cassidy Hutchinson swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God, has moved us as decisively beyond questions of incitement and dereliction of duty by President Trump as did the testimony of John Dean before the Watergate Committee 49 years ago.
I too feel frustrated that Orange Cheeto and his co-conspirators haven't been perp walked out of a federal court house. It takes evidence that will stand up in court to get a conviction. Witnesses need first hand knowledge to testify, and their testimony must be corroborated.
Building a case to take down a conspiracy like this takes a long time. It took federal prosecutors approximately 28 months to build the case, gather the evidence, and collect the witnesses to take down John Gotti. Their previous two prosecutions failed (Cheeto's two impeachments failed), so they bided their time and built an unbeatable case. The DOJ is building that case now. People think they're not working because there haven't been any leaks. If the DOJ brings a case against Cheeto that isn't bulletproof, they won't get a second chance and this country will cease to be a democracy. To paraphrase Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade": the quest for a conviction isn't theater, it's a race against evil! If Cheeto is acquitted, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth!
Personally, I'm willing to give the DOJ a bit more time. Eastman gave up his fight about his phone, Fox and OAN struggled to spin Hutchinson's testimony, and I'd bet Meadows, Stone, and Flynn are reevaluating just how much longer they want to carry on being loyal to Cheeto. Gotti had Sammy the Bull turn on him, and Cheeto isn't anywhere near as scary as Gotti.
Just now, on MSNBC, Chris Hayes had two experts comment on just this DOJ issue. Yale University Law Senior Lecturer, Asha Rangappa, and Chuck Rosenberg, former DEA administrator, both said we need to be patient because the DOJ is doing this right. Rosenberg said, "The DOJ's approach has always been, and always had to be bottom up, convict and cooperate, flipping witnesses methodically according to DOJ standards, a process which is even more important in this case, while the congessional committee is the reverse, doing top down." He said, "They [Congressional J6 Committee and the DoJ] will all intersect at some point," and to have faith in Garland and the process.
I'll begin to have faith in the legal process when I've seen something that justifies it. In the meantime, I'll keep my hopes up as best I can. My fear now is that a day or so before the indictments are read, someone in the DoJ will, as a matter of professional courtesy or obligation, let one of the traitor's attorneys know about it and, in a matter of minutes, he'll become a declared candidate for the GOP nomination in 2024.
It is a frightening image. But we have all known the Emperor had no clothes when he and the ice queen came down the elevator in 2015 with the paid actors as his adoring crowd.
Has the Jan 6 House Committee found a way to built back trust?
'For would-be authoritarians, the destruction of organizations dedicated to finding out what actually happened is an obvious part of the path to power. If leaders can convince people not to believe anything at all, then they can substitute the false narratives that justify their own limitless power.' (Atlantic)
This is exactly what we have been living through for the last 5+ years but, even so, TC wrote that THE SCAMS DON'T WORK NOW because of the narrative the January 6 House committee has been crafting. Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell testimony didn't happen in a vacuum. It was perfectly laid after five hearings had demonstrated that January 6th attack on the Capitol was not a protest but a planned insurgency by Trump; that the 2020 election was not fraudulent but the cleanest in the country's history; that Trump launched a pressure campaign on Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again; detailed Trump's unsuccessful efforts to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election and his wide-ranging efforts to coerce the Justice Department into overturning the 2020 election, … and then SURPRISE, along comes Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows,
Remember folks, except for the moving testimony from former poll workers, daughter Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, former poll workers, all the testimony about Trump's lies where by Republicans.
The Jan 6 House committee has ' …created a giant fact-checking project designed not only to write an accurate account of what happened in the run-up to the Capitol attack, but to convince people to believe it. The point is not to establish whether some detail that one witness reveals is true or false, but rather to tell a larger story, using a wide range of perspectives, delivered in a manner optimally designed to create trust. (Atlantic)
As a supplement to TC's fine depiction of the work by the January 6 House Committee you may be interested in Anne Applebaum's 'The Reason Liz Cheney Is Narrating the January 6 Story',
'The committee is laying out the facts in a way optimally designed to cultivate trust.' See link below.. I was unable to gift it but as I am a subscriber, I hope the link below works for you. I apologize if it does not
Thank you, Fern. I love tidy minds-- clear and articulate. Anne Applebaum is one of my favorites for shedding light on what is happening.
Her point about the " packaging" of these hearings is critical. There is none of the grandstanding for sound -bite time on the part of the members that is so infuriating in the typical Congressional Committee hearings. The former TV producer they hired to format the hearings is earning his money as the time moves fluidly from realtime personal to past taped interviews. Bennie and Liz are co-anchoring and holding the threads together, reminding us of where we've been, teasing what is to come. The dots are being connected, one by one-- and, miracle of miracles-- not one Committee member has grandstanded. We see only the face of the questioner though we know the other committee members are sitting there, listening as we are. It is well done. AND not one person, has thrown food, dishes, grabbed wheels, bleated out status, or thrown a tantrum to rival any 2 year old, angry and thwarted, in a supermarket cart!!
I hope Anne Applebaum is right that this amazing effort to bring the facts of this staggering story to light in a way familiar and accessible to most Americans will indeed begin to build trust.
Yes indeed, clear and articulate! of what I hinted at in yesterday's comment: "now US institutions are not only showing strength, but understanding of true entertainment." This is the so far missing response to Fox Entertainment, hopefully developing and spreading.
one of the coolest things about The Atlantic is that it's always been non-partisan, so if it hates anyone in public life (this is just a thought experiment, you understand...it couldn't POSSIBLY apply to anything or anyone in the "real world," right?) you can figure it's NOT because of any pre-existing axes it was required to burn. and the magazine's been doing yeoman work these last six years.
They are non-partisan, but they do come down on the "right side" of the road - not that that's a bad thing. I like Tom Nichols and I've come to appreciate David Frum, and they make no bones about having been Republicans. David French and Peter Wehner are also not libs, but they too are good. I respect Wehner.
increasingly, Tom, I'm thinking that we need to drop the practice of calling ourselves "liberals," because classic Liberalism (upper case) doesn't represent what most of us believe in. at least not me. classic Liberalism is about minimal government, resulting in minimal state intervention in people's lives and a general "hands off" policy. which is to say that, to me at any rate, that upper-case Liberalism looks and sounds like what "Libertarians" say they believe. and a number of Libertarians are now calling themselves "Classic Liberals," when what they believe is closer to old-time (that is, pre-Movement Conservatives. what I consider myself is a Social Democrat, and I think that pretty much most of the people whose politics are closest to mine are Social Democrats. one of the reasons I'm making such a big deal about this is precisely because I don't want anyone to EVER think that I have a political philosophy that has anything at all in common with, say, Rand Paul (gag-o-rama. it is not unlike Classical Music (Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven) and "classical music," which includes everything symphony orchestra and chamber groups play. when I try to explain that difference to people who don't know that distinction, we both end up very frustrated. so I (and the relevant friends) have taken to calling the lower-case "classical music" "Concert Music" instead. actually, the two phenomena are very close, now that I've actually typed it out. and I know I'm a lot more comfortable describing myself as a Social Democrat. I think, for example, that a Classic Liberal might actually be delighted with SCOTUS continuing its massive shredding operation by calculatedly emasculating the EPA, which is hardly a perfect agency, but one that actually did some good stuff when it was allowed to operate...and I've already gotten heated over Miranda and Gideon being castrated by fiat, so I'll leave it at that. I slept about two hours last night, and I'm pretty sure that rage had a lot to do with it, so I want NO SCREENS for the hour it'll take me to wind down. I tend to like Tom Nichols more than David Frum (who was a pretty nasty piece of work in his time). and Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, being Movement Neocon bluebloods, will always make me sick. this last bit is probably a NY Intellectuals thing, since that whole Partisan Review tradition is one I still cherish. I mean like HEY, when I was in graduate school, I studied with Irving Howe AND Alfred Kazin, which sounds almost like the punchline to an extremely parochial, not especially funny joke that could begin something like "so we got two jewish socialists walking down the street and the first one says something like "hey, I smell shit..."...anyone can feel free to fill in the rest. and speaking of Movement Conservatives, I once knew a guy who played (this is literal) in the same sandbox with Bill Buckley and told me (this'd be 1971) that those brothers were always very happy to express their racism and antisemitism in the all of the most blatantly stereotypical ways you can imagine. good night, folks.
I don't know these days what I am. Certainly not a "classical liberal," but that was never anything, so far as I ever noticed. Not so certain I am a Social Democrat (that's a NYC thing, man). Definitely left the Socialite Socialists and the Bourgeois Bolsheviks behind long ago. The Berners are an embarrassment. Funny you would mention Bill Kristol, since he's been making a lot of sense since 2015, much to my dismay; there's also the fact my book cases look like his (a total mess). The office he shows when he Zooms resembles mine in a more "upscale" way but we're both obvious believers that a neat desk is the sign of sick mind.
I agree with Tom Nichols a lot. I find Tim Miller a brave and intellectually honest guy. They remind me of the Republicans I used to get drunk with and go flying with (not in that order and on different days :-) ) 40+ years ago. I'd probably enjoy arguing with those two. And would have to bring the A+ game to it.
Right now mostly, I'm "If you say you believe in democracy and act like you do" I probably agree with you on everything we need to agree on and the rest is "discussion."
I figure you're right about that. god knows, we pretty much never disagree HERE. but do you really think "Social Democrat" is such a NYC thing? to my mind, not nearly enough people here use it as a term to define their political position. certainly this applies to most of the younger people I either encounter or hear about from the several younger friends I've made in recent years. one of these friends (if you'd like, I'll have him add you to the mailing list for his continuing series of (non-Substack) newsletters, which are very well-written and very sad. he keeps me informed about the neo-lefties in these parts, and they're almost universally DSA members...completely short-sighted and, occasionally, downright CRAZY. he has a bunch of so-called "anarchist" friends (in college, I liked to identify as an anarchist, but pretty much only because I really liked Kropotkin) whose completely dumb idea of "anarchist practice" came down to refusing to get vaccinated because the government couldn't tell them what to do.
and didn't we recently talk about the idiocy of Susan Sarandon's support for the most right-wing candidates "to bring the revolution closer?" so now it appears ( according to the NYT, which is hardly an infallible source these days--I promise I won't get started on Maggie Haberman and her miserable dad) that Nancy Pelosi has embraced the same so-called "strategy." I understand the gamble she's making; I just don't like the odds. to repeat myself: when the fuck has this EVER worked?
Glad you read it Vague Craig. She clearly diagramed the committee's design and execution. It would be is very difficult or impossible to duplicate in most circumstances, nevertheless, where possible, it provides a model example of communication. As to your name, it tickles my mood. Thank you.
I have just co-incidentally wandered off down a trail tracking the name Laufman, derived from Laufer (Ashkenazic Jewish/German for messenger/runner).
One said Laufman, David a former senior Justice Department lawyer, posited that the question of witness tampering by way of threatening texts may be a “sideshow” to the larger questions of criminal conduct raised by the publicly known evidence. “It’s a target-rich environment right now.”
I subscribe to the Atlantic too- great writing and this was a very good article, as I'd expect. Read Heather's letter for 7/1 - it will curl your hair and roll up your socks - we ain't seen nuttin' yet from these jamokes.....
Good to hear from you Bruce. 'Jamokes', I like the word. It is far too generous as a descriptor for 'them', but I prefer it to the expletives. My socks are rolled up. Salud.
wow...you called my bluff, but I'll try a quick answer: have a lot less fun and a lot less sense that there IS an actual "we," which is a sense that's increasingly difficult to experience alone at a keyboard. I figure there are more answers, but I'm working on them....
Which federal agency is it that removes the Secret Service detail tasked with protecting Thugee Orange when he is being detained on charges of sedition?
I don't think anybody has any idea about this because it's never even been on anyone's RADAR. it's just too outlandish. one thing that DOES worry me is what happens when he announces he's running. isn't the policy that he shouldn't be indicted? it's a shitty policy. so is the policy--hardly written in stone and, I believe, highly reversible--that a sitting president can't be indicted because it would interfere with his job. my understanding is that this whole notion comes out of the DOJ's OLC, which is the part of DOJ that, to a significant degree, exists to "safeguard" the president's (or the White House's) interests. this is my understanding and I'm not a lawyer so if I'm getting this wrong, please let me know...
Outlandish. Yes. It is. Trump has NO RESPECT for the office, he already showed us that … so any imaginary rules to preserve the integrity of the office as it relates to Trump, DO NOT APPLY. I’m not a lawyer either… but this seems clear to me.
jesus...he's so fucking stupid, he doesn't even know what a "leak" is. isn't a leak supposed to be anonymous (or, at very least, disguised) and ALWAYS unofficial? Ms. Hutchinson's appearances are pretty much the very OPPOSITE of a leak. people leak to disseminate information without getting in trouble for doing so; Ms. Hutchinson has the extraordinary balls to disseminate the information she's privy to in the most terrifyingly open way available to her. I really had assumed that his stupidity was no longer capable of surprising me, but I was obviously wrong.
Anything resembling Playboy's playpen? Were they paid? I've got a few more questions, but an expose on Trump's mar-a-lago office belongs somewhere else.
Tom, if you haven't already, read Heather Cox Richardson's letter for today (7/1) - she lays out a future case the Supremes have decided to take on, again without any real need to do so, thus proving they have mischief on their little minds. The case is from North Carolina, and if the Court allows the Republican plaintiffs to win, state legislatures will have the right to disregard the voters' choices and select the winners of state elections and national elections by choosing the electors they want..... It really IS for ALL the fucking marbles.....
Although certainly not the most important pieces of information about what occurred behind the scenes before and during J6, the description of plates being broken and catsup dripping down the wall, the temper tantrum in the "Beast," the insistence on taking down the "mags" and the complete abdication of interest by the Chief of Staff in the attack on the Capitol, reminded me so much of a work environment I once experienced. I have long wondered how supposedly "intelligent" people, people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law could continue to work for a man who was so clearly a Mob Boss, consumed with his own importance, a pathological narcissist, and half crazy (if not fully nuts) with power.
But I worked for someone like that once. He was, in addition to being all of the above-mentioned adjectives a rageaholic. His fearsome tantrums and threats of violence were terrifying to behold. He was a large man, and he used his size to intimidate others. For some odd reason, I was literally the only person who could bring him down from his towering rages. It was probably because we had at one time been "colleagues" before he was promoted to be my "boss." It was such a trying and emotional effort for me and so additionally terrifying that I would be unsuccessful and then become his next target, that I eventually jumped ship and left his school district. When I did, he threatened me again and insisted I write the press release about my departure in such a way that it lauded him. So, I "get" why a young woman like Cassidy stayed there. It might not have been the glamour of the job, the contact with powerful people, being on a first name basis with her boss, the Chief of Staff, and her feeling that her work was meaningful, but it could have possibly been a deep-seated fear of all those surrounding her - especially the Mob Boss at the top of the heap. These are just thoughts but having heard that description of the chaotic and toxic work environment that was the WH for four years, it did make me think that more revelations are yet to come and more glimpses into that sick and twisted world they like to call Trumpworld.
Cassidy will go down in my book as one of the bravest young persons we have met thus far. She might not have had the courage to "speak truth to power" while being employed, but she certainly spoke truth before a global audience and did so UNDER OATH.
well done again, Tom. I'm not convinced (as I've suggested before) that Engel and Ornato wouldn't lie under oath. obviously, when it happened, they were freaked out and blabbed to someone they assumed was another True Believer, who wouldn't take their stories beyond that moment. they were wrong and, as you say, outrage softens, fear is sometimes hard to recapture, treason becomes trivial etc. etc. but if those guys stay in T***pworld, they figure they'll be amply rewarded, which means that they're unobservant, dumb and, generally, never knew or have forgotten how actual, reasonably normal human beings behave. as for Ginni Thomas: she's both crazy and very crafty (I just read that, twenty years after her hubby's confirmation, she called Anita Hill and asked her to APOLOGIZE), and my assumption is that she NEVER, EVER had any intention of testifying (if it was a public appearance, I have no doubt she'd have tried hard to create chaos to discredit the proceedings), but made the announcement of her "eagerness" performatively, having planned the whole thing with her lawyer. again, just my own hunches. but they feel pretty correct to me.
Seems to me such documented evidence exists that if Giuliani and Meadows aren't both subpeonad next week by the DOJ to appear before a Grand Jury then Biden should dismiss and replace Garland. After all there is the elephantine matter of those many Members of Congress who not only supported but also participated in this conspiracy. They are yet to be fully dragged into the light and need to be exposed before the midterms if the legal proceedings somehow can't be initiated to remove them before then.
As a parent and a former teacher, I know how important it is for discipline to be timely. The consequences need to happen closely in time to the bad behavior. Trump has NEVER been held accountable for his behavior as a child or adult. For the good of the country, he must be held accountable and face real time consequences.
Apparently Hutchinson's "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God" is not enough for my trumper brothers who say ALL her evidence is "hearsay", and hearsay is LYING. Is this Faux News new diversion tactic?
Remind your brother that the committee would not be televising her statements if they didn't have other sources confirming what she's saying. As Heather Cox Richardson like to say, they have the receipts. And I'm hearing that even some of the Fox hosts are being swayed.
Thanks TC for another great post, laying it on the line. You’re so right: the gop noise machine is set on high and the messaging about trump in the Beast is focused. WHEN are the dim Dems going to realize this really is war. The mob was out to kill. Garland has to move up the chain and reach the top. Now. Not. Later. Dems should have massive attack ads out there. This is no time to think there is any possibility that the basic gop is anything other than evil. Their militias are preparing/prepared and the Gilead Court (love that TC)) has said to them: Arm Up. Sorry to end on that. Peace and Courage.
News Bulletin: 'Jan. 6 committee subpoenas former White House counsel Pat Cipollone' TC's, THE SCAMS DON'T WORK NOW may be more and more true with each passing day. Wouldn't that be nice?
'The decision followed extensive negotiations between Cipollone and the committee, as well as sharply escalating pressure on him in recent days to come forward and testify. Committee members have come to believe that the former counsel’s testimony could be critical to their investigation, given his proximity to Donald Trump and presence during key moments before, during and after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The subpoena is likely to trigger a lengthy legal battle.' (WAPO) See gifted link below.
The fact that the Secret service would dispute her take just smacks of “locker room talk”. Of course they’re team Trump, duh. If the Presidents security was the issue, how could they allow armed “protesters” to proceed to the Capitol? Why weren’t they more concerned about what might occur with armed vigilantes running around DC? Because they knew they were after their enemies. They just didn’t want their prize caught in the crossfire… assuming there would be crossfire. Why wouldn’t the DOJ have started an investigation immediately? Are they team Trump too? We know the SCOTUS is… unabashedly… and boldly stripping freedoms on a near daily basis. Seems we’re careening downhill at a breathtaking pace and not a Dem in sight to save us. I want to be angry but my disgust reigns.
I really do wish that Democrats would get feistier. one way to do this should DEFINITELY involve disseminating as much information as possible about those OTHER horrifying SCOTUS decisions which are about to shred and eat (or consume some other way) other basic civil rights involving citizens' interface with law enforcement: the shredding of Miranda, walking back Gideon...THOSE sorta not-as-sexy decisions aimed at undoing the protections extended by the Warren Court to make the power differential between us and the cops a little bit more balanced. of course, the other guys will hit back with that whole "soft on crime" bullshit because that's another favorite go-to place for those assholes. and yeah, I haven't brought up their hypocrisy in this particular rant because I figure it's already a "given." as in "I want to throw the book at every guy sipping beer in public or supplying reliable birth control information to high school students but I sure do wish you'd do that book-throwing AFTER you give me that pardon." fuck them.
Thank you. I have relocated my anger. Biden and McConnell come to an agreement on the filibuster. 🤬 Biden appoints a conservative justice for life. 🤬And vote for us folks … we aren’t them. I feel like we’ve been dumped.
I too feel frustrated that Orange Cheeto and his co-conspirators haven't been perp walked out of a federal court house. It takes evidence that will stand up in court to get a conviction. Witnesses need first hand knowledge to testify, and their testimony must be corroborated.
Building a case to take down a conspiracy like this takes a long time. It took federal prosecutors approximately 28 months to build the case, gather the evidence, and collect the witnesses to take down John Gotti. Their previous two prosecutions failed (Cheeto's two impeachments failed), so they bided their time and built an unbeatable case. The DOJ is building that case now. People think they're not working because there haven't been any leaks. If the DOJ brings a case against Cheeto that isn't bulletproof, they won't get a second chance and this country will cease to be a democracy. To paraphrase Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade": the quest for a conviction isn't theater, it's a race against evil! If Cheeto is acquitted, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth!
Personally, I'm willing to give the DOJ a bit more time. Eastman gave up his fight about his phone, Fox and OAN struggled to spin Hutchinson's testimony, and I'd bet Meadows, Stone, and Flynn are reevaluating just how much longer they want to carry on being loyal to Cheeto. Gotti had Sammy the Bull turn on him, and Cheeto isn't anywhere near as scary as Gotti.
Just now, on MSNBC, Chris Hayes had two experts comment on just this DOJ issue. Yale University Law Senior Lecturer, Asha Rangappa, and Chuck Rosenberg, former DEA administrator, both said we need to be patient because the DOJ is doing this right. Rosenberg said, "The DOJ's approach has always been, and always had to be bottom up, convict and cooperate, flipping witnesses methodically according to DOJ standards, a process which is even more important in this case, while the congessional committee is the reverse, doing top down." He said, "They [Congressional J6 Committee and the DoJ] will all intersect at some point," and to have faith in Garland and the process.
I am not someone who prays, but if this actually results in convictions, I will start. Because maybe there is a god or several.
She will come through for us!
Chris Hayes' show last night was powerful, I thought. This point made perfect sense to me.
I'll begin to have faith in the legal process when I've seen something that justifies it. In the meantime, I'll keep my hopes up as best I can. My fear now is that a day or so before the indictments are read, someone in the DoJ will, as a matter of professional courtesy or obligation, let one of the traitor's attorneys know about it and, in a matter of minutes, he'll become a declared candidate for the GOP nomination in 2024.
Shhhhhhhhhh
Exactly.
We can only hope.
Excellent analogy. 👍🏻
I agree 100%.
Eventually someone actually says: "The Emperor has no clothes."
I apologize for the imagery.
Someone made statues of Fatso naked and had them around the country.
Eeeeeuuuwwww
It is a frightening image. But we have all known the Emperor had no clothes when he and the ice queen came down the elevator in 2015 with the paid actors as his adoring crowd.
Eeeeuuuwww
Has the Jan 6 House Committee found a way to built back trust?
'For would-be authoritarians, the destruction of organizations dedicated to finding out what actually happened is an obvious part of the path to power. If leaders can convince people not to believe anything at all, then they can substitute the false narratives that justify their own limitless power.' (Atlantic)
This is exactly what we have been living through for the last 5+ years but, even so, TC wrote that THE SCAMS DON'T WORK NOW because of the narrative the January 6 House committee has been crafting. Cassidy Hutchinson's bombshell testimony didn't happen in a vacuum. It was perfectly laid after five hearings had demonstrated that January 6th attack on the Capitol was not a protest but a planned insurgency by Trump; that the 2020 election was not fraudulent but the cleanest in the country's history; that Trump launched a pressure campaign on Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again; detailed Trump's unsuccessful efforts to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election and his wide-ranging efforts to coerce the Justice Department into overturning the 2020 election, … and then SURPRISE, along comes Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows,
Remember folks, except for the moving testimony from former poll workers, daughter Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, former poll workers, all the testimony about Trump's lies where by Republicans.
The Jan 6 House committee has ' …created a giant fact-checking project designed not only to write an accurate account of what happened in the run-up to the Capitol attack, but to convince people to believe it. The point is not to establish whether some detail that one witness reveals is true or false, but rather to tell a larger story, using a wide range of perspectives, delivered in a manner optimally designed to create trust. (Atlantic)
As a supplement to TC's fine depiction of the work by the January 6 House Committee you may be interested in Anne Applebaum's 'The Reason Liz Cheney Is Narrating the January 6 Story',
'The committee is laying out the facts in a way optimally designed to cultivate trust.' See link below.. I was unable to gift it but as I am a subscriber, I hope the link below works for you. I apologize if it does not
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/jan-6-hearings-fact-check-trump-supporters-2020-election/661428/
Thank you, Fern. I love tidy minds-- clear and articulate. Anne Applebaum is one of my favorites for shedding light on what is happening.
Her point about the " packaging" of these hearings is critical. There is none of the grandstanding for sound -bite time on the part of the members that is so infuriating in the typical Congressional Committee hearings. The former TV producer they hired to format the hearings is earning his money as the time moves fluidly from realtime personal to past taped interviews. Bennie and Liz are co-anchoring and holding the threads together, reminding us of where we've been, teasing what is to come. The dots are being connected, one by one-- and, miracle of miracles-- not one Committee member has grandstanded. We see only the face of the questioner though we know the other committee members are sitting there, listening as we are. It is well done. AND not one person, has thrown food, dishes, grabbed wheels, bleated out status, or thrown a tantrum to rival any 2 year old, angry and thwarted, in a supermarket cart!!
I hope Anne Applebaum is right that this amazing effort to bring the facts of this staggering story to light in a way familiar and accessible to most Americans will indeed begin to build trust.
TY, Fern.
Yes indeed, clear and articulate! of what I hinted at in yesterday's comment: "now US institutions are not only showing strength, but understanding of true entertainment." This is the so far missing response to Fox Entertainment, hopefully developing and spreading.
Wow! Yes! Fight Fox with Fox Fire! (Def: "the phosphorescent light emitted by certain fungi on decaying timber."
Yes! Expertly convincing The Court of Public Opinion!
Thank You Fern!! Your insights are always dynamite! And a subscription to The Atlantic is so worth it. Applebaum's piece is briliantly illuminating.
one of the coolest things about The Atlantic is that it's always been non-partisan, so if it hates anyone in public life (this is just a thought experiment, you understand...it couldn't POSSIBLY apply to anything or anyone in the "real world," right?) you can figure it's NOT because of any pre-existing axes it was required to burn. and the magazine's been doing yeoman work these last six years.
They are non-partisan, but they do come down on the "right side" of the road - not that that's a bad thing. I like Tom Nichols and I've come to appreciate David Frum, and they make no bones about having been Republicans. David French and Peter Wehner are also not libs, but they too are good. I respect Wehner.
increasingly, Tom, I'm thinking that we need to drop the practice of calling ourselves "liberals," because classic Liberalism (upper case) doesn't represent what most of us believe in. at least not me. classic Liberalism is about minimal government, resulting in minimal state intervention in people's lives and a general "hands off" policy. which is to say that, to me at any rate, that upper-case Liberalism looks and sounds like what "Libertarians" say they believe. and a number of Libertarians are now calling themselves "Classic Liberals," when what they believe is closer to old-time (that is, pre-Movement Conservatives. what I consider myself is a Social Democrat, and I think that pretty much most of the people whose politics are closest to mine are Social Democrats. one of the reasons I'm making such a big deal about this is precisely because I don't want anyone to EVER think that I have a political philosophy that has anything at all in common with, say, Rand Paul (gag-o-rama. it is not unlike Classical Music (Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven) and "classical music," which includes everything symphony orchestra and chamber groups play. when I try to explain that difference to people who don't know that distinction, we both end up very frustrated. so I (and the relevant friends) have taken to calling the lower-case "classical music" "Concert Music" instead. actually, the two phenomena are very close, now that I've actually typed it out. and I know I'm a lot more comfortable describing myself as a Social Democrat. I think, for example, that a Classic Liberal might actually be delighted with SCOTUS continuing its massive shredding operation by calculatedly emasculating the EPA, which is hardly a perfect agency, but one that actually did some good stuff when it was allowed to operate...and I've already gotten heated over Miranda and Gideon being castrated by fiat, so I'll leave it at that. I slept about two hours last night, and I'm pretty sure that rage had a lot to do with it, so I want NO SCREENS for the hour it'll take me to wind down. I tend to like Tom Nichols more than David Frum (who was a pretty nasty piece of work in his time). and Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, being Movement Neocon bluebloods, will always make me sick. this last bit is probably a NY Intellectuals thing, since that whole Partisan Review tradition is one I still cherish. I mean like HEY, when I was in graduate school, I studied with Irving Howe AND Alfred Kazin, which sounds almost like the punchline to an extremely parochial, not especially funny joke that could begin something like "so we got two jewish socialists walking down the street and the first one says something like "hey, I smell shit..."...anyone can feel free to fill in the rest. and speaking of Movement Conservatives, I once knew a guy who played (this is literal) in the same sandbox with Bill Buckley and told me (this'd be 1971) that those brothers were always very happy to express their racism and antisemitism in the all of the most blatantly stereotypical ways you can imagine. good night, folks.
I don't know these days what I am. Certainly not a "classical liberal," but that was never anything, so far as I ever noticed. Not so certain I am a Social Democrat (that's a NYC thing, man). Definitely left the Socialite Socialists and the Bourgeois Bolsheviks behind long ago. The Berners are an embarrassment. Funny you would mention Bill Kristol, since he's been making a lot of sense since 2015, much to my dismay; there's also the fact my book cases look like his (a total mess). The office he shows when he Zooms resembles mine in a more "upscale" way but we're both obvious believers that a neat desk is the sign of sick mind.
I agree with Tom Nichols a lot. I find Tim Miller a brave and intellectually honest guy. They remind me of the Republicans I used to get drunk with and go flying with (not in that order and on different days :-) ) 40+ years ago. I'd probably enjoy arguing with those two. And would have to bring the A+ game to it.
Right now mostly, I'm "If you say you believe in democracy and act like you do" I probably agree with you on everything we need to agree on and the rest is "discussion."
I figure you're right about that. god knows, we pretty much never disagree HERE. but do you really think "Social Democrat" is such a NYC thing? to my mind, not nearly enough people here use it as a term to define their political position. certainly this applies to most of the younger people I either encounter or hear about from the several younger friends I've made in recent years. one of these friends (if you'd like, I'll have him add you to the mailing list for his continuing series of (non-Substack) newsletters, which are very well-written and very sad. he keeps me informed about the neo-lefties in these parts, and they're almost universally DSA members...completely short-sighted and, occasionally, downright CRAZY. he has a bunch of so-called "anarchist" friends (in college, I liked to identify as an anarchist, but pretty much only because I really liked Kropotkin) whose completely dumb idea of "anarchist practice" came down to refusing to get vaccinated because the government couldn't tell them what to do.
and didn't we recently talk about the idiocy of Susan Sarandon's support for the most right-wing candidates "to bring the revolution closer?" so now it appears ( according to the NYT, which is hardly an infallible source these days--I promise I won't get started on Maggie Haberman and her miserable dad) that Nancy Pelosi has embraced the same so-called "strategy." I understand the gamble she's making; I just don't like the odds. to repeat myself: when the fuck has this EVER worked?
Very good. Thank you Fern, for sharing Anne Applebaum's insightful and informative perspective.
Glad you read it Vague Craig. She clearly diagramed the committee's design and execution. It would be is very difficult or impossible to duplicate in most circumstances, nevertheless, where possible, it provides a model example of communication. As to your name, it tickles my mood. Thank you.
I have just co-incidentally wandered off down a trail tracking the name Laufman, derived from Laufer (Ashkenazic Jewish/German for messenger/runner).
One said Laufman, David a former senior Justice Department lawyer, posited that the question of witness tampering by way of threatening texts may be a “sideshow” to the larger questions of criminal conduct raised by the publicly known evidence. “It’s a target-rich environment right now.”
I subscribe to the Atlantic too- great writing and this was a very good article, as I'd expect. Read Heather's letter for 7/1 - it will curl your hair and roll up your socks - we ain't seen nuttin' yet from these jamokes.....
Good to hear from you Bruce. 'Jamokes', I like the word. It is far too generous as a descriptor for 'them', but I prefer it to the expletives. My socks are rolled up. Salud.
ahhh Fern...what would I do without you?
Please answer your question, David. I'm curious. Cheers
wow...you called my bluff, but I'll try a quick answer: have a lot less fun and a lot less sense that there IS an actual "we," which is a sense that's increasingly difficult to experience alone at a keyboard. I figure there are more answers, but I'm working on them....
Right on, Fern!
Which federal agency is it that removes the Secret Service detail tasked with protecting Thugee Orange when he is being detained on charges of sedition?
I hadn't thought of that.
😂🤣 When he’s in custody he won’t need the Secret service anymore.
I don't think anybody has any idea about this because it's never even been on anyone's RADAR. it's just too outlandish. one thing that DOES worry me is what happens when he announces he's running. isn't the policy that he shouldn't be indicted? it's a shitty policy. so is the policy--hardly written in stone and, I believe, highly reversible--that a sitting president can't be indicted because it would interfere with his job. my understanding is that this whole notion comes out of the DOJ's OLC, which is the part of DOJ that, to a significant degree, exists to "safeguard" the president's (or the White House's) interests. this is my understanding and I'm not a lawyer so if I'm getting this wrong, please let me know...
Outlandish. Yes. It is. Trump has NO RESPECT for the office, he already showed us that … so any imaginary rules to preserve the integrity of the office as it relates to Trump, DO NOT APPLY. I’m not a lawyer either… but this seems clear to me.
What seems clear to a rational person does not apply to Trump cultists.
Lest we forget, Ms. Hutchinson also worked for Senator Jostedeph McCruzarthy. I guess she was a Democratic plant all along.
"I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS LEAKY PERSON" uttered the world's largest lying lardarse.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-young-guns-white-house-staffers-mar-a-lago-office?fbclid=IwAR3JxfgCe-lrDcp0trcluhsd8gO90Rd7fuX5wnjrENnn_05FobGiuqyZklA
jesus...he's so fucking stupid, he doesn't even know what a "leak" is. isn't a leak supposed to be anonymous (or, at very least, disguised) and ALWAYS unofficial? Ms. Hutchinson's appearances are pretty much the very OPPOSITE of a leak. people leak to disseminate information without getting in trouble for doing so; Ms. Hutchinson has the extraordinary balls to disseminate the information she's privy to in the most terrifyingly open way available to her. I really had assumed that his stupidity was no longer capable of surprising me, but I was obviously wrong.
Anything resembling Playboy's playpen? Were they paid? I've got a few more questions, but an expose on Trump's mar-a-lago office belongs somewhere else.
Tom, if you haven't already, read Heather Cox Richardson's letter for today (7/1) - she lays out a future case the Supremes have decided to take on, again without any real need to do so, thus proving they have mischief on their little minds. The case is from North Carolina, and if the Court allows the Republican plaintiffs to win, state legislatures will have the right to disregard the voters' choices and select the winners of state elections and national elections by choosing the electors they want..... It really IS for ALL the fucking marbles.....
As a matter of fact, I too am writing on that. As they say, Great Minds Do Think Alike. :-)
Although certainly not the most important pieces of information about what occurred behind the scenes before and during J6, the description of plates being broken and catsup dripping down the wall, the temper tantrum in the "Beast," the insistence on taking down the "mags" and the complete abdication of interest by the Chief of Staff in the attack on the Capitol, reminded me so much of a work environment I once experienced. I have long wondered how supposedly "intelligent" people, people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law could continue to work for a man who was so clearly a Mob Boss, consumed with his own importance, a pathological narcissist, and half crazy (if not fully nuts) with power.
But I worked for someone like that once. He was, in addition to being all of the above-mentioned adjectives a rageaholic. His fearsome tantrums and threats of violence were terrifying to behold. He was a large man, and he used his size to intimidate others. For some odd reason, I was literally the only person who could bring him down from his towering rages. It was probably because we had at one time been "colleagues" before he was promoted to be my "boss." It was such a trying and emotional effort for me and so additionally terrifying that I would be unsuccessful and then become his next target, that I eventually jumped ship and left his school district. When I did, he threatened me again and insisted I write the press release about my departure in such a way that it lauded him. So, I "get" why a young woman like Cassidy stayed there. It might not have been the glamour of the job, the contact with powerful people, being on a first name basis with her boss, the Chief of Staff, and her feeling that her work was meaningful, but it could have possibly been a deep-seated fear of all those surrounding her - especially the Mob Boss at the top of the heap. These are just thoughts but having heard that description of the chaotic and toxic work environment that was the WH for four years, it did make me think that more revelations are yet to come and more glimpses into that sick and twisted world they like to call Trumpworld.
Cassidy will go down in my book as one of the bravest young persons we have met thus far. She might not have had the courage to "speak truth to power" while being employed, but she certainly spoke truth before a global audience and did so UNDER OATH.
well done again, Tom. I'm not convinced (as I've suggested before) that Engel and Ornato wouldn't lie under oath. obviously, when it happened, they were freaked out and blabbed to someone they assumed was another True Believer, who wouldn't take their stories beyond that moment. they were wrong and, as you say, outrage softens, fear is sometimes hard to recapture, treason becomes trivial etc. etc. but if those guys stay in T***pworld, they figure they'll be amply rewarded, which means that they're unobservant, dumb and, generally, never knew or have forgotten how actual, reasonably normal human beings behave. as for Ginni Thomas: she's both crazy and very crafty (I just read that, twenty years after her hubby's confirmation, she called Anita Hill and asked her to APOLOGIZE), and my assumption is that she NEVER, EVER had any intention of testifying (if it was a public appearance, I have no doubt she'd have tried hard to create chaos to discredit the proceedings), but made the announcement of her "eagerness" performatively, having planned the whole thing with her lawyer. again, just my own hunches. but they feel pretty correct to me.
Seems to me such documented evidence exists that if Giuliani and Meadows aren't both subpeonad next week by the DOJ to appear before a Grand Jury then Biden should dismiss and replace Garland. After all there is the elephantine matter of those many Members of Congress who not only supported but also participated in this conspiracy. They are yet to be fully dragged into the light and need to be exposed before the midterms if the legal proceedings somehow can't be initiated to remove them before then.
As a parent and a former teacher, I know how important it is for discipline to be timely. The consequences need to happen closely in time to the bad behavior. Trump has NEVER been held accountable for his behavior as a child or adult. For the good of the country, he must be held accountable and face real time consequences.
Apparently Hutchinson's "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God" is not enough for my trumper brothers who say ALL her evidence is "hearsay", and hearsay is LYING. Is this Faux News new diversion tactic?
Remind your brother that the committee would not be televising her statements if they didn't have other sources confirming what she's saying. As Heather Cox Richardson like to say, they have the receipts. And I'm hearing that even some of the Fox hosts are being swayed.
I think you've got it.
Thanks TC for another great post, laying it on the line. You’re so right: the gop noise machine is set on high and the messaging about trump in the Beast is focused. WHEN are the dim Dems going to realize this really is war. The mob was out to kill. Garland has to move up the chain and reach the top. Now. Not. Later. Dems should have massive attack ads out there. This is no time to think there is any possibility that the basic gop is anything other than evil. Their militias are preparing/prepared and the Gilead Court (love that TC)) has said to them: Arm Up. Sorry to end on that. Peace and Courage.
News Bulletin: 'Jan. 6 committee subpoenas former White House counsel Pat Cipollone' TC's, THE SCAMS DON'T WORK NOW may be more and more true with each passing day. Wouldn't that be nice?
'The decision followed extensive negotiations between Cipollone and the committee, as well as sharply escalating pressure on him in recent days to come forward and testify. Committee members have come to believe that the former counsel’s testimony could be critical to their investigation, given his proximity to Donald Trump and presence during key moments before, during and after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The subpoena is likely to trigger a lengthy legal battle.' (WAPO) See gifted link below.
https://wapo.st/3R0ef6A
The fact that the Secret service would dispute her take just smacks of “locker room talk”. Of course they’re team Trump, duh. If the Presidents security was the issue, how could they allow armed “protesters” to proceed to the Capitol? Why weren’t they more concerned about what might occur with armed vigilantes running around DC? Because they knew they were after their enemies. They just didn’t want their prize caught in the crossfire… assuming there would be crossfire. Why wouldn’t the DOJ have started an investigation immediately? Are they team Trump too? We know the SCOTUS is… unabashedly… and boldly stripping freedoms on a near daily basis. Seems we’re careening downhill at a breathtaking pace and not a Dem in sight to save us. I want to be angry but my disgust reigns.
https://youtu.be/US-kUWd7tAg
I really do wish that Democrats would get feistier. one way to do this should DEFINITELY involve disseminating as much information as possible about those OTHER horrifying SCOTUS decisions which are about to shred and eat (or consume some other way) other basic civil rights involving citizens' interface with law enforcement: the shredding of Miranda, walking back Gideon...THOSE sorta not-as-sexy decisions aimed at undoing the protections extended by the Warren Court to make the power differential between us and the cops a little bit more balanced. of course, the other guys will hit back with that whole "soft on crime" bullshit because that's another favorite go-to place for those assholes. and yeah, I haven't brought up their hypocrisy in this particular rant because I figure it's already a "given." as in "I want to throw the book at every guy sipping beer in public or supplying reliable birth control information to high school students but I sure do wish you'd do that book-throwing AFTER you give me that pardon." fuck them.
Thank you. I have relocated my anger. Biden and McConnell come to an agreement on the filibuster. 🤬 Biden appoints a conservative justice for life. 🤬And vote for us folks … we aren’t them. I feel like we’ve been dumped.
I agree, TC, "[t]ime is of the absolute essence."
Thanks! Will (gently) tell them this! Good news about Fox reporters though, because THAT's who they will listen to.