Members of the House January 6th Committee--from L to R; Reps. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Elaine Luria (D-Va.)--are seen in this December 1, 2021 photo. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
The Next Installment of the Jan. 6 Committee Could Be Pivotal
The committee's task for its next hearing is to continue confronting its toughest obstacle: amassing conclusive evidence of Trump's intent to overturn the 2020 election on January 6.
Jul 16, 2022
The House select committee's January 6 hearings have so far exceeded all of our expectations. They have told the American people a gripping story of Trump's attempted coup--one packed with new details that seem to have swayed public opinion.
The content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people.
The committee's task for its next hearing is to continue confronting its toughest obstacle: amassing conclusive evidence of Trump's intent to overturn the 2020 election on January 6.
As veterans of congressional investigations with over a half-century of experience between us, our expectations were high before these hearings began. After all, the January 6 committee was addressing the country's first attempted coup led by a president, the first attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the greatest domestic attack on our democracy and country since the Civil War. There could be no more important topic.
We also had high expectations given the exceptional track record of the committee members, including Reps. Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, who led the first and second impeachments against Trump; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, whose experience stretches back to Watergate; the incomparable Rep. Liz Cheney; and the decades-long congressional experience of Chairman Bennie Thompson. To that was added a skillful and productive (and large) staff of over 50 people who have spent a year poring over more than 125,000 records and conducting more than 1,000 interviews.
The result has been a blockbuster series of seven hearings--we would argue the most important ones we've seen in a half century. Indeed, the content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people. What's more, the attempt to overturn the 2020 election came from within the innermost sanctum of our democracy, the Oval Office.
The hearings opened with the baseline of a federal judge's findings that Trump was likely involved in at least two potential crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of Congress.
The hearings have materially advanced the proof of these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. In the first five hearings, the committee methodically established that Trump knew he lost the election, with the likes of former Attorney General Bill Barr testifying that he told the former president that his claims of election theft were "bulls**t."
The committee showed that Trump sought to procure nonexistent votes, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testifying about Trump's pressure to get him to "find 11,780 votes."
The hearings substantiated Trump's direct involvement in procuring an alternate slate of fraudulent electors through the testimony of live witnesses like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and videotaped ones from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.
And they documented Trump's efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the electoral votes through testimony from Republican stalwarts like Pence's counsel Greg Jacob and his former Chief of Staff Marc Short.
All of that was done through witnesses who were Republicans and former Trump allies.
Throughout the first five hearings, the committee drew a striking road map of the elements of Trump's potential crimes. To us, it brought to mind the famous Watergate "road map" that laid out the Nixon administration's transgressions.
Then came the John Dean of these hearings, 26-year old former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. Her blockbuster testimony in the sixth hearing and the evidence that followed in the seventh introduced a new element to the allegations of conspiracy and obstruction: violent intent.
Hutchinson provided context for Trump's state of mind on January 6, testifying that he wanted to allow armed attendees at his rally at the Ellipse to bypass security and requested that rhetoric calling for supporters to march to the Capitol and effectively fight for Trump be included in his draft speech.
The seventh hearing deepened this story of Trump's violent intent, explaining its origins in a December 18 Oval Office meeting with his most extreme supporters followed by the now-notorious December 19 "will be wild" tweet, which acted as a "siren" setting us on the path to the conflagration that was January 6.
That brings us to what we can expect from Tuesday's hearing: Trump's state of mind when the violence was consummated: the 187 minutes before he responded to the events at the Capitol. We can expect to hear about the way he targeted Pence that day and his negligent inaction while the mob made its way inside the Capitol.
We may also hear more about the member of the White House support staff whom Trump tried to contact, and from Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary. They and other witnesses can shed further light on Trump's state of mind and his refusal to call to stop the violence for several hours, despite numerous Trump allies urging him to do so.
This will build on existing evidence that Trump violated the federal criminal prohibitions on conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct Congress by further filling in the intent piece.
Then, it will be in the hands of prosecutors to follow the road map of proof that the committee has laid out--including Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Her special grand jury investigation was already moving along, and these hearings have surely advanced it by repeatedly citing proof of Trump's interactions with Georgia election officials.
While that will be largely out of the committee's hands, any additional hearings they have and their final report can certainly put a finer point on the superb work they have already done building the foundation for prosecutions. That can take the form of crystallizing the roadmap, compiling the evidence and getting it on paper, or even taking steps to issue a formal analysis of state and federal crimes or a criminal referral.
There's one other thing the committee should do both with the eighth hearing and its work to follow. That is to point out that, in a sense, the conspiracy they have ably articulated has not ended.
The mob dispersed on January 6 and Trump left the White House, but he and his enablers continue to push the outrageous lie that the 2020 election was stolen. There are over 100 Trump adherents running for federal and state office, over 200 pieces of legislation based on the election fraud lie and the Supreme Court is set to take up a case that could allow state legislators to do the kinds of things that Trump and his allies sought. With all of this, we face not only a constitutional crisis, but also an existential one.
The good news is that a bipartisan coalition came together to beat back Trump's conspiracy in 2020, and we can do it again. It's important for the committee to analyze and galvanize this effort. Thankfully, they've already begun talking about the ongoing crisis. If they bring the same energy and excellence to expanding on this problem and its solutions as they have to their work thus far, that will be another important contribution. We hope to see it.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Cable News Network
Norman Eisen
Norman Eisen is chairman and co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and later as U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic.
Fred Wertheimer
Fred Wertheimer is the founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to promote government accountability and integrity.
The House select committee's January 6 hearings have so far exceeded all of our expectations. They have told the American people a gripping story of Trump's attempted coup--one packed with new details that seem to have swayed public opinion.
The content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people.
The committee's task for its next hearing is to continue confronting its toughest obstacle: amassing conclusive evidence of Trump's intent to overturn the 2020 election on January 6.
As veterans of congressional investigations with over a half-century of experience between us, our expectations were high before these hearings began. After all, the January 6 committee was addressing the country's first attempted coup led by a president, the first attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the greatest domestic attack on our democracy and country since the Civil War. There could be no more important topic.
We also had high expectations given the exceptional track record of the committee members, including Reps. Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, who led the first and second impeachments against Trump; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, whose experience stretches back to Watergate; the incomparable Rep. Liz Cheney; and the decades-long congressional experience of Chairman Bennie Thompson. To that was added a skillful and productive (and large) staff of over 50 people who have spent a year poring over more than 125,000 records and conducting more than 1,000 interviews.
The result has been a blockbuster series of seven hearings--we would argue the most important ones we've seen in a half century. Indeed, the content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people. What's more, the attempt to overturn the 2020 election came from within the innermost sanctum of our democracy, the Oval Office.
The hearings opened with the baseline of a federal judge's findings that Trump was likely involved in at least two potential crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of Congress.
The hearings have materially advanced the proof of these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. In the first five hearings, the committee methodically established that Trump knew he lost the election, with the likes of former Attorney General Bill Barr testifying that he told the former president that his claims of election theft were "bulls**t."
The committee showed that Trump sought to procure nonexistent votes, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testifying about Trump's pressure to get him to "find 11,780 votes."
The hearings substantiated Trump's direct involvement in procuring an alternate slate of fraudulent electors through the testimony of live witnesses like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and videotaped ones from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.
And they documented Trump's efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the electoral votes through testimony from Republican stalwarts like Pence's counsel Greg Jacob and his former Chief of Staff Marc Short.
All of that was done through witnesses who were Republicans and former Trump allies.
Throughout the first five hearings, the committee drew a striking road map of the elements of Trump's potential crimes. To us, it brought to mind the famous Watergate "road map" that laid out the Nixon administration's transgressions.
Then came the John Dean of these hearings, 26-year old former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. Her blockbuster testimony in the sixth hearing and the evidence that followed in the seventh introduced a new element to the allegations of conspiracy and obstruction: violent intent.
Hutchinson provided context for Trump's state of mind on January 6, testifying that he wanted to allow armed attendees at his rally at the Ellipse to bypass security and requested that rhetoric calling for supporters to march to the Capitol and effectively fight for Trump be included in his draft speech.
The seventh hearing deepened this story of Trump's violent intent, explaining its origins in a December 18 Oval Office meeting with his most extreme supporters followed by the now-notorious December 19 "will be wild" tweet, which acted as a "siren" setting us on the path to the conflagration that was January 6.
That brings us to what we can expect from Tuesday's hearing: Trump's state of mind when the violence was consummated: the 187 minutes before he responded to the events at the Capitol. We can expect to hear about the way he targeted Pence that day and his negligent inaction while the mob made its way inside the Capitol.
We may also hear more about the member of the White House support staff whom Trump tried to contact, and from Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary. They and other witnesses can shed further light on Trump's state of mind and his refusal to call to stop the violence for several hours, despite numerous Trump allies urging him to do so.
This will build on existing evidence that Trump violated the federal criminal prohibitions on conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct Congress by further filling in the intent piece.
Then, it will be in the hands of prosecutors to follow the road map of proof that the committee has laid out--including Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Her special grand jury investigation was already moving along, and these hearings have surely advanced it by repeatedly citing proof of Trump's interactions with Georgia election officials.
While that will be largely out of the committee's hands, any additional hearings they have and their final report can certainly put a finer point on the superb work they have already done building the foundation for prosecutions. That can take the form of crystallizing the roadmap, compiling the evidence and getting it on paper, or even taking steps to issue a formal analysis of state and federal crimes or a criminal referral.
There's one other thing the committee should do both with the eighth hearing and its work to follow. That is to point out that, in a sense, the conspiracy they have ably articulated has not ended.
The mob dispersed on January 6 and Trump left the White House, but he and his enablers continue to push the outrageous lie that the 2020 election was stolen. There are over 100 Trump adherents running for federal and state office, over 200 pieces of legislation based on the election fraud lie and the Supreme Court is set to take up a case that could allow state legislators to do the kinds of things that Trump and his allies sought. With all of this, we face not only a constitutional crisis, but also an existential one.
The good news is that a bipartisan coalition came together to beat back Trump's conspiracy in 2020, and we can do it again. It's important for the committee to analyze and galvanize this effort. Thankfully, they've already begun talking about the ongoing crisis. If they bring the same energy and excellence to expanding on this problem and its solutions as they have to their work thus far, that will be another important contribution. We hope to see it.
Norman Eisen
Norman Eisen is chairman and co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and later as U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic.
Fred Wertheimer
Fred Wertheimer is the founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to promote government accountability and integrity.
The House select committee's January 6 hearings have so far exceeded all of our expectations. They have told the American people a gripping story of Trump's attempted coup--one packed with new details that seem to have swayed public opinion.
The content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people.
The committee's task for its next hearing is to continue confronting its toughest obstacle: amassing conclusive evidence of Trump's intent to overturn the 2020 election on January 6.
As veterans of congressional investigations with over a half-century of experience between us, our expectations were high before these hearings began. After all, the January 6 committee was addressing the country's first attempted coup led by a president, the first attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the greatest domestic attack on our democracy and country since the Civil War. There could be no more important topic.
We also had high expectations given the exceptional track record of the committee members, including Reps. Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, who led the first and second impeachments against Trump; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, whose experience stretches back to Watergate; the incomparable Rep. Liz Cheney; and the decades-long congressional experience of Chairman Bennie Thompson. To that was added a skillful and productive (and large) staff of over 50 people who have spent a year poring over more than 125,000 records and conducting more than 1,000 interviews.
The result has been a blockbuster series of seven hearings--we would argue the most important ones we've seen in a half century. Indeed, the content of the January 6 hearings may be even more important than the ones on Watergate, because the focus today strikes at the heart of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power based upon the vote of the people. What's more, the attempt to overturn the 2020 election came from within the innermost sanctum of our democracy, the Oval Office.
The hearings opened with the baseline of a federal judge's findings that Trump was likely involved in at least two potential crimes: conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of Congress.
The hearings have materially advanced the proof of these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. In the first five hearings, the committee methodically established that Trump knew he lost the election, with the likes of former Attorney General Bill Barr testifying that he told the former president that his claims of election theft were "bulls**t."
The committee showed that Trump sought to procure nonexistent votes, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testifying about Trump's pressure to get him to "find 11,780 votes."
The hearings substantiated Trump's direct involvement in procuring an alternate slate of fraudulent electors through the testimony of live witnesses like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and videotaped ones from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.
And they documented Trump's efforts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the electoral votes through testimony from Republican stalwarts like Pence's counsel Greg Jacob and his former Chief of Staff Marc Short.
All of that was done through witnesses who were Republicans and former Trump allies.
Throughout the first five hearings, the committee drew a striking road map of the elements of Trump's potential crimes. To us, it brought to mind the famous Watergate "road map" that laid out the Nixon administration's transgressions.
Then came the John Dean of these hearings, 26-year old former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. Her blockbuster testimony in the sixth hearing and the evidence that followed in the seventh introduced a new element to the allegations of conspiracy and obstruction: violent intent.
Hutchinson provided context for Trump's state of mind on January 6, testifying that he wanted to allow armed attendees at his rally at the Ellipse to bypass security and requested that rhetoric calling for supporters to march to the Capitol and effectively fight for Trump be included in his draft speech.
The seventh hearing deepened this story of Trump's violent intent, explaining its origins in a December 18 Oval Office meeting with his most extreme supporters followed by the now-notorious December 19 "will be wild" tweet, which acted as a "siren" setting us on the path to the conflagration that was January 6.
That brings us to what we can expect from Tuesday's hearing: Trump's state of mind when the violence was consummated: the 187 minutes before he responded to the events at the Capitol. We can expect to hear about the way he targeted Pence that day and his negligent inaction while the mob made its way inside the Capitol.
We may also hear more about the member of the White House support staff whom Trump tried to contact, and from Sarah Matthews, a former White House deputy press secretary. They and other witnesses can shed further light on Trump's state of mind and his refusal to call to stop the violence for several hours, despite numerous Trump allies urging him to do so.
This will build on existing evidence that Trump violated the federal criminal prohibitions on conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct Congress by further filling in the intent piece.
Then, it will be in the hands of prosecutors to follow the road map of proof that the committee has laid out--including Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Her special grand jury investigation was already moving along, and these hearings have surely advanced it by repeatedly citing proof of Trump's interactions with Georgia election officials.
While that will be largely out of the committee's hands, any additional hearings they have and their final report can certainly put a finer point on the superb work they have already done building the foundation for prosecutions. That can take the form of crystallizing the roadmap, compiling the evidence and getting it on paper, or even taking steps to issue a formal analysis of state and federal crimes or a criminal referral.
There's one other thing the committee should do both with the eighth hearing and its work to follow. That is to point out that, in a sense, the conspiracy they have ably articulated has not ended.
The mob dispersed on January 6 and Trump left the White House, but he and his enablers continue to push the outrageous lie that the 2020 election was stolen. There are over 100 Trump adherents running for federal and state office, over 200 pieces of legislation based on the election fraud lie and the Supreme Court is set to take up a case that could allow state legislators to do the kinds of things that Trump and his allies sought. With all of this, we face not only a constitutional crisis, but also an existential one.
The good news is that a bipartisan coalition came together to beat back Trump's conspiracy in 2020, and we can do it again. It's important for the committee to analyze and galvanize this effort. Thankfully, they've already begun talking about the ongoing crisis. If they bring the same energy and excellence to expanding on this problem and its solutions as they have to their work thus far, that will be another important contribution. We hope to see it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.