January 6 Committee Makes Its Case

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol ...

By

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol held its first hearing Thursday night. Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David discuss its fact-based and substantive approach to investigating what happened at the Capitol riots, and whether the Republican Party will hold former President Donald Trump accountable. Then our panel turns to the question of political violence in America: Is our political rhetoric out of control? Our hosts then cover how the California primaries are off to an interesting start with progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s recall on Tuesday.

Show Notes:

–The Dispatch: “Primetime Hearing Focuses on the Plan Behind January 6”

–TMD: “January 6 Revisited”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (102)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Emily

    One thing I cannot wrap my mind around is why it is the Democrats responsibility to use the right timing and messaging for the Jan. 6th hearings and findings and not on the Republicans to take responsibility for the ways the President of their Party attempted to keep power and stay in office despite the results of the election?? As a liberal and a Democrat who always listens to The Dispatch to try to keep myself out of an echo-chamber and grounded in views from different sides, it frustrates me to no end the way that this is framed as the Dems responsibility to message and manage correctly in order to protect our constitutional republic, and not at all the Republican's responsibility to change themselves and their Party and their base in order to protect our constitutional republic. It's a vicious cycle, because Republicans cannot be counted on or trusted to do the right thing, they are not expected to do the right thing or take any responsibility. And because the Dems (and with two Republicans) on the committee take this seriously and are actually trying to present a record of facts and create accountability, all the responsibility falls on them. It's such a double-standard IMO.

    Collapse
  2. Joesyrup

    Some real Steve Hayes nonsense on this one - no, the Dispatch did not say inflation was coming - rather Jonah gave precious time and space to Dave Bahnsen - who said there would be no velocity of money and therefore there was no inflation threat. Americans with paid down debt and lots of cash in their checking accounts weren't going to spend. The Dispatch didn't properly call inflation until it was already here. Jonah's podcast generally brings in experts who can speak with authority on their chosen subject - why he brings in Bahnsen, who is just hustling his financial planning business is beyond me. Who was it who thought Dave Bahnsen would be right and Milton Friedman would be wrong?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Regarding the prime time hearings, I am on Team Isgur (as I understood her comments):

    Given that Speaker Pelosi has already cravenly betrayed her constitutional responsibility by mounting two impeachment attempts that were bound to fail, pre-destined by HER CHOICES to fail, and that we therefore have never had an impeachment effort against Trump that even remotely resembled the seriousness of the Watergate investigation & impeachment —

    — Which is to say, given that the best that can be hoped for from these prime-time hearings is not an event of constitutional significance (the barring of a POTUS from future office), but rather of historical and educational and moral and ethical and political importance instead —

    Then there should be a whole lot more David E. Kelley and a whole lot less Stephen A. Douglas in these prime-time hearings.

    That they are not taking place in a genuinely adversarial proceeding — one abundantly characterized by rights of due process, of prompt and meaningful compulsory process, of cross-examination and other rules of evidence — need not strip these prime-time hearings of all drama.

    Instead we're getting this dog's breakfast of a show, in which congress-critters squander their most precious asset — the attention-span of the rest of the world.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Another lively show, for which I thank the four (three?) of you.

    But why was Mr. Hayes live-TWEETING the first episode of the prime-time Jan 6th Committee hearings? Why would a co-founder of THIS platform use THAT platform — exclusively! — to share his thoughts?

    NR often has a browser-based app through which readers can view real-time comments — from Twitter or elsewhere — from NR contributors. I don't think the idea is patented. So steal it, put it your live-comment window outside the paywall, and STOP sending eyeballs and clicks to Twitter that OUGHT to be coming to TheDispatch.com.

    David French: "Twitter is not the real world." Also David French, approximately every sixth sentence: "And if you go on Twitter ...." There is something wrong with this picture. You are simultaneously the most candid of all Dispatchers about Twitter's constant corrosive effect on our civilization, and yet also its seemingly most enthusiastic user. Mr. French: It's time to "Go Stirewalt." Stop using it. Or failing that, stop talking about it.

    Twitter delenda est.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I don’t understand why Americans confuse a freedom of speech and assembly with a freedom of disruption and intimidation.

    Speech is for persuasion, protesting in front of someone’s house is for intimidation and it should be outlawed if possible and condemned without exception.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    Who should the audience be:

    Persuadable people who still think Trump could be a valid candidate in 2024. We already failed to punish the guy, we need to keep him out of power. The only way to do that is to convince the people who aren’t already convinced that Trump is an existential danger to the republic. And, I hate to break it here, but these have to be Republicans.

    Second, maybe I’m misunderstanding David but what is meant by “responsible, rigorous” Republicans? Are we afraid of arguments that might run counter to coup narrative? Jordan should absolutely be there if he wants to be and who cares if Fox covers it? As Jefferson said:

    “….truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.“

    Isn’t this foundational to the legal profession in this country? It’s one thing if these people want to stonewall and not defend themselves. It’s another to not allow them to make their idiotic arguments during this hearing. That is the grave and perhaps fatal error committed here.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jacob

    It's not just Schumer's speech. It's also the straight-up threat against the Court by 5 Senators in an Amicus Brief a few years ago which amounted to 'nice Court you have there - it would be a shame if anything happened to it.'

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Scarisbrick

    I appreciated how Jonah took Sarah's "non-imposter-syndrome" compliment in stride, but I do believe he said, "I've been writing about this for a long time," not, "I've been right about this for a long time." But both are true.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      hahahahah!!! omg, now that you say that, that makes way more sense! see, now what does it say about me that i misheard jonah in that specific way? lol.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Steve Hayes

    This was pretty good -- and sums up my view pretty well. The difference between the urgent and the important. https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1536001867787935749?s=20&t=RW-0gKcWT2oFJEOwP14neA

    Collapse
  10. Bruce Metzger

    I listened to this podcast while walking Doc, my dog. My big take away was how pessimistic everyone of you were about the potential results of the Jan 6th hearings. I think that you all fail to recognize the long game, the impact on Trump’s political fortunes.

    I live in one of the deepest red congressional districts in the country. Mo Brooks is my Congressman. Huntsville is an engineering/high tech town. Lots of folks, like me, closely tied to the military and NASA. Lots of highly educated folks here who lean to the republican side. Mo Brooks barely edged out Katie Britt in his own congressional district. 60%+ of his own district voted for an opponent.

    I can think of no one who supported Trump more fervently (and got screwed by Trump) than Mo Brooks but his actions were always Pro-Trump. I realize this is not scientific but my conversations with friends who are as conservative as I am, tell me that conservative folks who voted for trump are not inclined to walk down that road again and Mo Brooks loss of votes is an example of that in a conservative district.

    I may be wrong but if Trump runs again. The ads produced from the findings of the Jan 6th committee will run non stop in primary and general election campaigns. Ben Sasse notes that 86% of Americans are normal and don’t pay attention to politics, but they do when elections are about to happen.

    I think the observed results in my own congressional district support that eventually, the Jan 6th findings will seep into the electorate to Trump’s detriment. I respectfully submit that it has in Alabama 5th district. Remember that this is a deep red state that elected a democrat over Roy Moore.

    Collapse
Load More