House January 6 Committee: Public Hearings – Day 9 [UPDATE-1]
[NB: Updates will appear at the bottom of this post. /~Rayne]
This post and comment thread are dedicated to the House January 6 Committee hearing scheduled to begin Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. ET.
🗓️ The Select Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday, October 13th at 1:00pmhttps://t.co/C2iySNjKDY
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) October 6, 2022
Please take all comments unrelated to the hearings to a different thread; all comments unrelated to a recent post should go to the last open thread.
The hearings will stream on:
House J6 Committee’s website: https://january6th.house.gov/news/watch-live
House J6 Committee’s YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/c/January6thCmte
C-SPAN’s House J6 hearing page: https://www.c-span.org/video/?523473-1/ninth-hearing-capitol-attack
C-SPAN’s YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4DLxPesIRk
Check PBS for your local affiliate’s stream: https://www.pbs.org/ (see upper right corner)
PBS Newshour stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mhhCNqsrcI
Twitter is expected to carry multiple live streams (NBC, PBS, Washington Post, Reuters, CSPAN, Bloomberg): https://twitter.com/i/events/1580554323045457920
Broadcast and cable network coverage TBD, check your local broadcast affiliate or cable provider’s lineup.
Twitter accounts live tweeting the hearing:
Marcy’s Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1580606914505080834
Brandi Buchman-DailyKos: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1580496105858793474
Scott MacFarlane-CBS: https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1580592602776498177
Laura Rozen: https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/1580604915868524544
If you know of any other credible source tweeting the coverage, please share a link in comments.
There are no pre-identified witnesses scheduled to testify in person for today’s hearing.
There may be some witnesses whose testimony may be presented only as video clips.
All of the committee members are expected to make a presentation today during the course of the hearing.
Today’s hearing is expected to focus on Donald Trump’s frame of mind and his interaction with persons key to the January 6 insurrection.
~ ~ ~
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 containing at least 8 letters minimum to differentiate yourself; use the same username each time you comment.
If you are leaving a comment, please be concise; 100 words is the optimum length.
If you are sharing active links your comment may be delayed by auto-moderation.
If contributors and moderators seem slow, it’s because they’re dealing with higher than usual volume of comments including trolling.
Caution: moderators will have much lower tolerance for trolling.
~ ~ ~
UPDATE-1 — 7:00 PM ET —
By now most of our community members know that the House January 6 Committee wrapped its public hearing today with a vote on a resolution to request a subpoena to Donald Trump for testimony and documents to be presented before the committee.
Committee co-chair Rep. Liz Cheney has asked for a recorded vote to put everyone on record.
BREAKING: The Select Committee unanimously votes to subpoena Donald J. Trump, former President of the United States, to provide evidence as part of the committee’s investigation.
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) October 13, 2022
You will note from exchanges in the comment thread below there’s a divide between those who believe this subpoena is necessary and those who don’t (and say so in unconstrained terms).
Three past presidents have been subpoenaed before — Jefferson, Nixon, and Clinton — but all three were still serving in office at the time, and all three were served subpoenas under very different circumstances.
Trump managed to avoid being subpoenaed during his term in office. The outcome of a subpoena by the Special Counsel’s investigation, for example, may have been more like Nixon’s in which Nixon was forced to turn over tapes to Congress after a unanimous Supreme Court decision, but the possibility Trump might have been subpoenaed by a grand jury was ultimately put to rest by a confluence of circumstances including the replacement of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions by Bill Barr and the rejiggering of the Supreme Court.
Barr’s gross misrepresentation to the public of the Special Counsel report served to suppress public interest in pursuing any further investigation into Russian election interference to ensure Trump’s 2016 election and obstruction of justice by Trump. The rushed nomination by Trump and approval by a GOP majority Senate of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court made it far less likely that another unanimous Supreme Court would decide against Trump in favor of either the Special Counsel and Justice Department or any Congressional committee so long as Trump was in office.
However Trump is no longer in office. He can no longer argue that he must be protected from investigations by either the House January 6 Committee or the Department of Justice by virtue of his former office. While it’s important that Trump is afforded the opportunity to make his own case and offer his own testimony and documentation to defend his action/inaction while president, it is his current standing which should encourage a subpoena.
Trump is now a private citizen, and no private citizen is above the law.
No, not even a candidate for office is above the law. The US has prosecuted enough of those.
Execute the subpoena. Trump will likely engage in contempt of Congress. Make a criminal referral to the DOJ just as it has for other private citizens like Steve Bannon and Pete Navarro. Then allow DOJ to prosecute Trump for contempt of Congress, just like other private citizens who have likewise refused to respect the law.
If you’d like to read more about the history of subpoenas served on seated presidents, see Congressional Research Service’s Compelling Presidential Compliance with a Judicial Subpoena from May 2018, published back when Trump was fretting about being subpoenaed by the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Again, as with previous House J6 Committee hearing threads, this is a dedicated thread.
All non-hearing related content should move to another thread.
ADDER-1: Scott MacFarlane-CBS had an anticipatory report ahead of today’s hearing —
Unfortunately, CBS Mornings’ anchor Gayle King follows up the report with the Trump-approved “news” about file boxes moved at Mar-a-Lago.
ADDER-2: Editorial note — Seth Abramson has appropriated without permission the image used here at emptywheel, one prepared by me. I am NOT happy about it. What else has he mooched?
THANKS, RAYNE!
Rayne,
I’d like to submit Aaron Rupar to your list of noteworthy livetweets, as he makes videosnippets of the releveant highlights.
(Nickname altered to be atleast 8 letters long)
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Thanks much – I considered him but he doesn’t thread his coverage.
They need to throw down seriously today.
26 days to midterms.
Popcorn at the ready.
I’m rather put out with myself for having eaten an entire bag of HOT cheese popcorn, saving none for today. What was I thinking? I should have saved the entire bag for today’s hearing.
“None of this is normal, lawful, or acceptable…” definitely HOT popcorn.
“…premeditated plan…”
*Crunch-crunch. Crunch…*
Will J6 subpoena trump? I’m sure he would just ignore it anyway.
Why are you asking this if you’re so sure of the outcome? Just stop wasting the thread space here with this crap which doesn’t engage with the hearing’s output.
That criticism aged well.
And it is still a completely asinine and useless move by Cheney and the vaunted “Committee”.
Is it really useless for Congress to assert legal authority to subpoena former Presidents to testify before it?
Yes, it really is.
I had thought the point was to get the unanimous vote for a subpoena on record as a point of history.
NAL
That is a historical point of feckless stupidity by J6. It is meaningless and playing right into Trump’s hands. as is Cheney’s constant blathering about criminal referrals.
Seems to me that you are confusing politicians with lawyers, although there’s too much of an overlap for my taste between the two professions. The J6 Com has a different job than the DOJ and, from my perspective, the most essential thing they can do is not screw things up for the DOJ the way the Iran/Contra Com did back in the day.
So far, that seems to be working but IANAL and it ain’t over yet.
The subpoena for Trmp was a news bombshell and that may be exactly what it was intended to do. Whether it comes to anything else could be meaningless in the long run. I may be wrong about this but issuing a subpoena may be the only “punishment” for Trmp the J6 Com could impose.
So former Presidents only need voluntarily comply with the law? Or is it just Congress former Presidents can/should ignore whenever ex-Presidents feel like it? I’m trying to get a sense of what you honestly believe the powers of Congress should be limited to when it comes to compelling record production and testimony from former officials of the Executive Branch, and, more importantly, the rationale for that limit (if that is your actual position).
Liz Cheney’s opening statement was devastating. She anticipated many of the lines of attack the GOP will undoubtedly take in defending him. She is clearly focused like a laser on bringing Trump to justice and I look forward to the glorious day that happens!
Cheney’s not busy after January. Perhaps she’d like a job with the DOJ’s prosecution team?
Cheney has what experience as a front line prosecutor?
Liz did an excellent job at wrapping Republican iconography and imagery into her speech. She hit all of the noble high notes that right wing used to lap right up.
It was a good speech. Let’s hope it persuades some of the few still on the fence that Trump is not a person who should ever be near the levers of power in this country ever again.
1:25 Lofgren:
PREMEDITATED
BANNON 1/5/21 All hell is going to break loose
STONE Key thing to do is claim victory
I’m happy the J6 Committee is treating their audience like adults by not deleting the expletives. It lends greater impact to the statements of guys like Roger Stone when they’re recorded invoking violence.
1:38 KINZINGER
TRUMP rushed to finish business because HE KNEW he lost
The rhetorical tact by the J6 Committee here is an interesting way to undermine support for Trump and his Twisslerings. Not sure how many people who were duped by Trump it will hit squarely but at least Kinzinger et al are trying to move affections on the right away from coddling Twitler.
IMHO, less excitement but much more focused. They seem to have a good handle on how things came to be. Great to see Stone getting his hour in the sun. (Presumably that’s the link from Trump to the foot soldiers.)
Sadly, I will likely know no one in meat world who will watch this. I shudder to think how the media will cover it. I truly think the ball is in the DOJ court at this point. We can hope for an affect on the midterms, I guess.
Sorry for the low expectations.
So far, a fun-to-watch and incisive summary of the case built so laboriously over the summer, though with little that is “new” (except I think for the Danish films of Stone plotting & cussing). (Also, as I write, a new bit from Hutchison – T***p telling Meadows he knew he had lost.)
If you could find a few hundred thousand adult citizens in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina who were centrist or right-leaning but not MAGA cultists and who hadn’t followed any of this before, then sit them down to view the whole thing, it might well guarantee Democratic victories in those states’ elections. But I’m not sure such people can be found or made to pay attention. So it becomes kind of a “last stand” for the Congressional forces of truth as they hope for a DOJ rescue.
On that plane, the televised hearings may have been a success. See https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/the-jan-6-committee-is-having-a-measurable-impact-on-voter-attitudes
If nothing else, they have been the only generally trusted (by the persuadable, at least,) source clearly laying out the whole story, using actual facts and sworn testimony from the Republicans who were in the rooms when it happened, without the RWNM between them and the audience. I know DOJ can do the same thing, but with their restrictions, couldn’t do it quickly enough to break through public perception before the midterms. On the judicial system’s schedule, they’d manage to finish telling this story about a year after TFG’s reelection.
if the story didn’t get cogently told quickly, it might not have been told at all until it was too late. We needed a high-visibility, sober, political and PR response before then, and they seem to have been effective at that. Someday I hope to pat Kevin McCarthy on the head for gifting them the opportunity. (Imagine what a mess Coach Jordan could have made of it.) I sincerely none of hope DOJ’s cases haven’t been buggered.
It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than November arriving with no one besides the inimitable emptywheel telling the tale. I’ll take it,
Thanks for the link. In general we’re in agreement. I will say that Citizen Data’s polls are among the most “favorable” to the J6 Committee in terms of the effect size, and that they aren’t (to my knowledge) an especially experienced or excellent polling firm. 538 gives them a B/C rating, which isn’t terrible, and notes a 2.8% bias toward Democratic candidates, which also is within reasonable limits but suggests that their sampling tends to pick up more D-leaning folks.
1:47 Newly obtained SS message from 12/11 SCOTUS loss
HUTCHINSON was there. [Trump was raging]
TRUMP: I don’t want people to know that we lost, Mark
About a month late on that one…. (The former guy, that is.)
Interesting that Chairman Thompson said that it is also a business meeting — “to consider and vote at the end whether to take additional investigative steps.”
If we think about these hearings as a multi-episode TV drama (IIRC they have Hollywood consulting), then this could make a lot of sense. They started with some primetime hearings. To have maximum impact they would want to close with primetime again. However, the momentum is gone at the moment for that. They would not have gotten it if they asked, as it stands before today. But today could be aimed at the networks and journalists, with maximum shock value precisely to be able to get primetime space for one more hearing.
Otherwise I tend to agree that if it ends today, it ends with a whimper as a broad political matter.
To be fair, the timing for such a tactic got messed up when the hurricane caused the committee decision (rightly) to delay this hearing, and now it is really close to the election.
via MARCY:
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1580620096619548677
2:02 PM · Oct 13, 2022
Really? A non-enforceable subpoena at this late date? Wish I could be thrilled. If they want to do anything effective, could they make a formal criminal referral to DoJ and send over all their assembled documents, videos, transcripts etc. instead?
It’s political theater for sure. Though I wouldn’t complain if they sent Hillary along with a CNN camera crew to hand deliver it to FPOTUS. If nothing else just to see the petulant man-child blow a gasket live on camera.
And if Trump wasn’t subpoenaed for his personal testimony about the events that day and his role in them, what would that look like?
How would history look at the J6 Committee’s avoidance/refusal to allow FPOTUS to offer a defense?
It would look one hell of a lot smarter than this bullshit further preening stunt. These pricks are just fucking jokes. And now Cheney is prattling on again about “criminal referrals”. There is apparently no preening stunt they will not do to interfere with and prejudice the real investigation by DOJ.
Anybody that really means it when they say they want true accountability for Trump should be livid with this PR garbage by the J6 Committee. I truly hope this is really their last little infomercial. What a joke.
I mean, if Republicans regain control of the government the chance of Trump facing accountability plummets. So as far as these stunts help Democrats in 2022 and 2024, they’re worth it.
As usual Dr. bmaz, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.
(said with love)
I find it really strange that you express your anger at the Congressional Committee looking into the Jan 6th sedition as well as the myriad illegal actions of i.DJ.T. undertaken to thwart a US election rather than him. You tell people, as you may me, not to use disparaging names for him but step right up to disparage them with a vulgarity. I actually presumed that you would do this again over this hearing. OK so it’s an issue for DOJ (maybe) but it is 100% their job to investigate and as they said in opening not to ‘seek’ justice as it’s DOJs job and theirs is to find ways to protect future federal election processes. Take a hike Bmaz and I mean that literally. Go get mellow in nature.
I “find it really strange” that your petty go to move was to call it “anger” versus grave concern and an understanding of the interaction between parallel civil and criminal proceedings, and the damage that can result.
I did no such thing as to “disparaging names”. I used harsh, but true, adjectives, not names. If you cannot handle a vulgarity, so utilized, you are in the wrong place. I do not give a shit what you “assumed”, go take your own hike.
“pricks” isn’t an adjective.
It is a descriptor, but not a childish and stupid play on their names. But I guess you think you are earning bonus points for being consciously obtuse.
Dare I say that you are not the audience? For folks without your depth of experience and inside knowledge, a Congressional subpoena does send a message that there is fire at the base of the interminable smoke they hear. And, I believe it raises expectations that DOJ must do something. Cuss away, if you will, but this will bring a few people in to look closer at the case. Not millions, but not zero.
Lol, no it will not. A subpoena from the House sends a message that they are pulling a useless stunt for TV and PR time. It does not “raise” diddly squat at DOJ. Lol again. And if you do not like cussing, fuck it. Do you know the history of this blog?? I guess not, since you have been here an entirety of two whole comments.
I read this site most everyday and find it illuminating. IANAL. & found what I felt was a useful perspective that you, by definition, could not provide. I have already convinced three people who have been passive about this subject to listen to at least this ONE hearing.
For those of us who lack the insight to DOJ, the committee has done a job no one else has tackled. I don’t understand what you mean when you say its work is interfering with DOJ investigation.
Instead, what I can see is folks who care about what the public knows, and who have created a way for this huge and messy story to get out WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR DOJ.
NB: I had a roommate who was a federal public defender; she explained that federal prosecutors typically only bring cases to court that they believe they have 95% chance of winning.
This is in contrast to what average folks expect, so the impatience among the public increases and increases.
Cuss if you want. You care about that more than I do.
You may well like the Guest Opinion:
“The Jan. 6 Committee Has Been Almost Wholly Ineffective”
in the NYT today by Christopher Caldwell. It’s a good read.
This is in reply to bmaz.
Christopher Caldwell is associated with the Claremont Institute, intellectual home of John Eastman who is a Senior Fellow there. Caldwell’s opinion can be read in that light.
So… your theory continues to be that Congress is just ineffective and the DOJ is where it is at, eh? Where was this when Trump was President exactly? And where will this be if Trump becomes President again?
Although you likely do not care about me or my questions to any great extent, I will state that it is better to have a Congress try to get things right and fail then it is to have no Congress at all. Do you share that belief or not?
Republicans have been doing everything they can for decades to avoid the real issues facing the country.
(Rayne, changing to this 8-letter ID)
“Right as Rayne” as usual – but ought such a request for testimony (followed by a subpoena if refused) not have been issued months ago, in that case?
I don’t personally think so. I think they had to lay out more of today’s content showing a deliberate, overt effort by Trump to encourage the violence and to choose not to both protect the Capitol and uphold the Constitution by ensuring a government proceeding was not disrupted.
The challenge to getting a subpoena sooner in the course of this investigation has been the size of the conspiracy and the clock under which everything must run, combined with a limitation of resources. Oh, and obstruction, obstruction, obstruction.
A subpoena is just fucking laughable. First off, he would never show, and the House is incompetent at enforcing them. Secondly, if he ever did appear, he would assert a blanket Fifth. There is absolutely NOTHING that will ever come from this. It is simply a PR stunt by noisy J6 Committee members that don’t want to give up their 15 minutes of infomercial fame. What a bunch of stooges.
Look, if you were Trump’s attorney, what would you expect and demand from a House Committee likely to make a criminal referral?
Would you just issue a polite fuck-you and wait for the referrals, plural?
Or would you expect the committee to offer an opportunity to defend himself before he has to do so in front of a jury?
Don’t feel obligated to respond, I’m pretty sure you’re just going to say once again this is fucking laughable, political theater, a joke by stooges…what did I miss?
If they’d done it your way to make you happy, running this like a prosecution, the hearings and testimony wouldn’t end before Biden’s term.
It would be a not polite fuck you, and my client would never comply. “Referrals” are irrelevant, they mean nothing to actual criminal prosecution. That is just Cheney doing her Norma Desmond again. I don’t give a flying fuck about J6 Committee, nor when they end. It should have been long ago.
The J6C is not a criminal investigation body like the FBI, nor does it bring criminal charges like the Justice Department – and to judge the J6C by those standards is flat-out wrong.
It is a Select Committee of the House of Representatives; i.e., a political body – so it’s no surprise that it’s political. But the J6C has a purpose and function and it’s best to judge their efforts based on those criteria.
I’m surprised Steve Bannon didn’t call you for representation.
:-)
:-) But I didn’t mean political in a negative “witch-hunt’ way. I was acknowledging that its members are politicians. That doesn’t mean that work of the J6C, its purpose and function, are tainted. My point was that the J6C shouldn’t be judged as one would judge the FBI or DOJ. And because the FBI and DOJ tend to do their work quietly and only comment through court filings, the J6C serves a useful purpose of informing the public, in addition to any legislative changes they propose.
No, it means J6 is tainting the DOJ work. And J6 could have, and should have, done it all a LOT more quietly and professionally
Quietly is for the FBI and DOJ, not for the J6C. One of J6C’s purposes was to inform the public and this it has done. We can argue how much and how well, but clearly it has brought information about what happened on J6 to the public.
How has the J6C ‘tainted’ the DOJ’s work?
Uh, just explained that a bit ago. Did you not read it?
Sorry. I reviewed and found the post I think you’re referring to (time stamped 8:14 pm). It came in between our posts here and it’s hard to follow all the disparate threads below.
It seems you have two concerns. The first (and clearly the most important) is that the J6C interviewing potential witnesses in a criminal trial creates an “unhelpful record”. It may or it may be a minor nuisance to the DOJ. So far it hasn’t been an issue in the trials that have been and are being prosecuted. But I understand that it *may* be unhelpful in future criminal trials.
The second concern (which seems at odds with the first as I take your position as ‘no J6C’ would have been best) is that the J6C is not cooperating with DOJ. On this I agree with you and don’t understand why that has been an issue.
For the rest, whether it’s reporters reporting or J6C members speaking, the world won’t pause while DOJ does its work – no different than any other high-profile drama.
I was wondering about the issue of ‘taint’ and if the DOJ as said anything publicly about concerns, but found at least one reason that the J6C is not cooperating with DOJ: so as not to interfere with ongoing seditious conspiracy trials of the Oath Keepers. According to Politico, “U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta has so far ruled to keep the Sept. 26 trial on schedule but has indicated he’d consider a delay if the committee’s evidence lands in prosecutors’ laps before then.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/15/january-6-panel-department-of-justice-trump-00056932
Lol, no it has nothing to do with that. DOJ has b been plugging along just fine in spite of the whiny ass witty babies on the J6 Committee. And would be doing better with some cooperation.
So, other than your disdain for the J6C, there is no problem.
“How would history look at the J6 Committee’s avoidance/refusal to allow FPOTUS to offer a defense?”
Excellent point. I agree that he should be formally offered a seat or subpoenaed for his testimony. Though I was hasty in my judgment that this amounts to political theater, I can’t imagine that there have been zero attempts to allow FPOTUS to give his version of events (Obviously I have no evidence of communication between FPOTUS & J6).
Thank you for everything you do here.
(BTW Changing my Username to Bears7485. I meant to do it on the previous post and forgot)
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Hi there, I answered that previously, and more recently. If you think Trump is going to sit for substantive examination and response to this stupid Committee, you are on drugs. The Committee is nothing but cheap political theater.
You don’t think there’s value in presenting all of this information publicly? Your point about Trump sitting for an interview is sound, but I’m not sure “cheap political theater” is what these hearings have been. Today’s vote to subpoena Trump – I agree. The rest of it? Nope.
Yes, I think the whole thing has been a shitshow standing in the way of DOJ.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the J6 committee unearth some evidence and connections to events that were then referred to the DOJ during this past spring and summer?
Who knows? They claim that, but neither you nor they know what DOJ had and has. The J6 Committee has been belligerently all over every news show possible stating how they were leading the DOJ by the nose. DOJ can’t talk, so that is absolute garbage by the Committee.
I recall Marcy writing about testimony to the J6 Committee that related to witnesses in ongoing trials. They went after that testimony to ensure there were no surprises and the ironclad any appeals.
Probably a similar reason DOJ interviewed a few witnesses shortly after their testimony. Hard to tell if DOJ was unaware of these people, or if they wanted to get their interviews done shortly after public testimony to avoid discrepancies.
They obviously found some stuff the DOJ did not, otherwise DOJ wouldn’t have been keen on getting all the transcripts and other stuff the Committee had generated.
Ref https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-sends-letter-requesting-jan-6-committee-share-interview-transcript-rcna29321
When indictments remain unseen PR is all you have left.
At this point in the game, I would even argue that PR is more productive and important than waiting for the DOJ to do something.
As I’ve said before, this will be won at the ballot box, not the courtroom. DGMW, I’m hoping for both, but Garland strikes me as a new author who thinks their manuscript has to be perfect, and then wastes years rewriting it over and over before finally publishing it, only for his readers to say “Merrick who?”.
@Rayne: Added some numbers to meet the new UN requirements.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
So, you are yet another newcomer that blithely wanders in here to bitch that there have not been “indictments” irrespective of whether the necessary elements of applicable crimes and DOJ charging standards have been fully met? Lovely. Because it makes you feel good to rail about things you don’t understand on the internet?
One, I’m not new.
Two, we’ve been repeatedly presented with a mountain of crimes, all the evidence supporting those crimes, and excellent commentary by the legal minds here, including you, in support of indictments.
Yet, we’re also supposed to believe that Garland, who is not exactly new at this, doesn’t have ONE CHARGE that he feels he can get a conviction on?
Gunshy is the word that comes to mind. I now have more faith in the states bringing trump to justice than I do Garland.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I’m no longer following the DOJ’s actions. I’m watching the State Attorneys instead.
Who are “we” Kemosabe? The shit put on by the J6 Committee means nothing unless and until they give the root docs and video depo to DOJ. Nothing. Their slickly edited little informercials are never coming into evidence in a criminal trial. And neither are the thousands of media reports without a proper foundation, especially the ones based of anonymous sources. The state of “the evidence” that is actually usable is a fraction of what people think it is.
Since the reason for the Committee’s existence is to pass appropriate legislation it server the Congress better to get the former President’s testimony if they can. Not attempting to get such testimony and then passing any legislation means the legislation will be drafted with key information missing. Drafting such laws would benefit from honest testimony.
The subpoena actually does something – it removes the GQP’s talking point that this was a witch hunt where Trump didn’t have an opportunity to defend himself against. Trump HAS been invited to sit and defend himself from the accusations made against him. Will he do it?
As an attorney, you know as well as I do that Trump would perjure himself in a heartbeat if he got on the stand and under oath. He has done it before – over 30 times in a sworn deposition a few years back in fact. If he was your client, would you put him on the stand? (SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/)
It comes down to this – it is put up or shut up. They claim that they didn’t get an opportunity to say your side of the story. Well, the January 6 Select Committee are giving him his opportunity to do so. If he does, he goes to jail because he will lie. That is a fact. If he doesn’t respond, it means that he elected not to do something he and the GQP have been complaining about since day 1. Talking point over.
Trump is toast no matter what he does here and you know it. Trump will perjure himself if he gives sworn testimony. He will lose his talking point about it being a Witch Hunt if he refuses to come forward and testify.
Rwood080 – I would be curious where you get your information on Garland and this “new author” conclusion. How do you back this assumption up. Have you studied his career?
Since you asked, this is how I see it.
This is a battle on two fronts, the first is a legal battle waged by the DOJ to hold trump accountable. The second is a psyops battle waged by the J6 committee for the mindset of the voters. In some ways, they overlap and in others, they work against each other. Time is the deciding factor.
The first front is what gets talked about here at EmptyWheel. Much like surgeons who feel every solution to a medical issue is surgery, lawyers feel every solution to a criminal act is found within the walls of a courtroom. “Accountability” is the goal and to them, that is defined by a jail sentence or some other punishment handed down by the system. But this form of accountability does little more than stop that particular criminal from performing future crimes, and while they might be paying for the crimes they have committed, those crimes are not magically undone once they go off to prison.
The second front has a different outcome, one that prevents further damage but also highlights the means by which that damage was done, and by educating the voter and shining a spotlight on the crimes committed it influences their vote at the ballot box and enables the politicians to take action that prevents those crimes from being committed again.
Shorter version: The DOJ is fighting Trump, the J6 committee is fighting Trumpism.
The psyops battle is fought at a much faster pace than the legal battle, especially with this DOJ. Garland has been a lawyer his entire life and he fits the description I mentioned to a T. But he is also in the timeline of a lawyer. He will take months to build his perfect case with no regard to the psyops battle that is being waged all around him. He feels that a win in the courtroom will not only solve the problem of Trump but also be the end of it. Thats not my opinion, it’s the opinion of several lawyers I know. This is where I feel Garland is wrong.
Trumpism is still a threat. It will not go away with Trump. They say cults die with their leaders, but Trumpism is already being adopted by other politicians who have figured out how to leverage it to their advantage. I know, I live in Florida. The “TV dramas” the J6 committee are doing are the best weapon to combat that.
Bmaz says the J6 is hurting the DOJ. I agree. But the same is true of the DOJ hurting the end goal of the J6. If the DOJ were to indict Trump it would boost the credibility of the J6 hearings ten-fold. By delaying Garland is wasting time and a valuable psyops multiplier.
When writing books it is often said that “Done is better than perfect.” Garland needs to pull the trigger before there is nothing left to gain but jailing Trump.
“The second is a psyops battle waged by the J6 committee for the mindset of the voters.”
No. You actually think the party which struggles to produce a uniform coherent party message and promote itself to assure another term in office is capable of an organized psyop? Pffft.
If the DOJ indicts Trump, it will be inspire of the glory whores at the J6 Committee and will do absolutely nothing to make them more important.
It is not the job of Garland to save democracy so how the timing of DOJ affects the reputation of the committee is irrelevant.
Correct.
That these committee hearings are not at best just a dog ‘n pony show is something i cannot begin to defend; IMHO bmaz is correct, at least we should be grateful the committee hasn’t granted anyone any sort of immunity. yet. OTOH i am certain that anyone watching the hearings has to know by now that Trump has no defense, he was watching his riot unfold on Fox news. No phone calls, no texts, no tweets and nobody saw him leave, either.
The average person, myself included, wants to see at least something happen and soon. Before this too gets swept under the rug and goes away like everything else has. Bmaz, what happens if Trump’s ego takes over & in responding to the subpoena he decides to try this in public and lies under oath? Anything?
Lying under oath would be bad for him, though he is not beyond it. I just don’t think he will answer questions under oath, and no good lawyer would let him. The E. Jean Carrol depo thing is soon, though, and that will be interesting to see. But, if he has any sense at all, he is not testifying to the committee.
Uh bmaz, just saw this in the Guardian this AM wherein Trump is eager to speak to the J6 committee (under oath?). We can only hope that Trump’s ego might be his downfall yet…
But Trump is also known for his double talking spin. This is time for the benefit of the mid-terms.
Bet you by the Friday after the elections Trump has already refused to comply with J6 subpoena.
Glory whores?
Yes. That is exactly what they have proved themselves to be. If it was strictly a legislative function, they could have done it with less noise and self promotion. And if accountability was really the goal, they could have liaised far better with DOJ. But J6 did none of that, and went for self promoted infomercials as opposed to actual presentation of evidence.
The problem here is the assumption that Congress is about enforcing existing laws directly. They are not. The J6 Committee is being undertaken not just to have current laws enforced but >to draft new legislation<. If the Committee believes that having Trump testify before the Congress would result in better laws going forward than I support their effort with regards to today's subpoena.
Just like all the Benghazi investigations and findings BS – even Trey Gowdy admitted it was “just politics”. (Source: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/trey-gowdy-stops-pretending-admits-this-is-politics.html)
Taking it a step further, Trey Gowdy even admitted he falsified governmental records in the attempt to frame Clinton. He decided to redact information because HE felt it should have been classified. The problem for him was that he wasn’t an ADC and therefore had no right to classify anything, AND the classifying agency (CIA) already deemed the material classified.
If you feel it is okay for the GQP to have an “investigation” on Benghazi, you need to be okay with the Democrats having them over January 6. It is easily arguable that the events of January 6 have greater importance to the nation than a consulate in a far away location being attacked.
The Benghazi investigation — particularly questioning Hillary Clinton for 11 hours in one hearing — was definitely all politics. There was no serious intent to change any legislation to prevent another Benghazi-like event.
This is a key difference between the House J6 Committee investigation and hearings; it would also behoove folks to remember Trump and his minions attacked a co-equal branch of government, which would have failed in an existential fashion had it not conducted a full investigation with public hearings.
lol. Love the visual that came to mind with that scenario.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
It’s a wee late for that. Jim Jordan will be the House Speaker in about 90 days. But okay. maybe this will remind the DOJ they have more than one investigation of Donald J. Trump.
First, the control of the House is still hotly contested. Dems might retain control.
Second, if the GOP wins control Jordan will have to duke it out with McCarthy for the speaker’s gavel. McCarthy has shown that he will do anything to get the gavel.
Third, Jordan might have more fun running another Benghazi- style investigation of Biden, Hunter, Hillary, Pelosi and Garland.
MURPHY
2:10 12/19/20 Tweet
2:11 Kremer 1/4/21 text re: TRUMP’s involvement.
Trump worked with others to plan the rally
TRUMP was central player.
I think Kinzinger’s reminder that Individual-1 ordered the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan needs a bit more play. TFG closed Bagram as well, leaving Biden’s DoD few options to complete the withdrawal. FWIW, staying beyond Individual-1’s announced deadline would IMHO have been worse since it would have provided cause for even more actions by a broader set of factions. Kabul’s airport fiasco is bad on many levels, but if we did not leave it would have been an order of magnitude worse.
I think as well that there are too many bits of evidence flowing in to shut down the J6SC now. Let’s see what the vote is for.
Agree! That little bit was shocking, and it should carry some weight with those whose patriotism runs through the military.
This is laser focused on Trump. Voting to subpoena would be in keeping.
Trump’s petulant, vengeful decisions, seemingly taken to fuck shit up for Biden’s administration, do indeed merit further attention. He did a range of things, from pardons to attempted declassification of Russia documents to rash military choices, that had profound implications–all negative–for both individuals and democracy.
His goals still overlap with those of the GOP in that all of them benefit from a collapse of trust in government. While Trump’s chief aim was self-service, pursuing it involved tearing down institutions (DOJ and DOD for example) that have yet to recover, and in that pursuit he is still greatly aided by most elected Republicans.
Okay, Schiff is giving us some new material (or so I think – might have missed some stuff recently), notably that the Secret Service had plenty of advance warning about the violence and actually arrested people with firearms that day (contrary to what right-wingers keep saying).
Aside from the added strength to the case they’re making, I keep worrying about how complicit some agents may have been (may still be?) in the MAGA cult – given their deletion of so many text messages from the crucial days, even after having those messages requested by investigators…
Yes, Tony Ornato is one questionable former Secret Service agent. Now retired, he was top secret service official in a political position at the WH with Trump.
One could easily deduce that the reason you don’t see the SS arresting Proud Boys is the same reason you never see Myley Cyrus and Hanna Montana in the same room.
You have any evidence for that, or naw, just blurting things out?
Not yet, but I would place a healthy bet on it being true. Probably have to wait a couple of years for Garland to get around to it though. If ever.
Getting a hobby in retirement is so much more fulfilling than spending all day getting mad at people on the internet.
First off, I am not retired. Secondly, I don’t need a freaking hobby. You think this was your best play? How about you go find a hobby, and not here. To quote, um, you in a previous comment, “take a chill pill big boy”.
What Schiff is implying here is that it’s not just one person but a more systemic failure. Either way, the Congress may need to draft new laws that influence the way the Secret Service and its personnel behave when/if future threats arise against the Congress and Constitution. If that means increasing the penalties for failure to uphold one’s oath to defend the Constitution or broader new laws then those ideas need to be explored against a backdrop of a more complete understanding of what went right and wrong and why during the closing months of the Trump Administration.
It is quite telling that he retired the day before he was to be interviewed by the January 6 committee.
It’s not just the USSS that I’m concerned about: Email warns ‘sizeable percentage’ of FBI workforce sympathetic to Jan. 6 rioters
2:22
Jason MILLER to MEADOWS text
12/30/20 6:05 PM [email link of violent rhetoric on donald dot win.] “I got the base FIRED UP”
It’s one thing to assume that the Secret Service was aware of the coming violence but it’s quite shocking to see it in writing. I didn’t think I could get any angrier.
Rayne, I will be using Suburban Bumpkin going forward per your request on my last comment.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. Much appreciated, Judy. /~Rayne]
2:48
TRUMP: 1/6/21 [to law enforcement about armed supporters]: “Can you just let them come up, please?”
A gauntlet is laid down by Aguilar—I think he said “we’ll be talking to some of those lying m-fers again.” Something like that. Also investigating attempts to obstruct testimony.
Is it weird that, given all the known horrifying behavior, it’s so important to some to suppress that Trump got very, very angry that one time?
Raskin
Secret Service:
1/6/21 1:25 PM
ie: 3:30 PM
Good lord. He was still attacking us that afternoon. He still wanted to go to the Capitol hours after assaulting a member of his security detail. He was furious, and this republic was on fire. The fire has not been extinguished.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/04/05/how-did-the-proud-boys-have-better-lines-of-communication-about-national-guard-reinforcements-than-the-national-guard-did/#comment-888039
3:30 PM Roger STONE was attempting to get people to converge NORTHEAST of the Capitol at this time. [More info at comment]…]
So the plan maybe was to get Trump back to the Capitol on the NE side? Interesting…
Maybe a tell of sorts? I noticed Pence and Cippolone looking straight into the camera for a moment when giving their best impression of someone who cares deeply about democracy and the rule of law, obviously for public consumption.
Apparently the SC denied Trump’s appeal without dissent
[Did you not read the multiple warnings not to post content unrelated to this hearing in this thread? Get out. /~Rayne]
Okay. This footage from the Capitol is making me cry. Very powerful.
Here comes the vote to subpoena TFG.
Even if he did appear, they’d never get an honest answer out of Trump
Looks like Ms. Cheney is setting up the leadership of the insurrection to be held accountable.
She is not doing dick shit except acting like she is ready for her TV closeup like a modern day Norma Desmond. Just a fucking joke.
I am really concerned that Mike Flynn is actively out there recruiting Evangelical pastors and asking them to build up armed militias. He REALLY needs to be reined in. To me, Flynn’s activity is a genuine national security emergency.
So, the US Government should interfere with Flynn’s First Amendment political and religious speech rights? What are you suggesting?
Clearly, IANAL and I do defer to you, but…might it not be stretching the 1st amendment to be recruiting an anti-government army? This activity really troubles me. And regardless of protected speech, it should trouble everyone.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/michael-flynn-is-recruiting-an-army-of-god-in-growing-christian-nationalist-movement
Aside from that, he’s up to his eyeballs in the planning and execution of the military aspect of the assault on the US Capitol.
The minute the mob trespassed onto restricted Capitol grounds, it ceased to be a First Amendment exercise. Many of the rioters were charged with
18 USC 1752(a)(1) Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
18 USC 1752(a)(2) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority
at a minimum. That members of the conspiracy like Jason Miller knew and expected this to be the minimum that would happen based on their efforts to incite their target audience *and then pointedly fail to discourage or restrain them* is definitely problematic and an indication that the co-conspirators did not want to limit the crowd to First Amendment protests alone.
That is simply not true as to Trump and his inner circle, that would maybe turn out that way, but it would be a huge part of any attempted defense. And an argument I would make in a heartbeat.
“Yeah I can’t reveal the communications but obviously I think, you know…. Yeah.”
What??
Quoting Cipollone for some reason.
I take it the subpoena will be withdrawn the 1st week of January (assuming Republicans win the House).
What the fuck difference does it make, the House is incapable of enforcing a subpoena. This is all just ridiculous.
Then their only hope is to woo Trump into talk to them before December 31. A Colonel Jessup moment. Stage it as a prime time special on ESPN. Serve him fried chicken and ice cream and give him the floor. We’ve all seen Trump do crazier things.
That will NEVER happen.
It doesn’t matter. They just want Trump to react – he’ll babble like crazy and eventually say something really interesting…
Who gives a fuck what this preening Committee wants? And, no, he will never be babbling to them.
In June Trump said “I demand Equal Time”. Well now he has an invitation.
btw, has anybody seen bmaz and Andy Biggs anywhere at the same time?
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1580644736121335809
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name; you commented last as “miketherevelator.” Pick a name and stick with it. Additionally, do NOT get pissy with the moderators here. /~Rayne]
Go fuck yourself with the Andy Biggs thing. What hole of ignorance did you crawl out of?
No, he won’t be babbling to them. He’ll get up in front of the cameras soon, or post on Truth Social, or have a rally, then he’ll imagine he’s cutting loose on the committee, while in fact he’s spilling clues left and right, like he usually does. IMHO the committee just wants to collect more public statements.
I thought Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress, but IANAL.
He was, and he now awaits sentencing: hearing date 10-21-22.
I think that perhaps what some of the angrier folks here are implying is that the DOJ will not be enforcing this subpoena for the Congress in this instance. DOJ has already declined to make contempt of Congress indictments against at least two people (including Mark Meadows) who openly refused to fully honor J6 Committee issued subpoenas. Yes, Bannon has been convicted due to DOJ diligence there but that doesn’t mean that DOJ is going to indict everyone Congress wants them to.
Don’t know, but could be because Meadows is otherwise quietly cooperating with DOJ with respect to Trump.
Yes, I agree, but my point was simply that while Congress itself cannot enforce the subpoena (because it is legislative, not executive), their subpoenas aren’t automatically toothless because they come from Congress.
Regarding Meadows and Scavino (I think he’s the other one that missed charges, but I may be wrong), is it possible they weren’t charged because they are cooperating with the DOJ investigation? I don’t think we know one way or the other, but Navarro and Bannon were pretty vocal about ignoring the subpoena – Meadows and Scavino have been pretty quiet about it to my recollection.
I think it’s very clear that unless Democrats pull a major upset, there will not be enough time to enforce the Trump subpoena.
Yes, if the target of the Congressional subpoena is intent on challenging and fighting it, the history is exactly that … they are pretty much automatically toothless. And, with the Democratic House, they barely ever even try to fight for enforcement.
I regret that I must agree with bmaz on this. It’s all so much kayfabe kabuki theater.
Great. Noted. I suppose the mission of the committee should also be treated as kayfabe kabuki — they should not have bothered to investigate and disclose their findings to the public in order to reform Capitol and White House security, Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security operations, and legislation governing the acknowledgement of the election’s outcome and a subsequent peaceful transition of power in order to prevent another future insurrection and possible autogolpe by a president who refuses to acknowledge they’ve lost an election.
Congress must investigate the seeming complicity of members of the Secret Service and FBI. The current administration would seem to be in danger if those who looked the other way when evidence of the attack appeared well in advance of January 6 are still involved in the protection of the President and Vice-President. If they are dependent on members of the Secret Service and FBI who seemingly facilitated the attack, we are all in danger, especially if the GOP takes over the House.
The Speaker of the House could be Kevin McCarthy.
And DOJ too…eventually? Congress isn’t keen on that at the moment but letting DOJ investigate itself isn’t necessarily an awe inspiring expedition into public accountability per se.
If the Republic survives much more of this Trumpian danger, it will be interesting to compare the reaction by the Congress and other institutions to the Watergate scandal vs the insurrection and other administrative failures and malfeasances of the Trump era in our politics.
I too am interested in seeing an investigation of Justice. One of the reasons I am sure that relying on Justice to get this done properly is that I DON”T BELIEVE THAT JUSICE CAN GET THIS DONE PROPERLY, given the corruption of the Department during the Trump years. I ALSO DISAGREE WITH the assessment put forward here by a top man that Garland’s reputation preceeds him. I know his past deserves no such accolade. (The “Boychik” family has headed several NYC law firms. Also represented in US goverment positions, so there is news that isn’t in the News).
Thank you for that.
Concur.
How is the disclosure of sworn testimony/fifth pleadings and document/video evidence kayfabe kabuki theater?
Why “kabuki” theater instead of normal theater? I don’t see anyone wearing masks or elaborate costumes.
Further, is it just kabuki to allow the US Constitution’s various institutions to each have a day in the sun with regard to this scandal? If the Congress is as ineffective and ineffectual as some posit here then that’s something that we need to see, not hide from public knowledge. Otherwise the situation may not change for the better. To some that may be a hopeless waste of time and/or counter-productive…but that’s where the institutions are going to be one way or the other…so let’s have it be more public if possible, not hidden from view more and more.
Absolutely. A fact finding investigation regarding what was clearly a conspiracy to disrupt Congressional proceedings (I’m being generous here it could also be called an outright attempt to overthrow the government) is in no way a worthless endeavor even if the desired results (Trump finally shutting the fuck up or going to jail, his supporters waking up, GOP congressmen/women being held accountable for their bullshit) aren’t what happened.
Strong whiff of grandstanding coming off the committee now. What’s the value of this subpoena? Perhaps it will have a beneficial effect on mid-terms? It’s in the DOJ court now.
The exercise of the Article I branch is more than just grand standing IMO. It would be nice if it swayed the mid-terms, yeah, but what’s the chance of that exactly, right? As for DOJ and this subpoena…
It’s not yet in the DOJ’s “court” at all by any means. If it ever gets to the point of being in DOJ’s “court”, DOJ will do what DOJ thinks is best for DOJ at that time. That time is at least weeks or months away…if ever. If the GQP takes control of the Congress after the mid-terms then DOJ can just ignore this Congressional subpoena entirely in all likelihood.
The DoJ is compromised.
Garland refused to pursue indictments for obstruction of justice in the Mueller report .
As for his “Reputation”, bring up Oklahoma City, which happened when Garland was working for the Clinton administration DOJ. He barely participated but his mentor (Jamie Gorelick) put out plenty of quotes for the media. She bamboozled people into thinking that Merrick Garland is the kind of guy who would uphold justice, pursue people who are a threat to this country. No.
So to briefly review the background of Gorelick: She is the quintessential Big Law corruption lawyer, much like her mentor, Alan Dershowitz. She serves to protect deeply corrupt individuals. For example, she volunteered in 2017 to be Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s lawyer. This is in part how they got their security clearance. She profited from a massive student loan corruption scheme while representing Fannie Mae. She is a modern Roy Cohn or, you know, a contemporary of Alan Dershowitz, because that’s who trained her. And then she went on to train Merrick Garland.
She gave him his “Reputation”.
There’s more…
Thanks for this background.
As an aside, one thing that really gets under my skin is the common practice of speaking as though the DOJ = Merrick Garland. Our celebrity obsessed, self-centered society can not longer conceive of an institution staffed by people who set aside their personal beliefs and agendas to serve the purpose of the institution–which is to say are cogs in a wheel, following procedure, law, and precedent to pursue a common end. I know that this describes an ideal state of affairs that is never fully achieved, but we used to at least pretend, and at least have the ability to conceive of issues apart from individual personalities. I sincerely hope that whether or not DOJ pursues charges against Trump, that decision is not one that rests purely on the shoulders of Merrick Garland. It’s as though people think of him as our Bill Barr.
I say this not in response to your eye-opening background information, just a general observation.
I said COMPROMISED in regards to the Department, with Garland just the latest flawed attorney. You are correct though. Barr was responsible for that. Trump furthered the rot even after the stench of Barr. The fact that Barr is now trying to rehabilitate his reputation is laughable.
I hope my previous comments make it clear that I do not think the J6 hearings are all grandstanding. I think the subpoena of Trump is grandstanding in the sense that it will lead to sound and fury, perhaps useful for Dems, but not to results. Likewise, when I say the ball is in DOJ court, I mean that if there is to be any more actual result of investigation into Trump wrt J6, that will come, not from Congress, but from the DOJ. It will be interesting to follow the proposals from the J6 committee wrt changes into the electoral count act and other protections against a repeat.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1 – GOP are going to go NUTS, BANANAS, BATTY regarding subpoena for Trump.
“Only guilty people plead the Fifth” – Trump
This is when the Democratic Party as a whole should be developing a communications strategy to deal with the wig out.
YES! Get Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He is excellent at messaging.
Eh it could have been stronger, they did the necessary initial fact finding and now the voters get to speak, and the DOJ will act in the fullness of time one hopes.
They only had to shift the conversation a degree or two, and in my opinion they did that.
I like the vote. Give the Donald one more legal headache, show how he won’t face the music. His cult won’t care but they’re increasingly a lost cause.
Lol, so you are all about worthless show then, eh? Thanks for letting us know you are not serious. And don’t give a shit if it screws up the real path for “accountability”. Well done, old chap, well done!
We differ here. I think political theater can be valuable.
Well, you differ away. I am concerned about the only real path to accountability. That is the DOJ, and the health and integrity of that investigation and, hopefully, prosecution. But if you think the J6 poseurs are that important, have at it. It’s bullshit, but whatever.
bmaz, IANAL but have been here long enough to understand that you obviously know what you’re talking about.
You have said more than once, if I understand correctly, that the country should not expect the judicial branch to remedy political problems. I had never heard this idea before I started reading this site, but I have to say it makes perfect sense.
That being the case, I wish you could elaborate on what the J6 committee is doing that impedes the legal/DoJ aspect (as opposed to just being legally harmless nonsense that is potentially effective in educating voters). To me it looks as if they are taking care of the political dimension while DoJ addresses the legal.
I can see how the Committee’s actions might be irrelevant to legal matters but am hoping you can elaborate on how they might actively be hindering DoJ.
Thank you. I don’t know what I would do without this site and its loyal commenters, you obviously among them.
J6 is interviewing and deposing witnesses that are critical, creating unhelpful records prior to the natural pattern of DOJ. J6 has consistently refused to cooperate substantially with DOJ. The J6 members go out in press and TV and relentlessly claim they are the ones doing everything and DOJ is chasing them. Anytime criminal witnesses have been compromised by prior civil nonsense, it is a very bad thing for prosecutors.
Thank you. Clear and helpful, to some of us stragglers anyway.
On the topic of expecting the courts to make decisions on matters that properly belong to the politicians, the October 2022 edition of Harper’s Magazine has an article by Ian MacDougall entitled “Courting Disaster: Why liberals should give up on the judiciary” that addresses just that problem.
ref https://harpers.org/archive/2022/10/courting-disaster-why-liberals-should-give-up-on-the-judiciary/
Thanks for that. That was a clear and understandable explanation and makes it pretty obvious that the balance to be made is between the politics of moving people away from Trumpism and the procedure and practice of application of the law.
IANAL by a very long shot, but the one time I served on a jury (a criminal case) i observed that the jury alone in its room deliberating and discussing is a crucible of democracy itself. Establishing rules to allow free speech in the room, electing a foreman, voting, trying to balance law, morality, common sense, concern for individual rights, worry about the community. In other words, a supremely political endeavor, and not in the sense of party politics.
Difficult moment since the goal of the Trump movement is to weaken the country. Hard to decide that alone the legal or political defense of the republic would be enough.
Thanks for your contribution.
Yes. Contrary to many in the public, my experience with juries is that once empanelled, they take their job seriously. And, yeah, once sent to deliberate, it really is a microcosm of democracy. It is designed to be so. And my experience is they “usually” get things right.
I would kill to sit on a jury, in any kind of case. Have been summonsed many times, but the prosecution in criminal cases, and the defense in civil ones, will never pass me from voir dire. In one instance, the judge saw me from the start and told me to go ahead and leave because he knew me and knew I would never get seated.
I envy your experience as a juror.
Before I became a lawyer I sat on a jury in a criminal trial and was elected foreman. We took a straw poll as our first act and we were 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict. We then spent four days in earnest deliberations (after a three day trial) with no change in positions before reporting out to the judge that we were hung. Despite my strong personal conclusion that justice required a guilty verdict, we as a jury did not reach a guilty verdict, the prosecution had not met its burden and the defendant was a free man. The criminal legal system worked and that was the right result despite my strong personal view of the case.
My take here is that the J6 committee is effectively delivering imperfect political (not criminal) accountability not only for Trump but for a large number of political actors who supported the attack on our democracy.
I fully support DOJ’s methodical quiet work on the criminal front. I am patiently waiting for them to run the massively complex process like the professionals they are and I will support whatever result the criminal justice system comes to. I do worry that a single juror may rightfully sink an otherwise just prosecution of Trump. If that happens, the J6 committee’s imperfect political accountability may be all we get.
I hope for justice and accountability across both the political and legal spheres and I get it that these spheres conflict more than they need to because of J6 committee decisions. I agree that the J6 committee may impede what DOJ can do in a criminal prosecution. I wish the J6 committee were better at minimizing interference with the criminal process. I’m glad we’re getting at least the political accountability they’re administering broadly.
Glad you got to sit on one. They are certainly imperfect, but really work way better than a lot of people think. Been in front of them a lot, but, again, would kill to actually sit on one. Alas, never going to happen.
If there are to be charges against Trump, that is all you can ask for. It is the worst system in the world…except for all the others.
My experience was opposite. I ended up being the sole juror voting for Guilt. I was attacked by my fellow jurors as being racist and all that. We ended up being sequestered and none of my fellow jurors would either eat at the restaurant with me or share a hotel room with me (Courts don’t have enough allowance for proper food and lodging…or courtrooms, for that matter).
Next day I am still the hold-up. After the Judge dismissed us, the Asst.DA stops me to say that he knew that I was the holdout. He wanted to assure me that there was additional knowledge of previous convictions for offences which were not admitted, so I was pretty correct in my view.
No one from that jury would walk out with me, or stand next to me on the subway platform. One left the subway car when she saw me enter.
I’m not really with bmaz at all on the worthlessness of the J6 committee – to me, their value is to the public at large, not to hold people accountable in a criminal fashion. I imagine the evidence they have gathered will be used by the DOJ in criminal proceedings, though.
That said, they absolutely did impede the DOJ by refusing to turn over interview transcripts for quite a while. DOJ was completely blindsided by Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, for example.
May 17 (Politico – Kyle Cheney, Nicholas Wu)
The Department of Justice has asked the Jan. 6 select committee for transcripts from its investigation but the panel has not yet shared them, the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said Tuesday.
Thompson (D-Miss.) said he has replied that the committee won’t hand over its “work product” but might invite department officials to review the documents in committee offices.
“My understanding is they want to have access to our work product. And we told them, no, we’re not giving that to anybody,” Thompson said in comments confirmed by a committee aide.
Yes. Bennie Thompson has been a consistent dick. You have identified the problem, yet seem to not have a clue about the implications of it as to actual prosecution of criminal targets. You are getting closer…I guess.
By the way, where did you suddenly come from to be trying to change any narrative here? Also, by the way, I do not need explanations from you as to what people are trying to do here. that is not helpful, we can decide for ourselves.
Your comment is noted, but I am not going to stop commenting when I feel I have something to say because I like participating in the (mostly) intelligent discussion and learning from more knowledgeable people willing to share their expertise here.
I came from the same place as everyone else who isn’t a contributor – I found this site and have come to quickly develop a high appreciation for it.
I’m not sure I gave you anything other than my own opinion, but I wish you well on your endeavor to replace Taylor Budowich or Christina Pushaw.
Hi there jackass. Take your cheap “Taylor Budowich or Christina Pushaw” horse manure, and get on out of here. If that is the way you are going to contribute, you are not welcome. If you knew anything about this site and who we are, you would never say such an ignorant thing. Get lost.
You are, however, doing an excellent job of bashing Democrats based on your personal opinion of how a select House bipartisan committee should perform its job.
Yes, I think the Committee is shit. Morphing that into that I am “Taylor Budowich or Christina Pushaw” is far beyond the pale and out of bounds. And I do not think the committee is particularly “doing their job”, certainly not in a competent manner.
I think the Justice Department is shit.
So we have an honest debate.
I defer to you as a legal expert, My thinking has been that prosecuting TFG for J6 would be next to impossible with all the executive wiggle room.
Now the TS docs case is where the rubber may meet the road.
I believe that each of our goverment authorities have their own specific purpose. (And I find that many agree, citizens, Constitutions…you know).
Congress does have responsibility to investigate the events surrounding January 6.
Don’t let anyone shout you down on that.
Others and myself have had versions of this argument since the hearings started. At this point it’s difficult for me to get worked up about it. It’s a difference of opinion – and I’m not a very serious person lol.
Please don’t get the impression that I am worked up about it. I’m new here, so I’m mostly listening (ie reading).
That said, I am forthright in my comments and stand by them. My comment is my word.
I’m not sure it matters that much if it’s political theatre. Most people aren’t lawyers. The DOJ is in charge of that side of things anyway, isn’t it? The vote by the committee is pretty meaningless.
What matters most, in my opinion, is if the evidence presented has an impact on what large numbers of people think about DJT and, more importantly, what they think of his candidates. It could help change some minds. Maybe people will turn away from candidates that blindly support the man whose done so much damage. In any case, I enjoyed seeing so many people that were close to him paint him for what he really is. The more rats that jump ship the better.
“Meaningless”? AYFKM? it is sucking oxygen and evidence, and tainting the same, from DOJ. If you think this J6 crap is “what matters most”, you are sorely misguided. But, hey, being TV infomercial fanboys seems to be pretty popular here.
I think Expat is saying “what matters most” about the committee’s work is XYZ, not that the committee itself is what matters most.
Well, I think what I have consistently said is this Committee is more concerned about themselves and their own PR than “XYZ”, because they are screwing up “XYZ”.
So none of this kinda’ thing then:
“The corrective measures described in this subsection may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken—
(1) to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions;
(2) to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans; and
(3) to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism.”
Yeah, thanks, I am familiar with the legislative purpose doctrine and do not need your assistance. Also, too, the committee certainly does not have to do that in such a glory whoring public manner as opposed to actually just doing their jobs.
Yes, you are welcome. Have you now shifted your position from attacking the J6 for damaging Justice’s case and for not allowing Justice to have the only word on the matter?
Is it now your position that it is just their bad form?
Sounds more resonable to me now, and I can agree wth you on that.
(P.S. Sorry for any dust up on my arrival on scene. I just started with Covid and it’s winning just now.)
No, I have changed exactly nothing.
And proud of it!
(Is this a Covid related symptom that I am experiencing, or is this a real, sincere commenter? I wonder.)
I am not a “commenter”. I have been here since before day one of this blog (about 16 years before your magical arrival) and have authored probably more posts than everybody, save Marcy, combined. You are barking up very much the wrong tree. Seems to be your intent. Wonder why that is? Why are you here so suddenly and aggressively? We are not your playground.
Agree with those saying that this ended with a whimper because it’s clear the House won’t enforce it. They’ve proven incapable of litigating anything on a fast enough track to matter. They could have said — “testimony in two weeks, no extensions, and we are prepared to go to SCOTUS on an emergency basis. We know Trump will sue, so he should sue now or show up, or face criminal contempt referral before the new congress is sworn in. If he wants to come take the 5th like he has to in NY, we welcome that.”
That said, the pure political theatre of the J6 subpoena may have one important benefit.
Expect Trump to declare his 2024 candidacy the day after the election. From his perspective, that does two things. First, he grabs the news cycle whatever happens that election night. Second, and more importantly, he gets an enhanced talking point (and endless NYT stories) about how an indictment came after his announcement and therefore was clearly political.
A J6 subpoena right now at least takes some wind out of that sail, because now Trump “is declaring for a 2024 run” to avoid the subpoena. The appearance of who is moving second in response/defensively matters.
Not a ton of benefit, but since Garland isn’t going to indict (if at all) before Trump makes his 2024 announcement, this is the next best thing (admittedly weak sauce). Might make a difference in the baseline NYT/WaPo coverage.
I keep having a dream that Garland will announce the indictment the morning after Midterm Election Day, to beat Trump to the punch on a 2024 announcement yet avoid the midterm election interference “appearance” (nonsense). No way he will do it, but it’s the right move.
Not doing something to “avoid the appearance” of influencing the midterm elections is doing something to influence the midterm elections. It is also a clear signal that nothing substantive will be done after the midterm elections.
Time line: Subpoena, next few weeks; day of deposition: a few weeks after that; District Court challenge, a week or 2; Court of Appeals, a week or 10 days: en bank: another week; SCOTUS, another week. Total: 10-12 weeks and he doesn’t even have to take the 5th like the guilty scum he is. Next Congress: 2 chances out of 3 it’s run by scum who are pro-treason.
Since the Committee knows the above and they knew it for the 14 months of their existence, the only conclusion is they never really wanted him to testify in the first place. Cowardly weasels.
They never should have, it is a complete waste of time. Unless you are a J6 Committee member obsessed with TV and press coverage.
I must admit that it’s technically possible that the cowardly weasels actually know what they’re doing and want this to play out over the next 3 weeks so that the voting public is reminded of what a pos Trump is.
Yup…
“the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power”
The amount of information the J6C revealed about the Secret Service and FBI was new to me. Seems like the some members of the Secret Service in particular lied or withheld relevant information from the J6C.
IMO, President Biden ought to initialize a thorough investigation of the FBI and Secret Service, with the goal of eliminating political extremists from their ranks.
I know that if I were dependent upon the Secret Service for protection, I would want everyone in it thoroughly vetted for political extremism.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your THIRD username and the very last thread in which you should be sockpuppeting/trying out a new identity. Pick a unique username with a minimum 8 letters and stick with it. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Greetings moderator. I just wanted to say hello and say I think you are doing a great job with this site. I very much enjoy reading a group of people like to support their point of view with facts.
I’m with bmaz on all things mostly because those comments don’t seem intended to change my mind but rather to ensure that I’m aware that other viewpoints exist that are equally valid. The joys of adult discourse here have become a daily habit.
(Lock him up already. What am I doing on a USA legal-nerd blog for crying out loud?)
Anyway, thanks again. I wasn’t looking for you to post this, just wanted you to let you know I’m out there reading away.
A lot of new people here, but many a little more seasoned will remember me complaining about Schumer and Durbin not moving judicial nominations fast enough (and Biden not making them fast enough).
Well, Pat Leahy is back in the hospital for reasons not very specific yet. If McConnell wants to fight, and he likely will, without Leahy, there will be no more judges confirmed. Let’s hope he gets better FAST.
Are there ANY rules here for moderation, i.e. : “Please take all comments unrelated to the hearings to a different thread; all comments unrelated to a recent post should go to the last open thread.”?
We will decide the rules. Attacking the people who run this place may not be your best entry for an initial comment. Thanks for your continued support!
I do try my best to be supportive.
Bty, this is NOT my initial comment, just the first to make it out of “Moderation”.
But I guess there is a point you had to make?
Welcome to emptywheel. There were two links furnished in this post to Comment Policy and Guidelines.
For security and privacy reasons we do not discuss in detail how the site’s moderation system works. It may not be obvious to moderators why some comments are automatically binned — the most obvious reasons are matches with troll/bot profiles and/or blocked networks as well as trigger words/phrases associated with troll/bot behavior.
To explain the human moderation process in the most simplistic terms, this is a shared space like a living room. Don’t be obnoxious to the hosts and guests, don’t crap in the punch bowl, and the hosts won’t need to intervene.
Seems very reasonable.
My specific question was about whether moderation is applied to all, or applied selectively.
Thank you
Folks who’ve been here a while have come to know we have a cranky cholla cactus who shakes down new accounts which may initially appear trollish.
I guess I should add “Mind the cactus,” but I thought I had specifically said in this post that moderators would have a much lower tolerance for trolling.
It does also help to check a site’s About Us page and observe their comments for a while before jumping in.
I do appreciate your reply (for a second time) and I do appreciate the challenges facing moderators, especially during emotional times.
I promise to be on my best behavior.
We will soon see if that’s good enough for this “living room” or “pool” or whatever image you envision.
I add that I am from nyc, so there is some cultural acclimation I will need to go through.
I think it’s cute that Liz Cheney, who lost her seat because of Trump, dangled this opportunity for him to completely exonerate himself with the forthrightness of the wrongly accused before the US Congress and The World.
If I had any influence I would encourage him to tell his side of the story. Take a final dump on the US the likes of which nobody has ever seen.
I would tell Trump to ‘go for it,’ take up the challenge, and insist his testimony be televised. Everyone will be watching. Best ratings ever.
LOL. Trump and exoneration do not belong in the same sentence. He doesn’t want exoneration: he wants to get away with it, as publicly as possible. It’s the best power trip ever.
This comment section has been one of the all time most entertaining. kudos all around. Much appreciated contemplating how a congressional hearing might mess with a DOJ investigation. Also learned that the word “Kemosabe” has a mysterious etymology: https://slate.com/culture/2013/06/kemosabe-meaning-origin-and-history-of-tontos-word-in-lone-ranger.html
I obviously did not originate it, but remember hearing it as a kid on reruns of the Lone Ranger. It seems to still have identifiable meaning in more modern popular culture.
Heheh, wait, hey–I watched Lone Ranger reruns too. I just enjoy looking into words when they strike me, kind of a nerd that way.
Common usage refers to “Red Power!”
Reminds me of the old joke:
Lone Ranger and Tonto completely surrounded by Indians.
Lone Ranger: looks like we are in big trouble now Tonto!
Tonto: what do you mean “we” white man?
I am astounded at the number of what if comments to date!
Like bmaz has said nothing is going to happen unless djo gets their arse into gear an really does something?
These Hearings do serve a purpose. I am sorry that is being strongly argued against here. That’s how cynicsm works. It is efferctive because it is coming from the top.
How the Secret Service Handling of Jan. 6 Looks to a Former Agent
“The whole thing stinks.” (July 28, 2022)
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40719667/secret-service-january-6/
The Late Show Opening with Stephen Colbert
Meet The Flynnstones!
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF0kcXp7l9k)
Some of the timing from the VIDEO the Committee showed at about 3PM:
https://mobile.twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1580639004793389057
3:18 PM · Oct 13, 2022
[0:03] 2:23 PM [bodycam] [RIOTERS OUTSIDE Capitol]
[0:20] [PELOSI and Security person walking down stairs]
[0:24] 2:23 PM [PELOSI walking in hallway; on phone] “We have got to get this, finish the proceedings or else they will have a complete victory.”
[0:31] RIOTERS [INSIDE Capitol]
[0:34] 2:42 PM [Secure Undisclosed Location] PELOSI informed re: RIOT
[1:17] [Lawmakers walking down stairs, some have gas masks on] USCP Radio: We need an area for the House members. They’re all walking over now, through the tunnels.
[1:24] 2:57 PM [Bodycam] RIOTER [INSIDE; Rotunda?] Bring her out! Bring her out here! We’re coming in if you don’t bring her out.
[1:32] 3:00 PM PELOSI and SCHUMER c/w SecDef MILLER
[1:58] 3:21 PM [Bodycam] “Get him up. Officer down. Get him up. Get him up!. Hold up.
[2:08] PELOSI c/w Va. Gov. Northam
[3:09] 3:25 PM PELOSI and SCHUMER c/w ROSEN
[3:51] 3:41 PM RIOTERS [OUTSIDE Capitol] USA! USA!
[4:00] DEMS + MCCONNELL, SCALISE and THUNE c/w DOD
[4:50] 4:22 PM RIOTERS at Tunnel; PELOSI c/w PENCE
[5:58] 4:30 PM PELOSI [to group] “I just got off with the Vice President […]”
[6:28] 5:59 PM PENCE [on speaker]: “I’m at the Capitol building. […]”
[7:06] 7:13 PM Members return to the Captiol [7:12]
[#J6TL]
[0:34] 2:42 PM [Secure Undisclosed Location]
I believe the colleague was Jim Clyburn.
THANKS, MB!
[1:32] 3:00 PM [Pelosi and Schumer together]
[1:36] [Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer on the phone with Acting SoD MILLER]
3:02 PM Jeremy DIAMOND to MEADOWS:
3:36 PM McENANY tweets: https://twitter.com/PressSec45/status/1346918582832168964
4:12 PM MEADOWS to Jeremy DIAMOND: [Referring to 3:02 PM text about NG]
[And, just because it was tweeted in the very next minute]:
4:13 PM Jim ACOSTA [CNN] tweets:
[2:08] PELOSI [on phone with Va. Gov. Northam]:
[3:09] 3:25 PM PELOSI and SCHUMER on the phone with Acting Attorney General ROSEN
From the DOJ Call Logs:
3:22 PM ROSEN call from [blank] [2m]
3:24 PM ROSEN call from [blank] [6m]
3:30 PM ROSEN calls (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) per FBI [h-w] “Bowdich” [5m]
Also at that time:
3:30 PM TRUMP c/w McCARTHY [NOT in LOGS]
Quotes we know from the
3:30 PM TRUMP c/w McCARTHY [NOT in LOGS]
Harpie, the timing of the McCarthy/Trump call has remained fuzzy, but I thought McCarthy was already on live TV with WUSA at 3:05 pm telling the people he had called Trump and urged Trump to calm the rioters?
Unless there were two Kevin McCarthy/Trump calls, I think 3:30pm is at least 25 minutes later than the actual call.
Thanks, pdaly! I’ll have to put a question mark on that entry until I can get some more info.
I found our 2021 discussion about pinning down the timing of the call.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/02/14/mike-lee-provides-key-evidence-implicating-trump-in-the-existing-criminal-conspiracy/#comment-882642
Wow. We really picked that apart at the time! Thanks for retrieving it!
[ACCKKKK! This sure has been going on for a very long time.]
I guess the timing of that conversation is still uncertain. [?]
Yes, uncertain to us anyway. I wonder why the timing remains so difficult to pin down.
Maybe, coincidently, some timing hints, here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/10/14/on-trumps-subpoena-and-marc-shorts-testimony/#comment-966728
“shots fired right off the House floor” was at 2:44 PM [Ashli Babbit]
[Call with ROSEN in moderation before this]
[4:00] McConnell, Scalise and Thune join Democratic leaders to call DOD
[4:50] 4:22 PM RIOTERS at Tunnel; PELOSI c/w PENCE:
[5:58] 4:30 PM PELOSI [to group]
[6:28] 5:59 PM PENCE [on speaker]:
#J6TL
[0:24] 2:23 PM [PELOSI walking in hallway; on phone] “We have got to get this, finish the proceedings or else they will have a complete victory.”
Also, around that time:
2:24 PM TRUMP tweets:
2:26 PM TRUMP c/w TUBERVILLE [NOT in LOGS] https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/25/clarence-thomas-would-also-have-hidden-the-missing-mark-meadows-texts/#comment-928685
[0:03] 2:23 PM [bodycam] [RIOTERS OUTSIDE Capitol]
2:38 PM TRUMP tweets:
Thank you for providing this transcript. Recreating these hours by piecing these snipits together makes for a compelling story. I will need to go back to earlier emptywheel posts to see how Dr Wheeler managed to uncover the reportedly missing minutes. Terrific work.
FBI official was warned after Jan. 6 that some in the bureau were ‘sympathetic’ to the Capitol rioters
“There are definitely varying degrees of enthusiasm from agents across the country,” a source told NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-official-was-warned-jan-6-bureau-sympathetic-capitol-rioters-rcna52144
Roger Stone Threw a Fit After Not Getting Pardon, Called Ivanka ‘Abortionist Bitch’
In new exclusive footage obtained by The Daily Beast, a yet-to-be-released documentary captured Stone’s meltdown after learning no post-Jan.6 pardon was coming.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-threw-a-fit-after-not-getting-pardon-bashed-ivanka-trump-as-abortionist-bitch
I was impressed with Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer working the phones, trying to find a path forward to finish the job of certifying the votes. I hesitated to write this comment because there have been no few ageist, sexist, and misogynistic comments over the years on Empty Wheel directed particularly at Nancy Pelosi.
After watching the footage, I feel comfortable that she was there that day — I’m not sure any of the up-and-comers or less experienced Democrats would have shown the courage and the leadership she displayed that day.
I know Schumer to be a tough guy. Now I see Speaker Pelosi as a strong woman. I am nearing her age, so understand the natural tendancy to just sit the next one out. She can’t.
It’s clear that McConnell and Pence also thought the Congress should get back to business ASAP, despite the disruption. I say this not to distract from your point about the Pelosi bashing here and elsewhere, simply to underline that their part in stopping the plot from succeeding is often overlooked.