named (George W Bush was not, but Gerald Ford was).

There was plenty of shaming, including calling out Jeffrey Clark and Scott Perry for refusing to cooperate and noting that Kevin McCarthy was scared.

The clip of Jared accusing Pat Cipollone of “whining” when he threatened to quit may make it more likely to get the former White House Counsel’s testimony.

In short, this was directed at Republicans and relied on Republicans to make the case for democracy.

In that frame, I found the closing words of Liz Cheney’s opening statement to be the most effective messaging.

I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol Rotunda on the night of January 6. There in a sacred space in our Constitutional Republic. The place where our Presidents lie in state. Watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford, and Reagan. Against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams. Men and women in tactical gear, with long guns, deployed inside our Capitol building. There in the Rotunda these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our Republic, including one painted in 1824, depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power, what President Reagan called, nothing less than a miracle. The sacred obligation to defend the peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American President, except one. As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure that what happened on January 6 never happens again. To set aside partisan battles. To stand together, to perpetuate and preserve our great Republic.

With this speech (and the imagery), Cheney attempted to invoke the mantle of Reagan, her party’s (and our shared generation’s) political icon. In doing so, she attempted to make democracy a religion again, something worth defending.

At the very least, she provided some mythology on which she will rebuild her party.

204 replies
    • Eureka says:

      Might as well state that in the plural, koans, and start with the basic: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

      [that we are left to lean on the GOP-ness that ultimately got us here, as to this one hand of true patriotism; Jimmy Carter and others tied behind our backs]

      I refer of course to Marcy’s conclusory paragraphs.

  1. Nelson says:

    Interesting how the documentary filmmaker stressed that he was there entirely because he was subpoenaed. I think this was because he wanted to make the point he was neutral, because he wants people cooperating with him for future documentaries.

    Reagan’s not my particular icon, but I understand what Cheney was going for.

    I’m looking forward to Part Two, as well as your analysis.

      • klynn says:

        Thank you Rayne. That fact has been bothering me. After he said he was there because he was subpoenaed, I kept asking myself, “What were you really doing? Who are you really -documentary producer of the company that produced Chariots Of Fire?”

    • emptywheel says:

      There is what is called a friendly subpoena. It provides a way for journalists to rationalize cooperating without it seeming like they’re an arm of govt.

      • BrokenPromises says:

        Thank you. That journalistic issue of first amendment rights (which do pertain to him even as a non citizen) slipped past me as I wondered about his motivation. Having worked in media most of my adult life I was curious also about what happens to his copyrighted material that has most likely been taken by subpoena. Will he have it to make a documentary in the future? (I’m not asking for a response, this is clearly an unrelated aside).

        • emptywheel says:

          Once stuff gets turned into USG property it generally gets easy to reappropriate it. Thousands and thousands of videos have become public domain that way.

        • earthworm says:

          What about the characters of these filmmakers? Are they self-regarding twits? Ambitious climbers into proximity of power?
          It is likely that the invitations from the trump camp to these filmmakers were adorned with pledges and inducements — to be the voice, the record, of trump’s ascension hagiography, a la Leni Riefenstahl.

      • klynn says:

        I’m not appreciative of his, “…protestors to rioters to insurrectionists…” assessment. That downplays the planning. He did not clarify if his assessment was about “normies.”

        • Bruce Olsen says:

          I think it was perfect, because only a small number really planned anything. The rest were swept up because DJT asked them to be there, then told them to march to the Capitol, where they were whipped into a frenzy. All that was clearly planned, and they showed that (and will continue to show that in the future).

          Seems to me that’s even more damning.

    • ernesto1581 says:

      I hope Danish film-makers Christopher Gulbransen and Frederik Marbell, who began shooting a documentary (“A Storm Foretold”) in late-2018 of Roger Stone as he went about his business at the edge of the Trump universe, are also in the mix for the committee’s public hearings. (Unless DOJ has them stashed away for the time being.)

      They followed Stone as he worked behind the scenes to aid the effort to overturn the 2020 election, followed Stone into the Willard on Jan6 as the shit was hitting the fan at the Capitol, and then later, as Stone lobbied Trump to grant various preemptive pardons.

      They also caught clear views of Stone’s phone and computer screens as he communicated with various associates. On other occasions, Stone’s side of calls with high-profile friends like Flynn and Alex Jones, were picked up on mic.

      I hope the format of the hearing continues to prevent, or at least minimize, the opportunity for grandstanding.

      En passant, we did find out that Ivanka is actually an animatronic Barbie doll.

      • BrokenPromises says:

        I laughed aloud at your Ivanka comment. 100% she looked like a digitized creation not an actual human. I know, I hope that at least part of that was a result of how it was captured.

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        I did see some of that footage at one time…

        And I was astonished at some of what Stone allowed them to film…

        It was like the man thinks he’s utterly immune from any serious consequences for his actions…

        • Rayne says:

          Because for the most part, throughout Stone’s entire career, he has been immune to consequences save for his indictment for obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering in 2019, having been pardoned by Trump after serving only a handful of months of confinement at home between February 2020 when sentenced and July 2020 when Trump commuted his sentence.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Yeeeeaaaah… in complete agreement w/ you…

          Still, I was indeed astonished at just how brazenly, out in the open he was on camera about his intentions.

      • grennan says:

        Several months ago, the Wash Post had a story about the film crew following Stone…it captured his extremely hasty exit from Washington the night of the 6th. So rushed that Stone, a former men’s fashion writer, was stuffing his clothes into garbage bags!

  2. Eichhörnchen says:

    I find this summary of the salient points and essential facts very helpful, as well as encouraging.

    As I watched live last night, I was a little confused about the genre (and hence the purpose) of the hearing. It was billed as a “hearing,” and yet there was no give-and-take. It felt more like a prosecution and came across as very scripted. It wasn’t clear to me why the two live witnesses were chosen for this exposition.

    In moments where I felt despondent, I asked myself “are you not entertained???” But I realized it was not entertainment I was expecting, but rather a sense of purpose.

    Looking forward to being disabused of my dispondency.

    • Rayne says:

      Your conditioned understanding of what a “hearing” is may be the reason you’re not at ease. A hearing is an event in which one or more perspectives or viewpoints are shared. The goal of the House J6 Committee is to share its acquired perspective, because the interchange you were expecting has already been performed for and by the committee with ~1000 witnesses in the course of the investigation — the video clips you saw during the hearing were outtakes from that process. With that many witnesses, with hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, days and weeks’ worth of video and audio, the evidence must be distilled and the key findings presented to the public. That’s the hearing we’re going to get, not the usual nasty goat roping seen in U.S. congressional hearings of late.

      Your expectations also appear to ignore that a substantive part of Congress — most of the GOP members — are in some way compromised either as witting co-conspirators and/or as abettors who by open or silent assent aid the conspiracy. An interchange between investigators and those who would seek to further the conspiracy by obstructing investigation isn’t likely to convey the committee’s message based on its findings to date.

      We’ve already seen this dynamic before and it didn’t help our country, ex. Devin Nunes, a co-conspirator, questioning any witness in relation to the Special Counsel’s investigation, calling it “political theater” when he was deliberately constructing and relying upon that to obscure his and his co-conspirators’ roles.

      • Eichhörnchen says:

        Thanks for the disabuse, Rayne. It was worth it for “nasty goat roping” characterization alone.

        By the way, I’m a long-time reader and admirer of the work done here. I always take away a valuable and much appreciated counter-perspective to mainstream reporting.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Let’s also remember that Speaker Pelosi’s first panel idea was for a blue-ribbon commission that would have had 1:1 D/R ratio and wrapped up its report last December. McCarthy tried to get some of the ‘compromised’ persons on the committee to throw brickbats, Pelosi said ‘no’ and then McCarthy took his members off in a classic self-own.

        FWIW, the GQP is also ‘investigating’ with their own committee (I saw a reference to it this week, but I couldn’t tell you who’s on it) in addition to doing their level best to distract from the J6SC work. Tucker went straight through last night, in order to prevent any of the Faux sheeple from sneaking a peak during a commercial break. I think Cheney did a better opening than Thompson on style points, but both did what was needed and I think this is more than political kabuki. I also think that as this committee’s investigation has proceeded, the angrier its members of both parties got.

        As for Nunes and many others, their jobs were to ensure the then-WH minions were briefed about exactly what was being done and what was known. Thompson and Cheney so far have kept their cards very well hidden for that reason, and that’s another reason why McCarthy should have taken Pelosi up on her first offer. Cheney’s mention of pardon requests is probably the biggest reveal for me, and Zirc hit the nail on the head as to why.

        Chuckles Todd was as usual more interested in the optics for Individual-1 rather than the underlying evidence of criminal activity, but even he couldn’t find a way to bothsides this hearing. Jarvanka’s going to have some explaining to do at Mar-A-Lago, and I wonder what their apparent attempts to toss Individual-1 under a bus (remember these are clips not the whole interview) will do to Jared’s plans with the Saudis and Emiratis. We’ll know pretty quickly whether the princes choose the kid or the old fart as their useful idiot.

        • Rayne says:

          …McCarthy took his members off in a classic self-own.

          I shared a link in last night’s thread about this. I’d like to know why she rejected Rep. Jim Banks, and why McCarthy didn’t offer replacements because this wasn’t merely a huffy tantrum but deliberate avoidance.

        • Greg Hunter says:

          FYI I do not know Banks, but his soundbite was used by Fox Radio News this morning as the lead for the analysis of the Committee hearing.

        • harpie says:

          wrt: Banks, maybe it was because he was one of the 13 out of 26 GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee who voted to overturn the election results AFTER the insurrection.

          But BANKS was NOT radical enough for
          Ginni [SCOTUS Spouse] THOMAS:

          Thomas told an aide to incoming Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., that she was more aligned with the far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders just two months later would lead the fight in Congress to overturn the results of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.[…]</blockquote.

        • Rayne says:

          Good point, but something smells. Feels like there might still be more to the backstory of Banks. I guess we’re going to find out!

        • harpie says:

          https://www [dot] legistorm [dot] com/pro_news/2416/rep-banks-hires-tucker-carlsons-son [dot] html

          Caught Our Eye July 30, 2019
          Rep. Banks hires Tucker Carlson’s son
          Rep. Jim Banks’s (R-Ind.) newest hire is no stranger to conservative politics. He’s the son of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

          Buckley Carlson began this month as a special assistant in the congressman’s D.C. office.

          Buckley, a 2019 graduate of the University of Virginia, is one of four children of the outspoken television host and a former communications intern in Donald Trump’s White House.

          Subjects: White House; Fox News Channel; Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN); Buckley W. Carlson

        • Peterr says:

          From the NYT, as they looked at why Jordan and Banks were not allowed to serve on the J6 committee (July 21, 2021):

          Banks questioned the ‘legality’ of some votes cast in the 2020 election.

          Mr. Banks, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, took a more reserved approach when discussing Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims, telling constituents he had questions “about the legality of some votes cast in the 2020 election” while steering clear of some of the former president’s more fantastical claims.

          But like Mr. Jordan, he supported a Texas lawsuit seeking to toss out key Biden victories and voted to overturn the results in Congress.
          Banks claimed the select committee was created ‘to malign conservatives.’

          Mr. Banks released a statement after he was chosen to serve as the top Republican on the panel that seemingly referred to the violent rioters as patriotic Americans expressing their political views. He said he would use the committee to turn the spotlight back on Democrats, scrutinizing why the Capitol was not better prepared for the attack, as well as unrelated “political riots” last summer during the national wave of protest against systemic racism.

          “Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the left’s authoritarian agenda,” Mr. Banks said. “I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs.”

          Why let someone serve on the committee who not only does not want the committee to exist, but is dedicated to working against the purpose of the committee?

        • Mulder says:

          Banks was interviewed last evening (Friday) by Lisa Desjardins on the PBS NewsHour.

          Worth 6 minutes to get a sense of him. I may have expressed a negative opinion or two but you won’t see that in the transcript…

          Banks goes here twice in the interview: “I mean, I can’t get over the fact that, in the president’s speech that day at the White House, he told his supporters to go down to the Capitol and patriotically and peacefully make your voice heard.”

          And the expression on Lisa’s face at one point is something.

        • Rayne says:

          Just read the transcript — wow. So not cool. He cast aspersions on CPD saying they “weren’t trained for a riot at the Capitol” though we all heard Officer Edwards say they were dealing with hand-to-hand combat which is NOT a mere riot. The real problem was Trump not calling up National Guard which Banks never mentioned.

          And then the accusation the committee altered Jim Jordan’s texts: what the actual fuck with this stale bullshit. Did Jordan advocate Pence should out the states-certified electoral votes? Yep. No alteration there.

        • Purple Martin says:

          To clarify, On Feb 15, 2021, Nancy Peolsi first proposed a non-partisan Commission modeled on the 9/11 Commission, with membership outside of the federal government. The Senate blocked it:

          The National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex, known colloquially as the January 6 commission, was a proposed commission that would have investigated the 2021 United States Capitol attack. It was proposed on February 15, 2021 by Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, who announced that she planned to create a “9/11-type commission”. The proposal was negotiated by Republican John Katko, and would have consisted of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. A bill forming the commission passed the House of Representatives on May 19, with all Democrats and 35 Republicans voting in support of it. However, it was blocked by Senate Republicans on May 28, with 54 Senators voting in favor and 35 voting against, failing to clear the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

          House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy had earlier advocated for congressional action to form such a commission on January 13, stating that “[he thought] a fact-finding commission … would be prudent,” and then was offered such a commission that had included three conditions he requested. However, McCarthy announced on May 19 that he opposed the formation of a commission to investigate the attack…[footnotes removed]

          Pelosi then, under current, Republican-created House rules (for the Benghazi Committee), proposed establishment of the House Select Committee to Investigate June 6th. Reasons for rejecting Banks and Jordan revolved around

          [also contains Pelosi’s full letter]

          Leading up to the attack, a majority of House Republicans had signed on to a lawsuit challenging Biden’s victory, essentially endorsing Trump’s false claims that the election was “stolen,” or tainted by rampant voter fraud. And after the siege, 139 Republicans voted to overturn the results in Arizona, Pennsylvania or both.

          Pelosi on Tuesday had said that those votes would not be a factor as she weighed whether to seat McCarthy’s selections on the select committee. Indeed, [Texas Rep.] Troy Nehls, a former sheriff who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, also voted to overturn Biden’s victory in both Arizona and Pennsylvania. Nehls called the Jan. 6 riot “criminal” and “un-American.”

          But Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Banks, the head of the Republican Study Committee, have emerged as some of the most vocal Trump defenders in the wake of the insurrection, infuriating Democrats of all stripes who consider Trump’s allies to be complicit in the attack.

          Both Jordan and Banks have said in recent days that they were hoping to use their positions on the select committee to investigate what Pelosi knew about the security threat ahead of the violence.

          Essentially, Jordan and Banks were McCarthy’s poison pills, purposefully and successfully used to block any Republican participation in any meaningful June 6th investigation.

        • Peterr says:

          Liz Cheney might disagree with the use of the word “successfully” in your concluding sentence.

          Then she might stick a shiv between your ribs. But that’s just her.

    • obsessed says:

      They telegraphed in advance that they were going for a documentary feel and keeping the audience engaged. I watched all but the very end with my girlfriend, who hates politics, is easily bored, and is addicted to watching an episode of HBO-caliber drama each night. She was engaged, particularly during Cheney’s opening, and appropriately horrified by the insurrection footage and the Edwards testimony. It wasn’t as riveting as We Own This City, Better Call Saul or our rewatch of the Sopranos and The Wire, but it held her attention. I, who read this blog first thing every morning and each of EW’s tweets every night, was pretty happy with it. My main regret was that they didn’t lead with the recently released hot mic recording of McCarthy declaring that this type of investigation was absolutely necessary. Having the opening statement in McCarthy’s own voice would have been brutally effective.

  3. Zirc says:

    I hesitate to comment as I really did not watch last night. I have read a little about the hearing though, and I am very curious to know how Marcy, BMaz, and others view Cheney’s revelation that multiple GOP reps sought pardons after the insurrection. That tidbit struck me as new and perhaps could be used in some ads this fall. And seeking a pardon implies legal exposure, which may tie into DoJ’s investigations.


  4. massappeal says:

    Good observation about using Republicans to make the case. It brings to mind Ida B. Wells; her reporting and writing about lynching was so powerful and effective precisely because she relied on the lynchers themselves as the primary sources of evidence.

    It also seemed like the committee is going to try to tie Trump directly to the rioters, without having to go through the Willard Hotel crowd to prove his criminality.

    • JamesJoyce says:

      William Barr called it right…

      Trump’s Voter Fraud Claim!!!!

      “Bull’s malarky!”

      Of course many were all just “following orders,” given, based on Trump’s bold faced lies leading to an Attack on the US Capitol because of an attempted coup-fraud, perpetrate by a ex-president who lost the election then sought to ignore due process vote exercised by every American, in a fair election?

      How did Weimar go down?

      Oh yes…

      After a fire 🔥…

      An alleged “problem” that did not require any “solution” at all, because the “ “problem,” alleged did not exist, while those making claim of a problem, were the actual problem, being their impositions on life and rights enjoyed by others.

      Scott was never inferior, yet all the Lynchings for generations…

      Trump was trying to lynch our republic, after generations..

      Officer Mike Fanone’s anger is more than justified. It is “warranted.”

      Trump must remain in jail forever..

      Otherwise we are not a Union but a banana republic.

      Those that destroyed Weimar had no shame.

      Trump is no different. He is the same without any remorse or shame.

      Cold, calculating while lacking empathy.

  5. Tom says:

    In the summer of 1782, the artist Benjamin West met with King George III and Queen Charlotte at Buckingham House (it wasn’t yet a Palace). They discussed what General Washington would do now that the colonies had won their independence and the King referred to speculation that Washington would now be made king of America. West disagreed and said Washington would likely resign his commission and return to his farm at Mount Vernon. If he does that, replied the King, he would be the greatest man in the world.

  6. BROUX says:

    What about the statement that they will provide evidence that there had been direct communication/coordination between the militia and people in Trump’s circle? Is this old news (which I may have missed)? If not, what do you think it could be?

      • 0AP0 says:

        Please be careful with Newsweek. For the past few years the name has been passed around from owner to owner — each shadier than the previous and at this point should really be viewed as comparable to the Moonie-owned Washington Times.

    • emptywheel says:

      Beyond just Stone’s ties to the militias and a Rudy G tie, there’s a big reveal coming that I believe the Committee knows.

      • BROUX says:

        Thanks. Yes, obviously Roger Stone (they were his “bodyguards”). That I knew. How is Rudy linked to them? I am not sure I recall. And you also expect a something more, a big reveal from the Committee.

        After last night, the direct line of communication from Trump to the PB is clearer to be, from the “stand back and stand by” during the debate, to the “it will be wild” Dec 18 tweet, and “Mike Pence did not have the courage” Jan 6 tweet at 2:30 PM, it seems unambiguous that those were open communications from him to his mob with clear material objectives. There were so many tweets and stupid things that it’s easy to loose track, but the intended purpose and significance of those communication stands out.

        Nonetheless, it seems that there had to be a little bit more coordination to have the PB case the Capitol around 11 AM on Jan 6, and wait for the first attacks until the crowds starts to move in. The Capitol was not on the permit for the rally at the Ellipse, and he mentioned “walking to the Capitol” only later, and yet they were ready before. Coordination needs communication.

        • PJB says:

          You guys are putting your finger on the thing that I am waiting for, which is the evidence of direction, directly or indirectly, between Trump and inner circle and the leaders of the fascist thug contingents. I was watching last night thinking the criminal prosecution of Trump and circle could fall short in nearly the same way as in Mueller: the behaviors were merely iterative – Trump says Russia if you are listening, they hack and release, he benefits, etc.

          On the style of the hearings, I was satisfied it was done well. I have a bunch of fairly high information liberal friends who were disappointed and thought it boring. I think that stems from a mistaken expectation of entertainment rather than education. This is not some tv show you want to stream, its like a civics seminar in a way. At least thats how I took it.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          One key fact I took from the hearing is that *rump knew that he did not win the election and that many of his acts were seditious not just the assault on the Capitol. It stands out that he coordinated actions to replace the legally chosen electors. Another is his attempt to strong arm Raffensperger into changing the vote count similar to his attempt to coerce Zelinsky. Had the impeachment for that worked we would not have had the insurrection at the Capitol. Lets keep in mind as we go forward how Republicans in the US legislative branch violated the constitution in both of the impeachments.

        • emptywheel says:

          To be clear, the Big Reveal that I expect the Committee has planned is Stone.

          Rudy had ties to John Sullivan’s brother, James, who has ties to the Proud Boys.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Another Sullivan to pay attention to is Jason, who has direct links to Stone. Jason also stirred up the anti-vaxxers. He was on a conference call with some 1AP too. Maybe there will be some clips with him. And maybe some with Staci Burk.

          And Flynn has 1AP connections.

        • Leoghann says:

          Just in the past 2-3 weeks, there have been arrests of two men with dual memberships. One is Oath Keeper/III%-er, and the other is Oath Keeper/Praetorian Guard. Both add high ranking in both organizations, and worked to help coordinate.

        • obsessed says:

          To be clear, the Big Reveal that I expect the Committee has planned is Stone.

          Footage of him? A witness giving new info about him? Texts or emails implicating him? Which of the remaining 5 episodes do you expect it to appear in?

        • Rugger9 says:

          I agree that Stone will be one of the big ones, because the J6SC members haven’t said much about Stone and this is exactly the kind of thing Stone organizes after a nod from the boss. I’d also observe that while Stone made it a point to be seen only at the hotel (but under PB guard IIRC, might have been OKs or 1APs) the communications liberated by the J6SC will connect many dots back to RF Roger (note there are some things rats are too smart to do…).

          I also find it interesting how Mike Lee went after Raskin for allegedly trying to eliminate the Electoral College (which Raskin knows takes an Amendment to do) in a desperate deflection attempt makes me wonder (again) whether that WH call on Lee’s phone was really for Tuberville on January 6, 2021. We also have heard that Sen. Lee was at planning meetings for justifying and performing the elector challenges necessary for Eastman’s plan to work.

          I think there will be more than one Big Reveal.

        • Rugger9 says:

          If one uses the ‘doth protest too much’ rule, add a few more to the list like Gym Jordan. Hannity too.

        • Rayne says:

          Lee’s involvement in the conspiracy would certainly explain why his phone was dialed on January 6.

        • Leoghann says:

          The Salt Lake Tribune has published a couple of damning articles about Mike Lee over the past week, including one about his traitorous associates in Utah.

  7. Tom says:

    I thought Police Officer Caroline Edwards’ testimony was particularly effective. She made the point that what she and her fellow officers faced on January 6th was far beyond what they had been trained to deal with in terms of riot control. Instead, it was hours of hand-to-hand combat. Her description of feeling her feet slip in the blood of her fellow officers sticks in my mind and was exactly the sort of telling detail that viewers needed to hear to fully appreciate the enormity of what happened at the Capitol that day.

    I also liked Liz Cheney’s warning to her fellow Republicans that, long after Trump is gone, the dishonour they have brought upon themselves will live on. That’s exactly what the members of the GOP needed to hear as well.

    I’m looking forward to hearing and learning more on Monday morning.

    • Greg Hunter says:

      Her testimony was effective and enlightening about the planning. On the planning end it seemed to me that the military trained personnel were nice to officers until the crowd arrived and then the agitation began. The military trained individuals knew that the crowd would already be worked up so it was “easy” to turn that crowd against officers trained to shepherd peaceful sight seers into the Capital but were now in hand to hand combat. I was watching this with a Vietnam era veteran and he questioned why no police officer pulled a gun and shot. I said that is not what this force was trained to do and “many fine people” knew that fact.

      I realize I am not military trained but these tactics have to have been taught or observed by military personnel when participating or planning our overseas adventures from Afghanistan/Iraq to Central America? The planners of this attack knew what the Rules of Engagement were for each group and also knew how to use the crowd as cannon fodder.

      Please note that the some of the video showed Ashli Babbitt ranting like a crazed Wyoming Trump supporter. Dominic Pezzola broke a Capital window, but this same crew let Ashli take a bullet to test the next level of those officers with different rules of engagement.

      Really good foreshadowing for future hearings at least from my perspective.

      • Fran of the North says:

        I didn’t pick up on the Ashli connection. Was she the woman screaming ‘No, YOU move back!!’?

        • Greg Hunter says:

          I think so as I recognized her and noticed they did not highlight her or point her out, but I am 90% sure that was her, so they will definitely spend more time addressing her death. I would suspect there is more video that does not cast a good light on her character.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          I think that was the crazy sovereign citizen who acted bizarre in court. I can’t remember her name. I don’t think it was Ashli.

        • ollie says:

          yes. that woman screaming is Ashli Babbitt. She was quite vocal the whole time. I watched from 4am (pt) until pelosi graveled out. cspan had the camera on that little area the crowd was pushing up against to enter the chamber. She was vocal and aggressive the whole time up to and including her volunteering to climb the window. There’s a guy there (position 7 on clock) where he keeps suggesting we need someone to climb up into the window. He claimed he was filming it all but he assisted her boosting up. He’s also the one w/the help of 3 others who laid her down. At first the group ignored her but w/in sec’s, you could see her eyes, her hands started to form claws…that guy? he felt for a pulse and abruptly stood up saying: she’s dead. then a medic comes to her. on live tv. I have never seen anything like that 5 minutes. Oh. One other moment I remember so vividly? As the floor was leaving in a panic? The box of electoral votes was almost left behind. Everyone was rushing out…scattering…suddenly a young woman, a clerk there cried “THE VOTES” and a man next to her went back and they carried them out together. I was speechless. that is exactly how close all of this was happening. I was crying so hard during that time. Greta was host and she became a viewer that day.
          I do clips off of Washington Journal. Jan 5th show? omg. they had a young girl Kylie Kremer w/Women for America First on that day. she was in a hotel room getting ready for tomorrow. Her Mother ran that movement. She was so smug claiming ‘just watch, you’ll see, great things are going to happen’ A woman called in from NY and out and out told her she was describing sedition. It was a fateful day.

  8. Pete T says:

    IMHO, at the end of the day – or end of June hearings if you will – it may come down to how many “in the middle” for a variety of reasons react and how they will vote (take action). There are those who don’t need swaying, those that couldn’t be swayed regardless, and that unknown bunch in the middle.

    I suppose it may come down to how the DOJ reacts as well, but I am very unsure about how much sway these hearings will have on the DOJ. A lot I hope. I do think time and timing is critical.

    It’s early with only one hearing in. Good foundation though.


    • Rayne says:

      These hearings aren’t intended to have any effect on the DOJ nor should they. The DOJ already has much of the evidence the House J6 has based on the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers’ indictments. The House J6 can and likely will make criminal referrals to the DOJ — that’s what should be anticipated.

      • Badger Robert says:

        OT: Rep. Cheney does not have to change the minds of many voters. As this website shows: Cumulative All-Cause Excess Mortality – United States the political party that relies more heavily on older voters is already in trouble. If the findings of Charles Gaba are correct, the fact Covid mortality and all cause mortality has been higher among vaccine denialists makes it even harder for Republicans to compete.

        • Rayne says:

          A deeply red county/district remains deeply red in spite of increased mortality. Ditto for deeply blue. Redistricting may play a bigger role if it affects swing districts.

          I need to catch up with Charles about his data. At one point he told me he thought he might be able to provide granular information to know how much swing districts were affected. I won’t make any assumptions until I see more data.

        • stancat says:

          Hence the RW push to gain control over the nuts and bolts of election administration in as many states as they can. Every single challenge in Secretary of State races and appointment to election commissions is a potential difference maker. From here, I don’t see enough public awareness of this as the next gambit by the authoritarians.

        • Greg Hunter says:

          She has to win a 5 way primary on August 16th with one candidate backed by Trump and Peter Thiel in a state that weirdly reverers Donald Trump. I know she is pushing harder with ads and spreading money around to win moderates and encourage Democratic voters to cross over and vote for her.

          Right wing radio in Wyoming that has a Statewide presence with a local morning host is not doing her any favors as I call in and interrupt the inflation messaging to stir up the hornet’s nest by backing Cheney. The people calling in are still in a right wing bubble.

          Today’s show just ended but it will be uploaded as a podcast, if you want to listen to the on the ground forces aligned against Liz Cheney just pick Friday’s show which will be up by 1300 EST and go about an hour + in.

          Scroll to podcasts and “enjoy” PS I hate having to listen to this stuff but…….

        • Fran of the North says:

          Our cardiology advisor was co-author on a paper just published in the British Medical Journal. In a study that spans 19 years and 5 presidential elections, the Age Adjusted Mortality Rate decrease by 22% in Democratic counties, and by only 11% in Republican counties. in 2000, the rates were almost identical, in 2019 there is a significant gap. Scroll for chart.

          Link to paper:

        • Rayne says:

          Thanks for that, Fran. “Just published” meaning June 7th — wow, fresh off the press.

          Interesting where the blips occur — like the AAMR improving for Democratic counties almost immediately with Obama’s election to office, even before the debate on ACA was completed. Wondering what the difference was in opioid deaths specifically between Democratic and GOP counties.

        • PieIsDamnGood says:

          Fascinating! I’d really like to see them explore a non-binary variable for republican/democrat, maybe 538’s partisan lean. I think this would disentangle republican policies (winner sets the rules) and republican voters (differences in behavior). Looks like they did sensitivity analysis with governor races, I wonder if state house voting would lead to the same conclusions.

          From the abstact: ” Black Americans experienced largely similar improvement in AAMR in both Democratic and Republican counties. However, the AAMR gap between white residents in Democratic versus Republican counties increased fourfold, from 24.7 (95% confidence interval 24.6 to 24.8) to 101.3 (101.0 to 101.6). Rural Republican counties experienced the highest AAMR and the least improvement.”

          Got to think opioids are a huge cause of this change.

        • Fran of the North says:

          As I commented on twitter, if this was attributable to a political effort, it would be a scandal of major proportion. But due to gridlock, it will just sink beneath the waves, never to be seen again.

  9. Tarkeel says:

    My reading of the hearing is that it’s a good way of framing the mindset and knowledge of several key players, and will will likely feature when establishing “mens rea” in later criminal procedings.

  10. Terrence says:

    Has anyone heard push back from the Trump camp after the hearings? This morning Fox is headlining the threat to Kavanaugh safety.

    • ThomasH says:

      My prediction is that, after donning his Teflon suit, trump will respond to Bennie Thompson stating that he was at the center of a sophisticated “seven point plan…” “Fake news! Lying Democrats stealing my election! It wasn’t a ‘seven point plan’; it was a ten point plan!”

    • Rugger9 says:

      Individual-1 weighed in, even using Truth Social for a change. Also, as noted above Tucker’s show went without commercials to limit channel surfing opportunities. I did see one one of the female NBC talking heads who went blathering on about the ‘real issues’ of inflation and gas prices, clearly following the GQP line that the J6SC hearings are intended to distract from those ‘real issues’. I do have a couple of points to make about that:

      1. If an autocracy is established you’re going to get gouged into a place where you’ll need 3 jobs just to make ends meet and therefore be too busy to be involved in decision making. Remember how W was praising that lady many years ago for working three jobs, but never grasping that she was complaining, not bragging.

      2. A very large part of the current inflation is gouging by the corporations because they can, backstopped by the Saudis and Emiratis leveraging the Ukraine war to line their pockets and undercut Biden at the same time. I hope Biden lays down the law with MBS about, say, water. Multinational corporations want chaos and lawlessness, and will tacitly find ways to nudge in that direction. Long ago, a large part of the reasons for which Gray Davis was recalled had to do with the problems in the CA electrical grid, which was later tied to Enron manipulations.

      3. There is also the deliberate JIT supply chain decisions for cheap overseas labor undercutting USA jobs made by the corporations, setting up precisely this kind of trouble when disruptions hit. I note that a lot of the port issues in CA and elsewhere is due to corporations trying to rip the truckers off.

      4. The current inflation rate might be the highest in 40 years but in comparison to historical rates it’s not that spectacular. I remember double-digits when Jerry Ford tried the “Whip Inflation Now” gambit that backfired. The tell here is interest rates still being low on savings IMHO. If inflation is here to stay, those will rise significantly.

    • Peterr says:

      The right is definitely trying to use the Kavanaugh threat as a “both sides” kind of thing.

      Let’s see . . . on the one hand, a person threatening Kavanaugh turns himself in to federal authorities, and on the other hand a couple hundred folks attack the Capitol, threaten the VP and Speaker of the House, cause a couple hundred thousand in damages, contribute to the injury and deaths of dozens of law enforcement officials, and otherwise make a mess of our democracy.

      Yeah, these two things are totally equal.

      Or, you know, not.

      • Leoghann says:

        That would be a couple thousand attacking the Capitol, doing a couple million dollars in damage.

  11. Ddub says:

    I know I’m too cynical..

    Did they hype the next episode?
    Did they do some teasers?
    Did they create catchy titles for each night?
    Did they offer viewers more info and context on other platforms?
    Did they appeal to the younger generation?
    Did they use fear and anger effectively?
    Do they know how TV works?

    I really hopes this gets better.

    • Belyn says:

      I give them high marks. I also hope it gets better, but my hope starts with a higher bar.
      What’s the payoff for your cynicism?

      • Ddub says:

        No reward. It’s cynicism built on years of watching our political system.
        I applaud your hope, and I seriously hope I’m wrong.

        • Belyn says:

          Thank you. I also hope you are wrong.
          It’s easy to be discouraged and cynical. Been there, done that.
          But I believe our democracy is worth saving and I don’t think that happens if we all wallow in that pit.
          Just curious, had you already watched the hearing before posting?

        • Ddub says:

          Thank you yes I watched it live.
          In the moment I thought it was good, strong even at points. On reflection it became merely adequate due to what I consider a misunderstanding of how people, especially younger people absorb info, and perhaps the fear of taking more production risk.
          I haven’t given up on democracy, and I will question the hidebound Dem leadership until changed.

    • bg says:

      I actually thought they did a number of these things. I thought they provided teasers, and highlighted the episodes to follow. I watched CNN and they had quite a round up of the players and others who are familiar faces if not witnesses. It seems to me a number of important questions were asked WRT next steps where the expectation is that these questions will be answered. I believe Bennie Thompson said in a follow up interview that they do have witnesses to establish the connections between the OKs and PBS and TFG.

      • Greg Hunter says:

        I watched CBS coverage as well as PBS feed. CBS had a model of the Capitol and showed where PB/Oathkeepers were as well as timing that was a good graphic.

        The highgaslighter Catherine Herridge also made an appearance…

  12. Badger Robert says:

    Thanks to Ms. Wheeler for her cogent commentary.
    One of the primary purposes of the hearings seems to be to make the former President unelectable and hence not advisable as a nominee. Since he lost once, the Committee and especially Rep. Cheney do not have to change very many votes in order for it to become more obvious that he’s finished as a candidate.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Agreed, because of the distraction away from his iniquities in FL, as well as being one of the ones tapped back in the day as a recipient of Russian money for his House campaigns.

        • bawiggans says:

          But mainly because his most formidable competitor for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination is taking on water.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          I recall an officer saying they didn’t open fire because they were out-gunned. It may be that the Oath Keepers had their weapons in a Virginia hotel, but they police knew there were people with guns at the rally and I think they feared it was more widespread.

        • Peterr says:

          I think the OK weapons stashes were there in anticipation of the presence of Antifa. “We only brought out the big guns to protect our country from these extremists!”

          The officer to which you refer, IMHO, was speaking tactically, not strategically. Paraphrasing, what I recall was something like “We could have fired, but there were so damn many of them that (1) we would have run out of ammo pretty damn quick, and (2) the rest of them would have gone absolutely berserk and killed us all.”

        • RobertaM says:

          I’ve often found myself wondering if all of the antifa talk was really just an excuse to bring weapons to “protect themselves” which would have been turned on the government had they fired more than one bullet.

  13. Bruce Dravis says:

    The J6 Committee’s reference to Lincoln being ready to turn over power if he lost in 1864 was very powerful. One of the greatest presidents, during the country’s greatest crisis, gave priority to the vote over his own continuation in power. By comparison, the already minuscule Trump is even smaller.

  14. klynn says:

    Thank you for this post. Thank you for your Twitter feed this AM. Thank you for the link to the Capitolhunters pre-hearing thread. Comment 16 in the Capitolhunter thread has footage. There is a man screaming at the top if his lungs in the background at the police. Do we know who that voice belongs too? He’s in the blue puffy coat with a bullhorn shouting at the cops, “We’re the Constitutionalists! What the f- are you doing?” And goes on and on.

    EW, Zoe Tillman, and Capitolhunters have been defenders of the Constitution and the most needed voices of accountability to the truth of what happened on January 6th.

  15. newbroom says:

    I think that there had to be foreknowledge of the potential for an animated assembly and that there was intentional mis-planning, or negligence in preparation. Who, what, where? I have an idea why.

  16. wetzel says:

    Trump behind bars. The whole conspiracy. Was he a natural fascist? He could have retired to splendor. So I think we still won’t really know WHY. For my part, I think the source of Trump’s desperation was to keep Putin’s original plans for the invasion of Ukraine on track. Maybe that had been delayed by COVID. There also seems to be a kind of internationale that wants to see the United States transition to fascism. I don’t see how these hearings will give us history to original causes, though maybe after the criminal and counter-intelligence investigations we will know more.

    • bawiggans says:

      The driver for all of this is Trump’s sociopathy and will to power. If he appears to serve Putin’s purposes it is only because he believes Putin, like everyone else, serves his. As seen on television, Trump is the Great Opportunistic Improvisor of our time. Roy Cohn shaped the pathological instincts of his wealthy, privileged young mentee and created a monster greater than himself. Perceived self-interest is what gives coherence to the chaos he leaves in his wake.

      • wetzel says:

        Hitler and Stalin. Trump and Putin. Two peas in a pod. In the apartment bombings before the 2nd Chechen War, Putin used atrocious, spectacular violence to create a new social reality. If what you are saying is so, whether their relationship was mentor-student or equals, Trump and Putin would have used the Ukraine War to make a terror campaign. I think together they were turning the United States fascist, whether Trump had won legitimately or not.

        Imagine an existential nuclear crisis with Trump at the helm. We would have found the terror state. Ended term limits. Cheney should understand from her father’s experience. The fascistic shift is spontaneous like falling from the World Trade Center. We were primed for it, but maybe now we will be safe!

    • earthworm says:

      “the source of Trump’s desperation”:
      It could have been one of several items or pacts Trump had made with Putin. In any case though, the desperation was palpable and showed through, to me anyway.
      Trump is a thug and a crook. That master chess player Putin would want to do business with him reveals volumes.

      • wetzel says:

        Putin would say ‘Donald. What is this term limits?’ Putin could say, ‘Oh I had those. Trust me, I will show you how to make yourself President for life. First thing. Make Paul Manafort your campaign manager. He’s a good guy!!’ Putin would bring PowerPoints. How to propagandize. How to govern by terror.

        After their secret Russian satellite Zoom, early in the campaign when it was possible, Trump would think, ‘At least I will be President of the United States for life!’ Then he would do that dance of his. It’s the only way I can make sense of the coup attempt. If there were not going to be a war, I don’t understand Trump’s confidence he could keep the government.

  17. madwand says:

    I’m struck by Caroline Edwards, a UGA graduate getting her masters at John Hopkins, and her linking of her patriotism to her grandfather who carried around shrapnel for the rest of his life after the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. After being knocked down, knocked out and injured, she awoke, got up and and got injured again but fought on. She hoped her grandpa, an obvious hero to her, looked down and approved of her actions on that day. I’m sure he did.

    That’s in direct contrast to my local congress critter who was one of the 147 to vote against the certification, the only difference that I can see is that he didn’t engage in force, other than that there was no difference between him and the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Of course, he will say he was defending the constitution and many here in Georgia will believe him, but Caroline didn’t talk the talk she walked the walk, actions always speak louder.

  18. John Paul Jones says:

    I’m glad Doc Wheeler mentioned Jared because I found that one of the most disturbing moment’s of Cheney’s presentation. A lawyer tells you that your FIL is repeatedly breaking the law, and your response is – What a whiner? Entitlement and narcissistic self-enclosure could scarcely go any further. I was stunned. A rich brat surrounded by murmuring lawyers, the kind of guy who is smart enough not to make too many mistakes (once he’s been prepped) but not smart enough to get what’s really going on.

    • stancat says:

      It is far worse than that. That clip illuminated his derision for the law. It demonstrated that when he was informed by reputable people about what was going on, he could not have cared less.

      • wetzel says:

        It’s an example of sociopathic inhumanity, but you are used to seeing its reflection in people like Bill Barr or Newt Gingrich. They are the panderers. This is taking it straight. Jared is John Huston at the end of Chinatown. Now that’s an oligarch!! Jared is a man who will do anything. He is ungoverned and he knows it. This is a man who does not cultivate his own moral development. That was my take.

      • Peterr says:

        The clip of Jared was also designed to be contrasted with the clip of Ivanka.

        The son in law backs his father in law, while the daughter goes against her father? The Fourth of July family gathering at Mar-a-Lago will not be a happy gathering. Similarly, the pillow talk last night between Jared and Ivanka could not have been more chilly.

        This was one exchange that was not aimed at some grand legal audience. This was a very narrowly aimed harpoon at The Family.

    • grennan says:

      Kushner never practiced, but he does have a law degree from NYU, which probably makes him sure he’s qualified to judge the white house counsel’s “whining”…about the constitution.

      • Rayne says:

        Right. So he missed modern US history somewhere along the way in which the scandal leading up to a unanimous decision in United States v Nixon (1974) and eventual resignation by POTUS included the termination of White House counsel. Abrupt WH counsel exits are not a good thing.

  19. WilliamOckham says:

    In related news, Michael Gableman, who is continuing the insurrection in Wisconsin, is losing his shit in court today. American Oversight sued him under the Wisconsin Open Records Act; he didn’t comply to the satisfaction of the judge in the case; and now he’s attacking the judge in the judge’s court room.

    • Fran of the North says:

      It is a difficult lesson to learn that sometimes, your own misguided thoughts on what is right and/or wrong are less relevant than those of the officers of the law or the judge. I learned that lesson the hard way as an immature young man, but it has informed and modified my behavior ever since.

    • grennan says:

      Every news story should reference him not just as former WI Supreme Ct justice, but as former WI Supreme Ct. justice who lost reelection after using his bare hands trying to choke another justice during an especially heated session.

      (Our state was pretty sane until 2010 when booooinnnggg…)

  20. Fran of the North says:

    It is a difficult lesson to learn that sometimes, your own misguided thoughts on what is right and/or wrong are less relevant than those of the officers of the law or the judge. I learned that lesson the hard way as an immature young man, but it has informed and modified my behavior ever since.

  21. MT Reedør says:

    After the hearings I watched Episode 1 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. In it, Capt. Pike gives a speech to a new First Contact world with intractable factions hell-bent on self destruction. It also includes a scene of a hearing that includes Pike giving a video presentation of a short history of how the Earth destroyed itself. In that video presentation montage they included a (gasp!) quick shot of that photo of the noose with the Capitol rotunda in the background.

      • Pigeon in a Library says:

        I’ve enjoyed parts of Discovery and Picard, but am pretty tired of season wide stories. The frantic MacGuffin chasing can make for some exciting moments but unsatisfying conclusions. I think it’s a relief to be back with a show where each episode moves from rest to stress and back to rest again.

        So I’d say it’s a pretty regular show so far, but I’m finding that great. When I want to watch an endless series of cliffhangers without resolution there’s always the news.

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, yes about the news, it is endless. That was a great thing about Original and TNG, each episode was mostly a standalone, with only a very occasional 2 episode arc. Going to take a look when done with Picard then. Thanks!

    • What Constitution? says:

      Yep. That’s in earth’s history. Who woulda thunk it. On the plus side, I’m taking from that scene, as a fact, that earth seems to have gotten past it. And just maybe we’ll have Liz Cheney, of all people, who we may be able to say contributed to that. I appreciate her giving it a try and pre-shaming her Rethug colleagues who even now are trying to figure out ways to keep cowtowing to Donald Trump.

      • skua says:

        Speculation: Perhaps most of the R. congress members would happily parcel Don into lots of little samosas if their Donald-loving constituents could be reliably fooled and wouldn’t then parcel their R congress members into many more little samosas by way of revenge. Though blackmail material may also be in use to keep the congress members in line.

        This leaves them having to pretend to be enthusiastic minions of their overlord, pubically humiliating themselves, kowtowing and playing at being little-Trumps.

        Maybe some (a couple? one even?) R. congress members have secretly passed coup info to DoJ hoping to get their disaster-bound coup-clown car stopped?

  22. TimB says:

    Two small thoughts on law-enforcement and politics.

    Trump and some of the more illadvised Trumpists (Navarro, Stone) may make some public statements that hurt them in Court down the road. Trump already has reiterated a lot of dumb lies on TS and has starkly but lamely criticized his daughter and Mr. Barr, two folks who can do him grave harm.

    Ms. Cheney is trying to save the Republican Party from going down with Trump. She has momentum, as the effort to purge all pro-America members from the GOP was starting to slow. The leadership is largely purged (by gravitas, Ms. Cheney represents a large portion of the GOP leadership that stood by the USA), but the rank and file has a large number of people who falsely believe they are patriotically opposing a “rigged” election and who could quickly embrace a new, pro-America GOP.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Ms. Cheney has an uphill battle. Polls show her far behind her GOP challenger for her congressional seat in Wyoming. Unusually, she has the status and money, and she and her father have the network that will allow her to continue her work in or out of Congress. But she’s not likely intentionally to help a Democrat, except indirectly.

        • Rayne says:

          Might depend on how Evan McMullin does as an independent in Utah. He’s running against GOP incumbent senator Mike Lee. If McMullin can pull it off she might think there’s enough legs in an independent run to pull GOP and moderate Dems alike.

          (I’d never vote for her if there was a breathing sentient Democratic Party alternative.)

        • Rayne says:

          The Utah Dems have thrown their support behind him in lieu of fielding a candidate. The question is whether there are enough Never Trumpers in addition to Dems and GOP voters displeased with Lee’s role in the seditious conspiracy.

        • bmaz says:

          Almost certainly that answer is no. But, unlike Lee, at least McMullen was born in Utah. Although Lee was born in Utah South, i.e. Mesa AZ. I still think there is little chance he can beat Lee.

        • Rayne says:

          Sure looks like it could change in a hurry based on the number of undecideds and a 4% margin between McMullin and Lee.

          ADDER: 9:40 PM ET 10-JUN-2022 — LOL

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, we’ll see. I guess he’d be better than Lee, but McMullin is creepy, not sure how much better he would be. I still don’t think that is in the cards.

        • Rayne says:

          She ran as a write-in Senate candidate which is a different proposition because there’s no party affiliation. When someone runs as an independent, they may be running as a third party candidate or no party, but they’re not a write-in because they’ll have fulfilled whatever criteria are necessary in their state.

          For a presidential run, a write-in would be nearly impossible; a third-party run would be challenging because the party as well as candidate would have to meet the criteria of 50 different states and the US territories. (There are third parties in this country which have been or are at risk of being delisted in some states and ineligible for fielding candidates.) Running as an unaffiliated candidate would be challenging because there’s no party apparatus to aid with addressing each state’s requirements.

        • Leoghann says:

          The Tribune, the secular SLC paper, is 100% behind McMullin, and seems to know where the bodies are buried re: Lee.

        • Peterr says:

          Polling in Wyoming is a very weird proposition. Media groups don’t particularly want to put money into it, because that’s a big expense in a small media market. Campaigns generally want a sense of how their candidate is doing, but spending the money on a big poll usually falls second to spending money on ads or GOTV.

          Honestly, Wyoming politics is kind of like local (big city) politics, on a much grander geographic scale.

      • TimB says:

        I didn’t mean she has momentum to be re-elected. Sorry!

        I meant she has momentum to rescue her party, which otherwise either becomes autocratic or irrelevant. I assume her motivations include her own career, in government or not, but for the moment focus on her country.

      • Bobster33 says:

        She’ll pull a Tricky Dick: disappear for a couple of years and then reappear to run for Senate or Governor. She may move to Texas. But she’ll be back.

  23. earlofhuntingdon says:

    In the heat of battle, MSM members Robert Costa and Nora O’Donnell (and their producers) find solace in the usual way. They described yesterday’s hearing as “what they are calling a conspiracy.” Dan Froomkin corrects the verbal abuse: “[S]uggesting that ‘calling” it a conspiracy is a matter of opinion is the opposite of journalism.”

    Put another way, “Witnesses described what they are calling an accident on I-95: a thirty-car pile-up behind a jack-knifed tractor-trailer rig, with bodies strewn across the median into oncoming traffic.”

    • Eureka says:

      Surprising to hear of Costa of all people toeing that regurg. Entirely different from, say, his twitter framing when promoting data points from or relevant to his book.

  24. Jenny says:

    Trump is an exploiter of humanity. Also abusive, looking for a fight.
    The voice over used his words while showing the abuse and violence from his touring terrorists bonded in the drug of hate. “They were peaceful people. These were great people. The crowd was unbelievable and I mention the word love. The love, the love in the air I’ve never seen anything like it.”

    • Dutch Louis says:

      “The love, the love in the air”. All of of sudden it is november 1989, The Berlin Wall has crumbled, and the following week the then former chief of the vicious East German Secret Police, Erich Mielke, is making his one and only speech in the Volkskammer, de GDR parliament, stuttering: “Ich liebe… ich liebe doch alle, alle Menschen” (I love… I really really love all people).

      • Epicurus says:

        Actually Trump’s usage may be closer to doublespeak. He seems a master at both speaks.

  25. StuartC says:

    When Rep. Thompson, in his short introduction, used the words of Reagan, that America is supposed to be the “Shining City on a Hill,” I said to my wife, “That’s really smart, throwing Reagan’s words back at republicans.” Then he gave the floor over to Rep. Cheney after a glowing introduction, and then the noticeably conservative Republican (with whom I may disagree on everything but our apparent mutual belief that the Constitution comes before party, God bless her), told a clear story of how the former guy participated in a criminal conspiracy, and noticeably used conservative voices right from the start. It continued, in a striking, brilliant manner, using republicans own words as proof. She told the whole story, with all the different pieces and groups, as a coherent narrative – all supported by Republican texts, emails and words. And presented so obviously the way a prosecuting attorney would set out their case to the jury at the start of a trial. Barr, Ivanka, Jared (who always seems to manage to look like a Hitler youth to me), it became quite clear what they were doing. A conservative Republican really nailed the former guy to the wall using republicans who supported the president to do it, with that measured, but forceful presentation. “Can you tell there’s really experienced prosecutors on that committee, hon?” I asked her. It was damn impressive.

    And then they “go to the videotape,” as Warner used to say, and it was yet another compelling presentation of the violence that former guy inspired mob did to police officers. Introducing how the riot was organized and deliberate, and the result of planned actions like the “garage meeting.”
    Following up, they were then supported by one of the brave, brutally assaulted, and probably Republican police officer, in the subsequent testimony. Just brilliant.

    The first hearing bodes well for any of us who want to see the truth of what happened put out there, on the record, before the American people. I don’t expect it will change any of the former guy’s “true believer’s” minds. But, for now, the center still holds the voting power in America, not the far right or far left. It’s the centrists, the independents, and the busy working people who haven’t been paying attention like some of us, that are going to be disgusted and moved and influenced by these hearings.

    And I want to end with saying thank you, Dr. Wheeler. I don’t think much in the hearing surprised me, because I’m a regular reader of your superbly informative blog, and the commentariat here! So a deeply felt “gracias”, and I’m sure it’s safe to say, that’s from all of us.

  26. Savage Librarian says:

    Make America Greed Again [6/8/19]

    The American standard version
    of how Persona ditched the Person
    incorporates some immersion
    into coercion and diversion.

    That’s not to say desertion
    was the least bit less urgent
    but only to cast aspersion
    on thinking things can’t worsen.

    The Person found Persona
    at a dive bar in Daytona.
    They shared a cold Corona
    and yakked about Estonia.

    Then they both were shown a
    live shark that had grown a
    foot by a man in a kimono
    who claimed to be the owner.

    Soon Persona Non Grata
    entered too and got caught up
    where the talk, like fierce lava,
    was spewing up far hotter.

    This was no bourgeois drama
    with “thank you” and “de nada,”
    This was more like “not gonna.”
    Destination rock bottom.

    And, so it was. Lesson learned:
    Persona’s fate was well earned,
    The Person was duly spurned,
    Persona Non Grata, burned.

    But everyone else still yearned
    to murmur of the concerned
    who wanted it all adjourned
    as if the world had not turned.

  27. rattlemullet says:

    The peaceful transfer of power except one. A very powerful statement. The J6 committee did a great job at stating the case that Trump must be held to account for his crimes against America, in direct violation to his oath of office and the Constitution. Ms Cheney articulated with great clarity that Trump needs to pay a price and why. He was the leader of the coup. I believe anyone who reads this site and comments on this site knows that to be true. Now it relies on the Department of Justice to continue to press forward with the investigation, as they already are, of that insurrection and hold all participants accountable including Donald Trump, senators and congresspeople. The shear thought of the DoJ bringing charges against him and them would quite frankly be historic.

    I watched it live and had the EW site up and following the comments and went back and read them all again today I see Bmaz was extremely critical of the 2 hour presentation although he did seem to hold out a ray of hope, a possibility, if you will, that something positive may come out of the process, even though his bet is no. I too bet no, it will never get to a court of law, the needle will not move on public opinion. The electorate has been dumbed down by social media, Fox News, the Putin Network, and partisan gerrymandering to allow the needle to move.

    • Rayne says:

      Excellent question – sure looks like everything up to his last 12 tweets have been deleted. No sign of panic. A journalist was recently hacked by Russian entity, all their emails and socmed taken (Twitter confirmed hack); wonder if this is another example or if it’s pre-emptive with the new PoE website’s release?

  28. LaNita Jones says:

    “…Jeffrey Clark and Scott Perry…”

    Really glad she noted Clark was DOJ Environmental.

    Loved her poteaux-sur-sol wall.

  29. timbo says:

    Marcy, what do you make of the hearing not making mention of the bombs that distracted the Capitol police at the precise time that the rioters were approaching the Capitol itself? Is the Committee shying away from including the bombs found near the GOP and DP party HQs because there is nothing new in the search for the bomber(s)…or is there some possible interesting revelation(s) coming from that quarter?

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s a good question. But think of it another way. The Committee actually didn’t focus THAT MUCH on the tactics of the mob, except for a few key moments. The Committee doesn’t have great resources on it. They DO have great material on Trump. So that’s where the focus will be.

      • timbo says:

        One would think that both the GOP and the DP would be incredibly interested in who set those bombs near their HQs in DC on Jan 6. It’s an odd silence from the politicians of both parties on the deadly conundrum of who and why those bombs were there that day. And something you would think the J6 Committee itself might be keenly interested in, given that those were live bombs and they were placed in Washington DC by still publicly unknown persons, etc. Hopefully FBI, DHS, and J6 have made some significant headway into who and why those bombs were set on Jan 6 2021.

        Very odd that there was zero mention of those bombs. And there must be some good reason for it to be missing from the hearing. Hopefully that reason is because of an ongoing ignorance as to who and why. And not just because it would point out exactly how vulnerable DC is to disruption by random bombers at any time.

        • bmaz says:

          Uh, it is because they don’t know anything. Even DOJ cannot find a suspect, although the investigation goes on.

  30. Eureka says:

    Hannity Proposed Hunter Biden Pardon to ‘Smooth Over’ Jan. 6
    The Jan. 6 Committee revealed a weird text message during its first hearing Thursday night. A person familiar with negotiations confirmed that it’s as weird as you think.
    Roger Sollenberger Zachary Petrizzo Updated Jun. 11, 2022 3:18AM ET / Published Jun. 10, 2022 6:21PM ET Exclusive

    On Thursday, the Jan. 6 Committee released text messages between Hannity and then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. In those text messages, Hannity appears to debrief McEnany on a conversation he had with Trump the day after the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    One item from that conversation: “He was intrigued by the pardon idea!! (Hunter)”

    A person familiar with the conversations confirmed to The Daily Beast that the “Hunter” in the text was, in fact, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden and a longtime target of conservative critics—Hannity foremost among them.


    Hannity pitched the idea in a Jan. 7 conversation, framing it as a gesture that might help “smooth things over” after the insurrection’s traumatic rift, this person confirmed. But ultimately, the idea, like others in the text to McEnany—such as “no more stolen election talk” and “attending inauguration”—ultimately went nowhere.

  31. Leoghann says:

    Upthread, a couple of people asked how R. Giuliani was legally exposed in all this. He was apparently deeply involved in the fake electors scheme. A couple of organizers of slates of fake electors have made statements that Giuliani personally delivered their quasi-legal paperwork to them.

  32. RMD says:

    In her opening statement in yesterday’s January 6 Committee hearing, Liz Cheney treated Washington resigning his commission as a religious moment in an attempt to depict democracy as something worth fighting for.

    Upon re-reading the intro to this article, I was reminded of a statement by Frum.

    “if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy” ~ Bush speechwriter, David Frum

  33. BobCon says:

    For anyone wondering why Chuck Todd and a lot of the DC press corps is still struggling to cover this correctly, this is a good indication:

    The former press aide for the late Rep. Don Young got an invitation for Young to appear on NBC Now on Friday.

    The reality is that on NBC it’s easier for a dead Republican to get on TV than a live Democrat.

    I have no doubt if any responsibility is taken by NBC it will be dumped on a low level booker. But this is a sign of systemic problems all over — massive overspending for on-air hacks combined with endless starving of research staffs, and top-down bias in favor of conservatives that gets baked into every daily decision.

    There is an idiotic top line goal of striving to address the absolutely latest news, which is completely undercut by the incapacity of their staff and guests to talk intelligently about any of it.

    Which puts them at the mercy of talking points spewed by pitbulls. They have had over a year to get ready for this, but since they are scrambling at the last minute every single day, they never bothered.

    • Rayne says:

      And yet Chuck Todd is NBC News’s political director. Somebody gave that low-level booker an order to fill.

      • bmaz says:

        Exactly. And, yes, Chuck Todd is really that stupid. But BobCon is wrong about them not having open doors for Democrats, they always have space available for Joe Manchin!

        • Rayne says:

          Again, there’s a reason Manchin the DINO is on NBC so often. The network’s political director approves of his appearances.

        • RMD says:

          This is one of the quotes I was looking for:

          6. “The major media-particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations ‘selling’ privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. The concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values; it is not easy to say one thing and believe another, and those who fail to conform will tend to be weeded out by familiar mechanisms.”~ Noam Chomsky

  34. Rugger9 says:

    OT, but interesting: Jenna Ellis is joining the Mastriano campaign for PA governor as a legal adviser. They deserve each other, and FWIW Shapiro is going to clean their clocks.

Comments are closed.