House January 6 Committee: Public Hearings – Day 8

This post and comment thread are dedicated to the House January 6 Committee hearings scheduled to begin Thursday, July 21 at 8:00 p.m. ET.

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

The hearings will stream on:

House J6 Committee’s website:

House J6 Committee’s YouTube page:

C-SPAN’s House J6 hearing page:

C-SPAN’s YouTube page:

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

PBS Newshour stream:

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

Broadcast and cable network coverage TBD, check your local broadcast affiliate or cable provider’s lineup.

Twitter accounts live tweeting the hearing:

Brandi Buchman-DailyKos:

Scott MacFarlane-CBS: h

Laura Rozen:

Tom LoBianco-Yahoo News:

Steve Herman-VOANews:

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

The topic of the hearing is Trump’s dereliction of duty on January 6, 2021.

The witnesses scheduled for this hearing are:

  • Former Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews
  • Former Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger

There may be other witnesses; some may be present only as video clips.

~ ~ ~

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

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

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

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

Comment policy

Community guidelines

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

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

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

Caution: moderators will have much lower tolerance for trolling.

~ ~ ~

216 replies
  1. Rayne says:

    Again, as with previous House J6 Committee hearing threads, this is a dedicated thread.

    All non-hearing related content should move to another thread.

    • Rayne says:

      It’s been 24 hours since the hearing and I’m stuck on two things:

      — The conclusion of this hearing is the same as House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chair Carolyn Maloney made during the May 12, 2021 hearing(45:15-45:33): that Trump was derelict in his duty having taken no action to stop the assault on the Capitol;

      — Acting SecDef Christopher Miller needs to be called to testify again about the timeline of events on January 6 because his testimony was shaky as fuck, beginning with his claim DOJ was the lead agency that day.

      Oh, oops, now a third item: Why did Miller worry about calling up the National Guard ahead of January 6 to the point he issued what was essentially a stand-down memo, when he did nothing of the sort ahead of rallies in DC in November and December?

      November 14, 2020:
      Trump Supporters, Counterprotesters Clash At D.C. Rally Contesting Biden’s Victory

      December 12, 2020:
      Multiple people stabbed after thousands gather for pro-Trump demonstrations in Washington

      Miller assumed his role as Acting SecDef on November 9, 2020.

      • Eureka says:

        Plus how C. Miller ran to Vanity Fair in the aftermath.

        Related side-point, I’d like them to show more (re-emphasize) photos of Pence presidenting after escaping (then-so far) with his life with vs Trump’s black screen of death (besides Fox; Rudy; verbal straightjacketing efforts). [This has propagandistic value to certain audiences (which is of no worry wrt unintended consequences since Pence would never ascend — it’s more about Trump’s crippling disorders); also substantive elements which are of greater concern.]

  2. Civil Discourse says:

    Thank you.
    I look forward to your coverage.
    I’ve got WaPo in one corner, and emptywheel for cogency.

    • Civil Discourse says:

      I look forward to Marcy’s comments, in her own time, as to Josh Hawley’s ‘complicity’ in the attempted coup.

      I’ve been following his installment as a Senator (imho) by Peter Thiel from Northern California for quite some time and, much to my chagrin, I have something close to abject contempt for him.

      Also, ty again for this coverage.

  3. Rwood says:

    I can’t help but think the hearings would have more impact if they were to site each crime being committed as they walk through what happened. ie, at 2:34 that day he did X, which a crime under federal law xyz.

    • Rayne says:

      This is not a criminal investigation. Any assessment of possible crimes committed will come in a report with prescriptive measures Congress should take along with criminal referrals to DOJ who will accept/decline to charge persons based on DOJ’s respective criminal investigation.

      One thing this committee can say and is already alluding to is Trump’s dereliction of duty — there’s no criminal charge for that, only the potential for impeachment and conviction were he still in office.

      • Civil Discourse says:

        Thank you for this timely and imperative comment.

        [FYI, I’ve changed your username on this comment from “Civil” to “Civil Discourse” matching your last comment because there already has been another community member known as “civil.” Please continue to use “Civil Discourse” so community members can differentiate you two. Thanks, Rayne]

      • Rwood says:

        Apologies for my lack of detail. By “they” I meant the talking head’s. The chyrons could be put to better use.

      • blueedredcounty says:

        Rayne, isn’t it true that impeachment and conviction are still possible even though he’s not in office? The point being that he can’t be removed from office any longer, but the impeachment/conviction would prevent him from ever holding office again.

          • grennan says:

            This does not seem to be settled law…I’m looking for the quote from a law professor just the other day, “there’s no reason he couldn’t get impeached a third time” as well as some discussion about this in January 2021.

        • Ravenclaw says:

          I’m not sure whether impeachment/conviction is possible after leaving office. But I am pretty sure that even if it is legal and somehow happened (good luck with that Senate conviction), it does not automatically disqualify a person from holding future positions of honor and trust in the government. That decision could be made, but it’s analogous to sentencing rather than to conviction. (As usual, ready to be corrected there!)

      • hollywood says:

        Your comment is well taken. Beyond the committee, the issue of criminal liability is a difficult one given the burden of proof.
        Is there some way (putting aside standing issues) Trump could be held liable civilly for violating various statutes under some sort of tort-in-essence cause of action?

        • Ravenclaw says:

          TFG is no stranger to civil litigation. While the standard of proof is lower in such cases, you still have the problem of trying to overcome a “spirited defense.” By history, his legal representatives rely on a combination of (a) endless motions and appeals, trying to exhaust the litigant’s emotional and financial resources, (b) quiet under-the-table payouts with nondisclosure agreements, and (c) threats/intimidation. It’s a heady brew.

    • Rayne says:

      I think fear of retribution says a lot about Trump and his base.

      ADDER: and now we here this anonymous witness talking about discussion over the radio — this is a law enforcement person attached to the Capitol, IMO. Given how many CPD died on January 6 or later, it’s no wonder this person wants anonymity. They have to continue to work with people who voted to overturn the election and who have refused to engage with CPD personnel since. The risk is ongoing.

      • David says:


        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named “David” or “Dave.” Sorry not to have pointed this out when you last commented. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        He might also hope to still be working there in January 2023 and 2025, when the GOP might have more control over people and events. His concern for his and his family’s safety might need to go on for years.

    • Civil Discourse says:

      I’m struggling to understand your comment.

      Clarification, please.

      Which “anonymous witness'” are you referring to?

      Ty in advance.

      • pH unbalanced says:

        Gotta be the anonymous white house official with disguised voice.

        I felt the same way the first time they played a clip from them, but later on when the same person was talking about the chatter over the radio from the Secret Service it made sense why they anonymized them.

        • Rugger9 says:

          That’s who was anonymous, and I’m sure all of the C-SPAN junkies are trying to figure out who a “White House Employee with National Security Access” is that hasn’t publicly testified yet. That list ought to be pretty short (and probably not Melania). I am also observing the following details:

          I do not see as much as I should about Mike Lee (whose phone it was that Tuberville’s call came in on) since he was involved in the planning. Likewise Stone. Likewise I find it hard to believe that none of the ushers who would have attended Individual-1 in the dining room apparently haven’t testified either, since they would be direct witnesses to POTUS’ mood that afternoon. But, aside from that I would credit these hearings for opening the floodgates for witnesses, and would speculate that if Bannon is convicted there will be a lot more.

          I’m sure it just kills DJTJ (and Eric) that they weren’t part of the inner circle for advising Individual-1. The Daddy issues will continue…

          This brings up the question about who actually had TFG’s ear. The J6SC committee members noted that everyone but TFG was telling TFG to call off the mob (as Cipillone noted) but I would submit those weren’t the ‘closest advisers’ even if they were in official WH terms. The actual advisers that Individual-1 listened to (aside from the voices in his head and Roy Cohn’s ghost) were Team Kraken that visited the day before with mini-Biff Ziegler (or, is it Bifflet?), plus Stone. The J6SC needs to point out the extra-official advice in addition to the official advice. It’s been touched on earlier, but today the J6SC basically said TFG listened to himself alone and I really doubt that. The gap in the call log suggests to me that burner phones were used to talk to the Willard command center, etc.

          • Sonso says:

            Yes, burner phones! Evidence of these would be both telling, and possibly determinative of active conspiracy. Who bought them? How many? Who was contacted? Where are they? It’s a Downbound Train at the moment.

          • Ravenclaw says:

            You would not need to erase the call log if you were using burner phones – or any private phones not being monitored.

          • Ginevra diBenci says:

            Denver Riggleman, who worked with the committee on research, just told Nicolle Wallace that he is looking forward to seeing more about Roger Stone. When Wallace asked what they had on Stone, he was necessarily vague, but I found his bringing up Stone’s name (and even the evasions themselves), um, enticing.

  4. holdingsteady says:

    Thanks very much for this thread, I will follow with interest everybody’s astute observations.

    These republicans who seem to have found their conscience sure took their time about it.

    • HOLLY GO LIGHTLY says:

      This! Even Ms. Matthews, who stated that she broke with him because what was happening was indefensible. She was still working to re-elect him, until she wasn’t. Knowing his character, knowing that the big lie WAS A LIE. I am grateful for her testimony, but, I still find it appalling that she was there, right up until the insurrection, pushing that lie. It’s astounding, really.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    USSS members at Capitol were calling family members to say goodbye? Did it take 18 months for that to come out?

    Separate but related, imagine how a Ron DeSantis would staff his WH. His policy and staffing decisions in Florida area already openly fascist. The Hutchinsons and Pottingers, et al., would presumably not pass his vetting process. They would be regarded as insufficiently loyal to him and his fascist agenda, and because by 2024, there would be hundreds of others who would pass that vetting process.

    • Civil Discourse says:

      I think I understand your point, yet imho, the gravity of the coup attempt has been discussed in DC beginning 1/7/22.

      That many have not been privy to it, for various reasons, does not detract from the salient point today.

    • nord dakota says:

      That stunned me.
      The raw footage of Trump’s videotape sessions nauseated me.

      “election is over”–“I can’t say that” (different than not liking the word “yesterday” for performance reasons)—in a weird way this could become a signal to the people with their “weird fantasies”

      Interesting how cautiously people whose interviews were played described what they thought was wrong and what they thought should have been done with regard to Trump’s communications to the public. Is this for legal reasons, wary of adding to any criminalization of individuals in Trumpworld, something else? It was more than the lawerly restraint Cippione displays.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      I actually think that what they were saying is USSS were asking the other people listening to the radio to tell their families goodbye. I don’t think they had time to be calling anyone on the phone.

      • vicks says:

        I agree.
        My observation may be totally outdated by new technology, but it’s hard to imagine someone talking on the phone while pressing the talk button on thier radio,

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Absolutely. He wants to show up and pick up the pieces only after the Reichstag fire’s been put out. His behavior mirrors that of his whole party.

        • LeeNLP says:

          Now that’s unnecessary and unkind. Forrest Gump was a very honest, decent and kindhearted person. How dare you compare him with a person like Hawley?

          • Sonso says:

            The nexus being the “Hee-Haw” aspect; but you are correct that Forrest was a gentle, genial soul, whereas Hawley is a malicious, self-serving twerp. Separately, why is “Yes, Turd, eh” so difficult to enunciate? I mean…
            “person, woman, man, camera, tv….”

      • Justaguy says:

        We are starting to see the beginnings of a running series. The “Haulin’ Ass” 5K has just been put on the calendar. Here in Philly we have the “Fraud Street Run”. Any other eligible races?

    • mamake says:

      Alison Gill (Mueller She Wrote) is in the room, live tweeting. She said there was a LOUD guffaw in the room during the clip showing Hawley was running across screen and another when it was in slow motion. She said it was the loudest response of all three hearings she’s been in. FWIW.

      And when Judd Deere said about the 2:24 tweet: “Extremely unhelpful” someone said “Yeah, no shit!” More laughter.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I can’t wait for Colbert’s response to Hawley’s running away. The kniggets running away from the fierce bad rabbit had more presence of mind than Hawley.

          • Peterr says:

            There will be campaign ads in Missouri in 2024 in which this footage will figure prominently. It might be for a senate reelection bid or for a GOP presidential run, but this clip will get wide exposure in Missouri in whatever race he runs.

            • Tom says:

              The problem for Hawley is that from now on he’ll have to find some other way of saying that he’s “running” for office or anything else.

            • Eureka says:

              “And I ran, I ran so far away
              I just ran, I ran all night and day

              And I ran, I ran so far away
              I just ran, I couldn’t get away

                • Eureka says:

                  As it stands, seagulls are the perfect ecological solution to many of our ills. Who needs DOJ and protests and whatnot when we can send in some badass honing gulls. Said snowflakes will never enjoy a latte or steroid-enhanced “protein bar” in peace again.


                  And you thought du Maurier and Hitchcock were scary.

                  I bet they could find those fucking texts, too.

                    • Eureka says:

                      There was a really funny comment the other day about how they’d take a cig straight out of your hand and smoke it while glancing at you all annoyed.

                      The poop — huge bonus in this scenario: kleptocapture through dry cleaning bills.

                      Laundering the laundering!

                • Ginevra diBenci says:

                  Yeah, brave Sir Joshy ran away. But he’s just the miniature version of Trump, another coward whose strongman act was nothing more than a performance first created by Mark Burnett.

                  • Rayne says:

                    I suspect Hawley has a very different M.O.; he sets off my gaydar. I wonder if he’s deeply closeted self hating, clutching at the appearance of power to mask his conflict. Internalized oppression, in other words, and it’s long worked in the GOP to enforce control over compromised or conflicted members.

                    I mean…

                    • Krisy Gosney says:

                      That picture says so much. Is there anybody in the modern GOP that isn’t a phony weirdo? I’m intrigued by the way Steve Schmidt describes them and confirms that yeah these people are phony weirdos and more. It must be like the Star Wars cantina when they all get together behind closed doors.

                    • Ginevra diBenci says:

                      I’ve never noticed a correlation between cowardice and sexual orientation. I have noticed a strong correlation between those posing as big tough manly men and deep-seated fears of exposure–often, as you suggest, Rayne, fear of being exposed as deviating from mainstream (that is, conservative/traditional) culture.

                      The brittlleness of those like Trump and Hawley tends toward uncontrolled anger, which is what scares me about them.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      I looked up the word ‘smarmy’ in the dictionary the other day, and there was Hawley as an example…

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        Josh Hawley meets Bobby Vinton…

        Smarmy, I’m Mister Smarmy
        I have no ethics, I’m an asshole
        Now I am so smarmy, I’m Mr. Smarmy
        Wish I had someone to believe my lies

        Now I’m a backstabber, a smarmy backstabber
        With no values and I don’t tell the truth
        That’s why I’m smarmy, I’m Mr. Smarmy
        I wish that I could rule the world

        Running, I’m always running
        I spend my time running, away from MAGAs
        I am a scumbag, a worthless scumbag
        Oh, how I wonder, if I’ll go to jail

        Now I’m a backstabber, a smarmy backstabber
        With no values and I don’t tell the truth
        That’s why I’m smarmy, I’m Mr. Smarmy
        I wish that I could rule the world

        • Eureka says:

          “backstabber”: Speaking of Back Stabbers, good place to nod the O’Jays here (esp. given Trump & acolytes’ Love of Money).

          [Bonus allusions with the Soul Train version and all those colliding backstories at Hef’s manse]

    • grennan says:

      The moving circle around him as he moved, like a running back on replay, was especially helpful.

      • Rugger9 says:

        On the one running down the stairs (the second one IIRC, I’m pretty sure that was MTG in the red dress ahead of Hawley.

    • Jenny says:

      “My sin was to raise an objection to one state during the electoral college certification process, thereby triggering a congressional debate, precisely as permitted by the law and precisely as Democratic members of Congress have done in the electoral counts of 2001, 2005, and 2017. I was, in fact, waiting to participate in that debate on the Senate floor when the riot halted our work and forced the Senate (temporarily) to disband. For this I was branded a “seditionist” and worse. But like many others attacked by the corporations and the Left, my real crime was to have challenged the reign of the woke capitalists.” Josh Hawley

  6. Nick Caraway says:

    I love the contrast of Hawley raising the clenched fist in solidarity with the protesters, from a safe space in the morning. And then later in the afternoon, running from the same protesters after they had turned violent. First playacting “revolutionary,” then running for his life.

  7. Rayne says:

    I can’t help it, I’m a Scott MacFarlane fan. He knows the insurrection material well and it shows when he’s on air for CBS even in this interstitial coverage during the hearing break.

    We need more journalists who engage with the minutia and report it rather than save it for their books.

  8. MB says:

    Apparently, DJT Jr. thinks “going to the mattress” means the same thing as “going to the mat”. The Trump word salad syndrome is intergenerational…

    • Nick Caraway says:

      Actually in “The Godfather,” “going to the mattresses” refers to a situation of all out, shooting war between Mafia factions. When “going to the mattresses”, according to the book, Mob soldiers would find safe houses to lodge in temporarily with mattresses on the floors, like a barracks, rather than going home for the night, for several days or weeks on end.

      So actually Jared is making an apposite “literary” reference here. He is saying this is a situation where Meadows had to stand and fight to get Trump to call of the rioters, no matter what the cost might have been to Meadows for doing this.

      Not that I would deny the cumulative volume of Trumpian word salad to which you refer.

      • MB says:

        Thanks for the clarification. Obviously not up-to-date on my mob phraseology. Though they do have similar meanings.

        “Go to the mat”: to persistently fight until one side or another is victorious…

        “Go to the mattress”: a fight, a struggle, using ruthless tactics, or taking a war-like stance…

        • Peterr says:

          In the Trump family, I think the phrase “going to the mattresses” has a very different meaning.

          See “Daniels, Stormy, et al.”

          (And that et al. is doing a LOT of work.)

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    TFG’s mixed message tape at 4.03 pm – “They” stole my landslide victory from me, but go home in peace. In other words, who will rid me of….

  10. Skilly says:

    I am curious about others take on the mike pence tweet as evidence of intent to further inflame the crowd to riot. I have not heard others point out that Trump already knew that Pence would not invoke his “Powers” to contest the ballots. Yet, he pointedly said he hoped that he would, even though he knew he would not. Then he told the already inflamed crowd that Pence had failed him. Why would this not be direct evidence of his intent to cause a riot?

    • grennan says:

      After Pence told him for the final time that he could not, Trump tweeted that Pence and he “were in total agreement” that the VP had the power to do so.

      Would be great to hear Pence explain why he did not immediately and publicly refute this “total agreement”.

  11. rattlemullet says:

    There must not be any federal statue for failing to honor your oath of office or for dereliction of duty as commander and chief. Although being the commander of the entire military complex who are held responsible and accountable to the military code of justice which does carry severe consequences for detection of duty. The irony is startling. Seems as if everyone involved knew what the president was doing and what his intent was and that is deny and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

    • Rayne says:

      There’s 18 U.S. Code § 372 – Conspiracy to impede or injure officer and Trump might be liable for preventing federal employees from doing their jobs, but it doesn’t apply to failure to perform his office.

      The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 says Congress can impeach and convict for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors — and that’s about all the instruction it gives regarding consequences for dereliction of duty. Failing by pointedly refusing to do anything to protect the Capitol while Congress was in session is a naked case of dereliction and a high Crime since the duty fell uniquely to POTUS.

      ADDER — 1:50 AM ET 22-JUL-2022 —

      • P J Evans says:

        “Depraved-heart indifference” comes to mind. He didn’t care how many people were killed or injured.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      To expand an earlier comment, the president is, by design, a civilian and not subject to the UCMJ.

  12. Civil Discourse says:

    “I don’t want to say the election is over”

    “Yesterday is a hard word for me to say”


    • Civil Discourse says:


      Liz Cheney:
      Women’s suffrage.

      I did not see that coming.



      (I still detest almost everything she stands for, yet I recognize her skill and cogency. Also…she finally made up to her sister yesterday by voting for Marriage Equality. Better late than never).

      • Rayne says:

        Could have predicted the tie-in based on her attire — suffragette white.

        There’s an extremely veiled statement in Cheney’s callback to women’s suffrage. The overwhelming majority of insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were men; more women voted for Democrats including Biden rather than GOP. The insurrection sought to overturn the votes of women who won the 2020 general election, attempting to deny them their civil rights.

        Dobbs was only a more recent attack on women’s civil rights.

        • nord dakota says:

          Wyoming was one of the few states, if not the only state, that (if I remember correctly) gave women the vote from the start.

        • Civil Discourse says:

          Excellent point.

          [Your username had to be changed from “civil” to “Civil Discourse,” the latter being the name you originally used when you first commented here. Stick to your original username. /~Rayne]

      • grennan says:

        re Liz and Mary Cheney

        Liz has been saying for several years (since about the time her sister had kids) that she was wrong on gay marriage and then says she loves her sister very much.

        Every time I’ve read about Mary Cheney being asked about her sister’s politics, she has said she loves her sister very much.

    • Peterr says:

      All my troubles seemed so far away
      Now it looks as though they’re here to stay
      Oh, I believe in yesterday

      I’m not half the man I used to be
      There’s a shadow hanging over me
      Oh, yesterday came suddenly

    • Raven Eye says:

      Lyrics from “Yesterday” in 1 – 2 – 3:

      Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
      Now it looks as though they’re here to stay
      Oh, I believe in yesterday

      Suddenly, I’m not half the man I used to be
      There’s a shadow hanging over me
      Oh, yesterday came suddenly

      • Eureka says:

        Sticking with the 80s theme I went to “goodbye [to the word] ‘yesterday'”:

        “But now I stand alone with my pride
        Fighting back the tears I never let myself cry

        But that was yesterday
        Love was torn from my hands
        But it’s not the end of my world
        Just a little hard to understand

        Goodbye yesterday
        Now it’s over and done
        Still I hope somewhere deep in your heart
        Yesterday will live on ”

        Foreigner “That Was Yesterday”

  13. Nick Caraway says:

    Excellent point by Luria in quoting texts from Trump campaign officials. That Trump has never acknowledged the valor of the fallen Capitol Police officers. Because they were killed by “his” people. Because he could never acknowledge that their deaths were his fault.

    The campaign officials knew this but Trump could never say so. Any more than he could say that the election was over.

    • nord dakota says:

      Did he ever at any subsequent point make mention of anyone who died in connection with this?

        • gmoke says:

          Thank the g*ds G Gordon Liddy is dead and gone otherwise we’d be subjected to interminable verses of “The Ashli Babbitt Song” the way he once sang “The Horst Wessel Song.”

          PS: Ashli Babbitt to George F Babbitt to Sinclair Lewis to It Can’t Happen Here to Buzz Windrip to Trmp

        • timbo says:

          Hopefully today’s hearing is pointing pointedly at who is it that has some civil liability for her death?

        • Sonso says:

          More accurately, the Lost Cause. The underlying basis for Trumpism is the South’s vengeance on everyone else for being denied the ‘right’ to enslavement of dark-skinned people.

          • grennan says:

            We’ve been in a cold civil war since Reconstruction.

            Also, our Civil War picked up some threads of the English Civil War (history rhyming). Many of the states that seceded had been founded by Cavaliers/royalists and many of the states that stayed had been settled by the other side — Puritans, Parliament, Covenanters, religious free-thinkers.

  14. pH unbalanced says:

    There was interesting stuff here, but I’m not sure why this one was in prime time. Maybe I’m just too cynical and steeped in this stuff. What do y’all think was big enough to make this a prime time hearing as opposed to, say, the one with Cassie Hutchinson’s testimony?

    • MB says:

      Production strategy. The first hearing and this one were bookends scheduled in prime time. Now they’re off for a month, ostensibly, until September.

      • Peterr says:

        The members are off for a month, but the staff is going to work full-bore throughout the August recess. This is not slowing down.

        • MB says:

          Good to know that staff will be keeping their heads down throughout August. Maybe by the time members come back, Bannon will have both of his orange jumpsuits measured, fitted and modeled concurrently.

        • timbo says:

          Sounded like some of the members would be working too on this, not just the staff. If I had to guess, they’ll all be working on this over the break…

    • nord dakota says:

      People calling their families, the video footage of Trump–those in particular made it prime time.

      Almost forgot–the video footage of people looking at their phones and saying “he says to go home!” Speaking, you know, of following orders.

      This felt like closing argument (although as I understand there may be more hearings)

    • Rayne says:

      Because it was about dereliction of duty — a high crime for which no one else can be credited in any way except for Trump.

      He alone did it by choosing not to do his sworn duty.

      Was Hutchinson more compelling as a witness? Sure, but her testimony fleshed out others’ roles in the seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the US. Her testimony didn’t point to Trump alone.

    • Ravenclaw says:

      This was long planned as the finale. The Hutchinson testimony came as a welcome surprise and needed to be presented right away both on the “strike while the iron is hot” principle and for her safety.

      • bmaz says:

        I question the “safety” rationale. By putting her on national and international TV, they increased any danger to her exponentially.

        • Rayne says:

          Yes and no. Now she’s readily recognized by the lone wolves, but while she wasn’t recognized she was at risk of continued hidden pressure up to and including defenestration.

          They’ve traded the kind of risk to her, more or less.

          • Ravenclaw says:

            Fair enough. Not fair for her, obviously! But I stand by “strike while the iron is hot,” not only lest she change her mind but also due to the defenestration peril.

  15. Fran of the North says:

    Cheney hit a home run with the support for and name checks of all the female witnesses. I wonder if Dobbs has gotten her dander up.

    Don’t throw the book at me, but I can see her as a legitimate conservative opposition candidate to a liberal one on the national stage. She is showing values, compassion and spine. I don’t agree with her politics, but I admire her leadership.

      • Peterr says:

        I don’t think that Dobbs had anything to do with it. Liz is pissed at what Trump has done to the party of her father and herself.

        This isn’t business – this is personal.

        • Silly but True says:

          And this gets right to the rub.

          Anyone longing for “the Party of Dick Cheney” is already a broken person holding a broken view of party politics.

          Dick Cheney has always only ever represented a small, extreme, elitist power-mongering subset within the Republican Party.

          He f’ed around squandering Yale; and did same at Wiscon-Madison. He dodged any serious penalties from multiple DUIs at 21. He was the poster-child for Viet Nam draft deferrals that came to symbolize the “Cheney Republicans”; at least Bush actually flew even if he stayed out of the war too.

          So Cheney received five deferments to finish college yet partied at every college he flunked out of.

          Cheney wasn’t GHWB first choice (even worse John Tower couldn’t be approved).

          We have Cheney to thank for the Gulf WR WMD hunt cluster-eff, as well as Iraq War fiasco, the Plame Leak scandal orchestrated out of his office, and of course he’s mastermind of recent application of “unitary executive theory.”

          Anyone longing for the “good old days of Cheney Republicanism” has a screw loose.

          • rip says:

            A great list of Dick’s failings. Failed upwards pretty well tho – I guess that’s how the repuglicon party works.

          • Rugger9 says:

            About Shrub… His nickname of aWol was due to his failing to show up to his TX ANG ‘champagne unit’ which his then-Congresscritter dad got him into. After he was elected by SCOTUS following the Brooks Brothers riot there was a massive search with a triple promotion promised to whoever could find the TANG records but no one ever did.

        • Judy says:

          There were moments during the closing comments that it felt like Kinzinger, Luria and Cheney are personally offended by Trump and his cronies and their dereliction of duty.

          • grennan says:

            Most of us would be outraged on a deep, personal level if a violent mob invaded our workplace, greatly outnumbering coworkers and protectors. Then if some of those coworkers who lived through the same awful three hours started gaslighting about it and wondering why you thought it was such a big deal…

            After all, the purport of the Benghazi hearings was outrage over a violent mob and the damage it could inflict on a U.S. facility and U.S. diplomatic personnel.

    • grennan says:

      That rant of Garrett Ziegler seems a lot more likely — his tantrum about “thots and hos” on the committee and as witnesses came out yesterday.

    • Sonso says:

      Won’t throw the book, but out here Liz is known as the Real Dick. Don’t be fooled; she is a regressive, plutocratic, warmonger, and there is a lot of personal animus at work here. If a spouse cheats 364 days a year, but makes passionate love on the 365th, that doesn’t excuse the rest.

    • Tracy Lynn says:

      Liz Cheney is seriously anti-abortion. I doubt Dobbs is even on her radar screen, since, based on statements she made in the past she probably agreed with the decision. I keep wondering why she is on the J6 cmtee. What’s in it for her? That said, she is keeping the trolls at bay. And, yes, she has been helpful to this committee.

      • Ken Muldrew says:

        I keep wondering why she is on the J6 cmtee. What’s in it for her?

        If the Republican Party rejects it’s current dalliance with fascism, then she owns the party. She’s playing for all the marbles.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The GOP will never disavow fascism. It’s the only way it clings to power and destroys the left, which it has designated an existential threat to humanity. The climate crisis? Meh.

  16. klynn says:

    Jered lied about what “go to the mattress” meant in his text.

    It means to take a warlike stance or battle stance.

    • rip says:

      Apparently “going to the mattresses” is different than “going to the mat”. The mattresses is a reference to gang members preparing for a battle with another gang – throwing mattresses on the floor of a house to be ready to sleep there for a long period.

  17. Raven Eye says:

    I was fine watching this streaming on CBS News (the only network news I’ve bothered to program). But in the post-hearing round of commentary I was doing fine until someone started to talk about “Merrick Garland”. My finger instinctively went to the red button at the top of the remote.

  18. Bay State Librul says:

    Game over?

    Emptywheel’s tweet last night

    “Btw until you get Cipilone’s testimony, you’re not going to get charges v Trump (which he knows)

    We just got hit over the head with two words.

  19. Bay State Librul says:

    EP, in my opinion is undemocratic — ”ultimately the public” gets fucked

    “Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.” Mark Rozell

  20. Bay State Librul says:

    Night Cap?

    When Cheney showed the Bannon clip, I thought oh fuck-
    With our luck, Bannon will have a hung jury.
    Maybe I’m paranoid

  21. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Trump spent his entire presidency watching Faux News rather than doing his job as president. But he had a special interest in watching how well his mob was furthering his obsession to obstruct Congress so that he could stay in office under the slightest pretext.

    • Raven Eye says:

      Could that period of time (more or less the 187 minutes) be nominated as his longest recorded attention span on a single issue?

      • MB says:

        Hmmm…methinks not so much a matter of attention span but 187 uninterrupted minutes of “narcissistic supply” being mainlined into his psyche…

  22. nord dakota says:

    One moment caught my attention with the Rose Garden footage. As Trump is preparing to speak you catch a quick glimpse of someone at a doorway into the White House behind him. Seems to be quite a ways behind him and very very brief. Immediately Trump says “who’s behind me?” I know he is super conscious of the performance aspect of his performances but it also looked like a little bit of paranoia

    • Rugger9 says:

      Such is the state of civil discourse that it is possible to consider that Ivana’s passing was ‘convenient’, since the Trumps all used it to dodge Leticia James’ depositions in NYC. Officially it remains accidental and shall remain so until new evidence is corroborated, so don’t go there. FWIW, Ivana was a key supporter of her ex (and she had 2-3 others) so that speaks against ulterior motives by Individual-1.

  23. grennan says:

    Minor followups to last night.

    The House GOP caucus tweeted that Sarah Matthews is “just another liar and pawn in Pelosi’s witch-hunt”….then deleted it after somebody realized that she is a current employee of the House GOP caucus.

    The Missouri Democratic party has scheduled a Hawley 5k run and is collecting donations for it on Act Blue. Since Hawley occupies Harry Truman’s old seat, too bad it won’t be on Turnip Day (July 26).

    Also, IMO Pink Floyd’s “Run Like Hell” isn’t getting nearly enough attention for the Hawley soundtrack. Much more paranoia, derangement, etc. than the other candidates (sorry).

  24. Tom Marney says:

    I don’t post here often because I’m so far out of my depth here, but a while back I posted asking, out of genuine perplexity on my part, what Trump or his mob or both would gain by killing Pence. Unsurprisingly. nobody came up with a very convincing answer, and the thread fizzled when someone brought up the subject of the firepower and resolve of Pence’s Secret Service detail (even though he wouldn’t get in the car with them!). The consensus, such as it was, was that any advantage that might be gained wouldn’t be worth the loss of life among the insurrectionists that would occur if the mob actually tried to seize Pence.

    On Thursday evening, though, we found out that the members of Pence’s detail were fearful of the imminent loss of their lives as a result of failing in their duty to protect the VP. That means that they expected to exhaust their ammunition on the advancing insurrectionists, and they’d just keep coming like an army of zombies. Which, in a way, they were. It’s perversely fascinating to me to imagine how that might’ve played out, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it crossed Trump’s mind as well.

    Of course, we’ve known about the viciousness of the mob since seeing the live video that afternoon, and our knowledge has been augmented over time as the deaths and the extent of injuries became clear. But this testimony took things to an entirely new level.

    • Bay State Librul says:

      Good analysis

      One of the fruits of the J6 Committee

      How many bites of the apple are left.

      Beware of Schedule F

      This will not end well

      • Krisy Gosney says:

        I read last night a Dem congressperson has an amendment in a ‘must pass bill’ that will thwart this Schedule F (which I think stands for “For Fuck’s Sake, Ginni!”)

    • Epicurus says:

      In its mind the mob would have gained satisfaction in killing Pence for carrying out what EoH has appropriately called a “who will rid me of this priest” order. The satisfaction would have come in fulfilling their own dreams of removing a government obstacle – Pence – to fulfill a mutually beneficial goal of theirs and Trump – pure power. They were no more than brown shirts to Trump’s Hitler after all. If they were successful in re-seating Trump, they knew Trump would have pardoned them. I imagine Trump will find a way to promise pardons to those so convicted in any future Presidential campaign.

      In his mind Trump would have gained by killing Pence because he would have created and filled a vacuum in the electoral count process with Pence gone. Trump is feral in his understanding of hesitancy or weakness or of how no one really would have stepped up to delay an electoral count. Trump saw the Congresspeople fleeing the building as we all did. While tragic for us it was an opportunity for him. Filling that electoral count vacuum in his favor at that moment was specifically what he was aimed at doing. As he would think, shoot first and ask questions later when he would still be holding the proverbial gun.

      It was a crossing the Rubicon moment, especially in that so many people would still vote for Trump as President should he run again.

      • bmaz says:

        Trump has already publicly speculated that he would consider pardoning everybody related to J6 if reelected.

      • Rayne says:

        In its mind the mob would have gained satisfaction in killing Pence for carrying out what EoH has appropriately called a “who will rid me of this priest” order. …

        In his mind Trump would have gained by killing Pence because he would have created and filled a vacuum in the electoral count process with Pence gone. …

        I think you’ve forgotten the discussions among various individuals and groups about declaring a state of emergency or martial law in order to suspend the normal election certification and the subsequent transition of power.

        If the mob had killed Pence, Trump could and likely would have gone there, and I’m sure Pence grasped this. The question is whether members current and former of USSS also understood this and perhaps were ready to assist with this level of obstructive intervention.

        • earthworm says:

          agree with rayne’s take:
          killing pence would’ve been ample justification for declaration of martial law.

    • Belyn says:

      I doubt the inner circle wanted to kill him, just get him out of the way to stop certification. But Trump’s sentiments were aligned with the mob, whatever it took.

    • Ravenclaw says:

      Had Pence been removed, either the vote certification would not have happened that day at all or it would have been overseen by Grassley. I’ve seen speculation that Grassley was on board with the idea of rejecting the legitimate electors from the “contested” states. My guess is TFG would have been happiest had Pence fled the premises (less messy) but would have enjoyed private glee had he been killed by the mob.

      • Tom Marney says:

        Which brings to mind Grassley’s comment as to Pence’s likely whereabouts during the certification process.

  25. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    If Pence was killed or otherwise indisposed, Chuck Grassley would have taken over the role of leading the certification by the joint houses of Congress. Early on Jan 6 Grassley had sent and deleted a tweet indicating he was taking that role. It appears he was in cahoots on doing what Pence refused to do. Disposing of Pence may have led to a successful coup.

    • Tom Marney says:

      And Grassley apparently knew that ahead of time. Does anyone think he figured that out on his own?

  26. Krisy Gosney says:

    I’m thinking a lot today of the presidential motorcade standing ready for “45 minutes to an hour” at the White House while Trump watch the riot at the Capitol on TV. I think it’s safe to assume Trump still thought he could get his dramatic entrance onto the senate floor with “his people” celebrating his triumph around him. He was waiting in the wings for his cue to enter the stage. And watching the outtakes of his two taped messages to “his people” you can see him getting into character before he starts speaking and see him directing himself as he crafts his message. Mark Burnett and the producers on The Apprentice really helped make a fine monster.

  27. Tom says:

    Permanently eliminating Pence would have been a needless complication to Trump’s plans with all sorts of unintended consequences. Far easier for the Secret Service to get the VP away from the Capitol for a few hours under the reasonable pretense that it was for his own protection while Trump completed his theft of the election. Afterwards, I can easily imagine Pence going along with the coup once it was a fait accompli. After all, he would get to be VP for another four years, maybe.

    I can imagine a lot of GOP Congresspeople and other Trump supporters being more than willing to help with the coup as long as it only involved fake electors, forged documents, procedural delays, spreading The Big Lie, and the intimidation factor of armed militia groups. But a deceased Vice-President, no matter how he met his fate, might have caused some of them to discover their consciences. Of course, a few months from now when we know more about January 6th my comments may sound hopelessly naive.

    • grennan says:

      Your reasoning on permanently eliminating Pence would apply to someone who was thinking clearly, understood succession procedures, etc.

      At the hypothetical point of his entrance to the Capitol, all normal and historic precedent would be gone. If the subtext to the rally was the “spontaneous” ride to the Capitol, the subtext to the “unplanned” entry to the Capitol was not postponing the vote count or certification but forgoing it.

      Aside from the fact that he was enraged at Pence, this would provide a chance to declare martial law or otherwise take things toward dictatorship. (Hail, Caesar, style.) Why would an illegal ‘president’ need a vice-president?

      • Tom says:

        Why? To keep up appearances, I would say. Even the Caesars went through the motions of pretending to consult with the Roman Senate. What’s frustrating about trying to discuss this topic is that there’s so much we still don’t know, especially about what was going on in Trump’s mind, and of that we may never know the full story.

        I think Trump was thinking clearly regarding January 6th, he just wasn’t thinking far enough. He’s probably never heard of the the 19th century Prussian Field Marshal, Helmuth von Moltke, who once wrote that “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” So much of Trump’s plan seems to have depended upon him getting to the Capitol, but once the SS refused to take him there, he had no back-up plan. That was Trump’s Waterloo, grappling for the steering wheel from the back seat of the SS SUV like an elderly person who has just been informed he’s being taken to The Home. Suddenly Trump was demoted from being an active participant in the events of Jan. 6th, a fired-up leader in plain view of his followers, to a passive out-of-sight spectator plonked in front of the TV like any other of the millions of seniors across the country that afternoon.

        The second part of Trump’s double whammy that day occurred when Mike Pence smelled a rat and refused to let the SS escort him away from the Capitol. Again, there doesn’t seem to have been a back-up plan for this eventuality unless it was to hope that the rioters would succeed in occupying the whole of the Capitol and so bring the nation’s business to a halt.

        Anyway, I’m looking forward to learning more as the months go by. I’m especially curious about what Trump expected to find when he arrived at the Capitol and what he planned to do there.

        • Tom says:

          If Trump couldn’t make it to the Capitol that day, he should have at least sent a fruit basket.

          • Tom Marney says:

            *goes for nonexistent LOL reaction

            Of all the thoughtful responses to my post, I think I’m most in agreement with yours, though, as you wrote, “a few months from now when we know more about January 6th my comments may sound hopelessly naive.” Up until Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, I had no idea that Trump actually wanted to go to the Capitol. I thought he just wanted to sit in the Oval dining room watching Fox News and gloating.

  28. pdaly says:

    A minor detail, but as Kinzinger reviewed how Trump sat alone in the WH dining room and chose not to act (and ignored the WH staff’s pleas to tell the rioters to stop and leave the Capitol), Kinzinger emphasized Trump’s words STAY and REMAIN in Trump’s Jan6 tweets of 2:38 PM (stay peaceful) and 3:13 PM (remain peaceful).

    The mob was already being violent before these tweets. Kinzinger perhaps implies Trump was using mob boss messaging to his insurrectionists while simultaneously creating a half-assed, sadly inadequate fig leaf to cover Trump’s rump.

    Kinzinger’s mentions those 2 tweets around the 45 seconds mark in this excerpt of the July 21, 2022 Jan6 Committee hearing.

    • Tom says:

      Sounds like Trump was anticipating the GOP’s later claim that January 6th was an example of “legitimate political discourse”. But the fact that Trump had to pretend that there was no violent riot taking place seems to me only to confirm that he realized how bad the situation was.

      • grennan says:

        In for a dime, in for a dollar. He kept pretending he won and that every step of the way was normal (the lawsuits, audits, calls, etc.)

        Meadows was already trying to generate spin by telling Milley that he should pretend Trump called in the forces and guard, not Pence — saying they needed the narrative to be that the president was in control.

        I’ve been thinking about your point that a dead Pence was an unnecessary complication. Regardless of the specifics of the plot — and we know that every time we’ve learned something awful about Trump it turns out to be even worse — once Pence returns the ‘special situation’ is over.

        He wanted the ‘special situation’ to go on as long as possible. While it was ongoing, anything was possible. A live Pence would also be likely to reveal that they weren’t “in total agreement” about rejecting electors and much more.

        Cf the death of the enabling deputy when the law closed in on her and the escapee; he’s now been charged with her murder.

        It’s still hard to believe that anybody in the White House could see the gallows live on tv, hear Trump express several times to several people that Pence deserved to be killed and not perceive that he was dangerous.

        • Tom says:

          In for a Pence, in for a pound. The objections to any plan to put out a contract on the VP are: Who do you find to do it? How do you find them? How do you communicate with them? How do you guarantee their silence before and after the deed is done? How do you ensure there are no leaks while planning is underway? What if, at the last minute, Pence caves and decides not to certify the election results after all? I could go on. There is just too much scope for unintended consequences in this scenario.

          As for any premeditated plan to cast Pence to the mercies of the mob, I think that idea is also fraught with too many imponderables. Trump would need this to be the perfect crime, and that would be very difficult to pull off (e.g., the 1944 film version of James M. Cain’s novel “Double Indemnity”).

Comments are closed.