Part 2!
Jan 6 Hearing – Day 3 at 1:00 Eastern (LIVE)
The committee first said that the hearing was postponed because of video production issues.
The an aide said the hearing has been “postponed to accommodate scheduling demands.”
Not long after that the committee issued a statement saying, “due to a number of scheduling factors, including production timeline and availability of members and witnesses.”
I am on Team Hopeful – that some new people are willing to testify because they see how the hearings are going and they want to save their own skins.
From what I’ve read, it seems that the focus of today’s hearing will be on Trump’s pressure campaign on Mike Pence and on the Justice Department to back his false claims of election fraud. Of course, things are moving pretty fast. What you you read about the focus of today’s hearing?
We can certainly expect to see more of the Eric Herschmann clip than the brief click we saw on Monday.
Has anyone seen a list of the actual witnesses for today?
Rumor has it that former acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen had accepted an invitation from the Jan. 6 committee to appear at Wednesday’s hearing, alongside his then-deputy Richard Donoghue and one of DOJ’s former top attorneys Steve Engel, according to a letter obtained by ABC News sent from Rosen’s attorney to the committee.
Select Committee
Washington Post
Update: New on the Washington Post:
Committee to seek interview with Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas
“Good” Lawyers? There Was Only One of Those, As Far As I Can Tell
Jennifer Rubin: Even the ‘good’ lawyers didn’t blow the whistle on Trump. That was wrong.
As far as I can tell, there was only one good lawyer, and that was Eric Herschmann. We saw a preview from him at the end of the hearing on Monday, but we see more in this video. The short video begins with Liz Cheney and then we hear from Eric Herschmann himself.
Was it Bill Stepien who said he was happy to be on “Team Something-or-Other”? (“Team Normal”) As if he was one of the good guys? No one who hid what Trump was doing was a good guy, and no attorney who participated, was complicit, or was just silent was a good guu.
Excerpt from Jennifer Rubin’s article linked above.
Some attorneys in the Trump administration, and serving as lawmakers in Congress, enabled egregious and perhaps criminal conduct after the 2020 election. Others prevented former president Donald Trump from acting even worse than he did, or at least refused to assist him. But none of them alerted the FBI, the public or congressional leadership. That’s a serious failing.
Some lawyers’ conduct was reprehensible. Testimony collected by the House Jan. 6 committee shows that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law license for filing utterly frivolous cases, promoted a coup over other advisers’ objections. News reports disclosed that former assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark had prepared a draft letter to state officials making a false claim of widespread fraud and soliciting alternative slates of electors. And, worst of all, right-wing attorney John Eastman cooked up an infamous plot to stop the electoral vote count and deny the legitimate winner, Joe Biden, the ability to take office.
Many House members who are lawyers similarly signed onto an amicus brief in a frivolous case, initiated by lawyer and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, to challenge the results of certain states that President Biden won. In the Senate, Republicans with Ivy League law degrees, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.), spread the “big lie” and made groundless objections to prevent the orderly counting of the electoral votes. These actions exploited the Trump base’s delusion and put democracy at risk.
All of this conduct is unacceptable for anyone who has taken an oath of office, let alone a lawyer who has obligations as an “officer of the court.” Claims to sanction some of these characters have been filed. Clark and Giuliani, for example, could have criminal liability (the crime-fraud exception does not allow them to hide behind attorney-client privilege) if the facts are sufficient to prove they committed conspiracy to defraud the United States or conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding of Congress.
More at the link.
I still don’t buy that today’s hearing was postponed for the reason they said. I think that either some new information came to their attention or that they decided to pivot for some reason after the two excellent hearings we have already had.
“Good” Lawyers? There Was Only One of Those, As Far As I Can TellPost + Comments (103)
Open Thread: Truly, A Basket of Deplorables
Jan 6 Committee has a winning formula:
1) simple message
2) of the truth
3) delivered by notable Republicans in Trump’s orbit
4) repeated again by notable Republicans in Trump’s orbit https://t.co/esUXItTbZT— Peter Strzok (@petestrzok) June 13, 2022
Open Thread: Truly, A Basket of DeplorablesPost + Comments (64)
So much crime, so little time…
Interesting hallway exchange between reporters and Rep. Lofgren after today’s hearing ended:
.@RepZoeLofgren on former President Trump: "It's clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn't exist and used the money raised for something other than what he said. Now it's for someone else to decide whether that's criminal or not." pic.twitter.com/hp1A8ApRvN
— CSPAN (@cspan) June 13, 2022
It seems obvious to me that it SHOULD be a crime to ask donors to contribute to a fund that doesn’t exist and use the money raised for a purpose other than that for which funds were solicited. But I’m not a lawyer. For all I know, that’s perfectly legal, as absurd as that seems to me.
Someone who is a lawyer, valued commenter Immanentize, shared a fascinating theory on what the committee is up to in the second hearing thread:
I think that the most powerful part of today for me was the fraud in fundraising aspect. It was short, but I see the press was all over it afterwards in Qs to Lofgren. It was a new perspective clearly portrayed.
So my new thought is that the Committee is really seeking to destroy the Trump community — his violent followers prosecuted, his sycophants in the admin. either made to say what was true or called drunks and cranks, revealing Congress critters who sought pardons or worse, his followers who sent him money proved to be chumps. They are demolishing the Trump brand and team. Ivanka I think gets that, Jared does not.
We shall see if my theory holds up, but it would explain why Ginni Thomas is not a big deal to the Cmmt. — she is a side distraction to this narrative arc. And it is coincidentally the best narrative arc for one certain House member from Wyoming to win. As if I don’t know how they got Ben fucking Ginsberg to testify…,
Dismantling the cult is a worthy goal. Holding its leader and his co-conspirators accountable is essential too. The committee is making a compelling case that Trump knew or should have known the falsehoods he was (and still is) peddling are lies, and that he lied to cling to power despite losing the election.
I don’t know if that’s legally actionable or not, but lots of people who are qualified to comment on that issue seem to think it is. Still, I understand that it’s complicated. It takes time.
In the meantime, if fraud charges for the bogus election defense fund grift are possible, in a sense, prosecution for that would be even more appropriate because the crime is so petty and grubby, as is the man himself.
Trump is a conman, and he stole $250 million from supporters through fraud. It doesn’t seem like that would be as hard to prove as a conspiracy that’s broader based and more complex than Watergate. Maybe the appropriate authorities should charge him for that?
Open thread.
Jan 6 Hearing – Day 2, Part 2
Jan 6 Hearing – Day 2 – Continues.
Jan 6 Hearing – Day 2 at 10:45 Eastern (LIVE)
While we wait for the hearing to start…
There are some good questions and two good articles linked below the live feeds.
10 am Eastern Time Monday, June 13 https://t.co/1qn85lGMSF
— Cheryl Rofer (@CherylRofer) June 12, 2022
Select Committee Hearing
Washington Post
Watch on C-Span
10 am Eastern Time Monday, June 13 https://t.co/1qn85lGMSF
— Cheryl Rofer (@CherylRofer) June 12, 2022
While we wait…
Jennifer Rubin has 7 questions she wants the Jan. 6 committee to answer at its upcoming hearings.
To say that the Jan. 6 committee’s Thursday hearing was the most compelling in congressional history would be to damn with faint praise. Certainly, the admonition from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to her Republican colleagues that “there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain” will compare favorably to Joseph Welch’s famous remark levied against Joseph McCarthy (“Have you no sense of decency?”)
But above all, the hearings are about facts. And I can’t wait to hear more of those on at least seven topics during the committee’s second session on Monday.
Who were those members of Congress pleading for pardons from Donald Trump, and what conduct did they think would lead to prosecution?
When aides repeatedly told President Donald Trump that there was no basis for overturning the election and no legal way for his vice president to keep him in power, what did Trump say?
What was Vice President Mike Pence doing? C
How did Trump’s statements and tweets to his supporters promote violence?
Why did no one go public or alert the FBI?
If virtually everyone else in the White House knew there was no fraud or basis for overturning the election, how did John Eastman’s scheme for a “nonviolent coup” get to Trump and spark this whole series of events?
Perhaps the most intriguing question: If White House chief of staff Mark Meadows knew claims of fraud were bogus (“no there there,” as he put it), what was he doing as the plot built momentum?
And here are six questions the committee expects to answer about Jan. 6.
How much responsibility for the violence falls on Trump?
How did Trump and his allies use the levers of government to try to keep him in power?
How did so many people come to believe — and act on — Trump’s lies about the election?
What is the connection between officials’ actions and ordinary people’s violence on Jan. 6?
How was the Capitol so vulnerable to attack?
What should be done to prevent similar attacks on democracy?
Both articles flesh out their questions. Full articles at the link.
Jan 6 Hearing – Day 2 at 10:45 Eastern (LIVE)Post + Comments