The January 6th Hearings

I sometimes think we have too many hearings and investigations.  Clearly, however, the January 6^th events required thorough investigation.  If it was not a serious threat to our country, we needed to know that for sure.  If it was a serious threat, we obviously needed to identify how to avoid a repetition.

The first day of the January 6^th hearings clearly proved that the January 6^th storming of the Capitol was an insurrection intended to thwart the peaceful turn-over of power.

Although I am inclined to think Rep. Pelosi inappropriately rejected potential committee members, thereby undermining the credibility of the hearings, the evidence speaks for itself.  I don’t see how anyone can question the nature of the attack on the Capitol.

Some critics claim that the January 6^th hearings are a partisan production intended to influence future elections.  My primary response to that is that a critical attack on our country occurred on January 6^th.  So, of course, future voters should consider political candidates’ actions in contributing to that attack or defending against it and in underplaying the attack subsequently or helping to identify the causes.

Although January 6^th is relevant to voting decisions, a government panel should avoid appearing partisan.  Rep. Pelosi chose not to take a non-partisan approach.  I’m not expert on the laws or precedents, nor about how the committee’s work might have been affected if some of President Trump’s supporters had been on the committee.  I doubt that I would have taken Rep. Pelosi’s approach, but I can’t be sure.   But I bemoan the impression of partisanship that resulted.

On the second day, there was lots of proof that President Trump lied.  No surprise there.  For 40 years, I’ve been surprised that anybody trusts what Donald Trump says.  As I’ve written, I don’t know if he even understands the difference between truth and falsehood. 

Trump, of course, likes to paint his Republican opponents as RINO (Republican in Name Only), but he is unquestionably, in my opinion, the most prominent RINO.  He has no loyalty to any organization, person or ideology, solely pursuing his personal advantage. 

Listening to the second day of the January 6^th hearings, I had to keep reminding myself that this is part of a larger fabric that is being presented, as I was distracted by the incongruity of emphasizing Trump’s lies in a society in which people turn a blind eye when politicians they support lie.¹

The reporting on the second day would have been better had it continually tied Trump’s lies to the serious issues about which he was lying.

On the third day, I thought Greg Jacob was a particularly impressive witness. 

John Eastman’s theory was that there were contested slates, so Pence could refuse to recognize them or could send them back to the states to re-certify.  Pence clearly acted appropriately.  There was no basis for failing to recognize the states’ certified election results and clearly the founders would not have wanted the VP to have the power Trump was claiming Pence had.

Weak as the actual theory was, it relied on their being “contested” slates.  I was disappointed that the presentation kept trying to suggest that the theory was that the VP could decide to pick whatever candidate he wanted as president.  This extreme slant was very disappointing.  Care should be taken to avoid the look of partisanship. This dripped of partisanship.

The Committee and witnesses properly stressed Pence’s courage in maintaining his principles and in refusing to leave the Capitol when his security detail urged him to do so.

I was reminded how dismissive some of my leftist friends and mainstream media have been of Mike Pence.  I’ve maintained that I respect him. 

Some people who served in Trump’s cabinet did so to try to protect our country, but at great angst and damage to their reputation.  I recognized that and considered them to be true patriots.  “Woke” extremists, convinced of their personal virtue and the despicable nature of people who disagree with them, could not see that.  Then, when an anonymous article was written to the NY Times, they were astounded.  How blind are they?

Clearly there was insufficient fraud in the 2020 election to make a difference.  Nonetheless, we are vulnerable to fraud in our elections (as I have blogged about previously) and it behooves us to take steps to protect the integrity of our elections.

On day 4 of the hearings, Cassidy Hutchinson spoke.  Her testimony was impressive despite including a lot of “hearsay”.

An area of poor reporting on day 4 was the media’s reaction to her testimony that President Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and tried to resist when his security detail insisted on going to the White House.  They kept criticizing Trump for wanting to overrule his security detail.

They were correct to criticize him, but they generally left off the key element – the reason why he wanted to go to the Capitol.  He wanted to go there to support and enjoy the event.  It was his reason for wanting to go there that was wrong, not the fact that he tried to overrule his security team.

Trump supporters likely observed the media’s apparent inconsistency from their perspective: one day they praise VP Mike Pence for overruling his security team and the next day they criticize President Trump for the same type of action.

Do not misunderstand, I agree that VP Pence was heroic, and that President Trump’s behavior was unacceptable.  My only point is that it is important to keep the focus on the motivation.

On day 5, we learned more about President Trump’s efforts to pressure politicians and government employees to do his bidding to support false claims of election fraud and also pressuring potential witnesses to be “loyal” to him rather than to their oath.  Sadly, it was not surprising to see the numerous circumstances of such serious misbehavior.  It is President Trump’s modus operandi.

--- Claude 

¹As much as Trump lies, Democrats and the mainstream media have exaggerated the frequency of his lies.  I pleaded for Trump opponents to avoid such a practice and Ms. Obama said “When they go low, we go high.”  Bur that has not been the case.  Lies about President Trump have driven more people to his support and tied them to him more strongly.

President Obama was proven to have made several significant lies repeatedly.  He was a much more skillful liar than President Trump.  President Biden has also lied repeatedly.  Neither lies as frequently as President Trump, but their lies are significant and should not be tolerated by their supporters.

This year, President Biden nominated Nusrat Choudhury to be a district judge.  In her Senate hearings, she repeatedly took the position that it is OK to lie while acting as an advocate.  Yet the Democrats are still trying to push her nomination through.  See my separate blog on this topic.