I think you are on the right track. When I watch the 1/6 hearing, I think it is less about convincing the American people (everyone is more or less pro or anti Trump at this point.) I think it is more a "trial balloon." Basically, release the majority of the evidence in the hearings and listen to what the Republicans say. Republicans will use the usual excuses ("the January 6 event wasn't a big deal," "the officers waved people in and the event was not violent," "the election was stolen and they had a right to protest," "blah, blah, blah, witch hunt, blah, blah!")
Basically, this is the opportunity to see what the Republican defenses are going to be, so that if and when the DOJ does decide to prosecute Trump, the DOJ will also be able to address the Republican defenses before trial (AKA-prove the event was a terroristic event, that Trump knew the election was not stolen, that officers didn't "wave people in", etc.)
Also, I think this might be a way to desensitive the American people. Remember, Trump used this method for years. Now, no matter what he does or says, the majority of people just kind of shrug their shoulders and think, "That's Trump." Now, I am not saying that people have accepted the behavior as normal and accept it. For those who hate Trump, they no longer get as shocked as they once have. As far as they (and I) are concerned, Trump is a crazy individual and nothing he says or does will distract us from the fact that he must never hold office ever again. To those who love him or tolerate him, they expect this behavior.
Now, for years Trump has screamed "witch hunt" and has said everyone is out to get him (the New York DAs, Georgia DA, the Democrats in general, the DOJ for Russia and everything else, etc.) He is like the boy who has cried wolf for so long that many people either (1) believes Trump deserves to be prosecuted or (2) loves Trump and believes that his enemies will prosecute him no matter what.
I hope and pray that someone, ANYONE, will charge Trump for something. And I think the DOJ is trying to get people used to the idea that Trump may very well be charged with something. In many ways, this is like the leak of the Roe v. Wade memorandum. Whoever leaked it early has caused a slow build-up of emotions in the American people. Women are preparing themselves for living in the hell that is red states. Marches and protests are being planned. Meanwhile, light workers are coming up with ways to help the women affected (arrange transportation to other states, companies coming out in support of women, etc.).
Now, the shock and anger of people when Roe v. Wade is overturned would be greater than if the leak had not occurred, but then people would have little time to adequately prepare for the onslaught. So when the event occurs, people will be angry but will have plans on how to fight back, versus the unorganized anger of a crazed mob.
By getting people used to the idea that Trump could be charged now, they are lessening the outrage for if and when it ultimately happens. So if indictments against Trump is announced, the DOJ and others will have plans to protect themselves. Also, with the January 6 prosecutions still going on, we can get some of the more dangerous people in jail so that when the indictment comes out, they can't help Trump again.
I hope and pray that someone does something and shows once and for all that no one is above the law. We know what Trump did. Now is the time for him to be held accountable.
I hope and pray that someone does something and shows once and for all that no one is above the law. We know what Trump did. Now is the time for him to be held accountable.
Yes, we do know what he did. Unfortunately - as I mentioned above - knowing it and proving it in court are two vastly different things.
@tgraf66 @freya @allyn @Pegesus. Since I'm old, I can speak from a past consequential hearing called Watergate. The hearings were much more laborious and drawn out, but, nevertheless, compelling. They were watched and by the time Nixon resigned, his approval polls had dropped below 30%. These hearings are "better television" and better organized. I think they will have an effect. They won't convince the Trumpiest of authoritarians, but more moderate Republicans and even more moderate Fox viewers may be moved. Neal Katyal, former Solicitor General of the U.S. who has argued cases before the Supreme Court and is now a regular contributor to MSNBC, said yesterday, "I am 100% convinced that the DOJ will indict. The evidence is simply too compelling for them to ignore it." Frankly, I'm hanging onto that.
@tgraf66 No offense taken and I appreciate the feedback.
It was my understanding that the pardon list is not public knowledge.(Although I am sure the committee knows who got pardons and hopefully will start naming names.) And...that that the receiver of the pardon can wait until they are charged with a federal crime to use it and has no expiration date.
People have been speculating as to why Mark Meadows seems to be getting away with not complying with the committee....and my own personal "guess" was that maybe he IS co-operating. But after hearing Kushner say how busy he was working on pardons...I thought maybe he's not worried because he has a "pocket pardon" and most likely Trump and family does too. It's not known if a president can pardon himself because it's never been tried before.
I also read that a federal pardon has no weight if one is charged with a state crime. Maybe that's why some people have their eye on Georgia?
@Allyn....did I misunderstand how pardons work?
Since I'm old, I can speak from a past consequential hearing called Watergate. The hearings were much more laborious and drawn out, but, nevertheless, compelling. They were watched and by the time Nixon resigned, his approval polls had dropped below 30%. These hearings are "better television" and better organized. I think they will have an effect. They won't convince the Trumpiest of authoritarians, but more moderate Republicans and even more moderate Fox viewers may be moved.
I was a kid during Watergate. My dad was 100% behind Nixon up until near the end of the hearings-- then he was convinced. My dad was very stubborn and it took a lot to reverse his opinions.
An observation and a question:
The J6 hearings are doing a great -- if imperfect -- job thus far. (I know Cheney has said that they are only presenting SOME of their evidence, but my point remains for the question I pose at the end of this post.)
It seems as though much of the plan to call the election rigged is being blamed on a drunken Rudy Giuliani -- never mind that Trump had started talking about election fraud months prior to November.
Roger Stone's involvement -- he of course figured prominently in other scandals over the years, going all the way back to Nixon's time in office -- is curiously absent. Haven't heard much mention of Mike Flynn, either (at least thus far). Bill Barr is working his redemption tour, and Jared and Ivanka have distanced themselves fully, much like Homer Simpson retreating into the bushes. And of course we haven't heard a peep about those current members of congress who aided and abetted the plan, ie Lindsey Graham. Very curious when compared to what we all saw and heard when it was happening in real time -- but people's memories are short.
And while I know we aren't being told EVERYTHING in these hearings, my point is, it seems to me that some people are being set up to take the fall while others are being protected.
The patsies? Trump, of course; also Rudy Giuliani and, it seems, Navarro. Mark Meadows, perhaps -- unsure about him. As foot soldiers, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers appear to be completely disposable.
My question is, what do these scapegoats do when they realize they are being made to take the fall while others walk away unscathed? Do they just sit there and take it? Or do they try to burn it all down?
@unk-p The movies is titled “2000 Mules” and is a supposed documentary on the 2000 people involved in the supposed massive voter fraud of the 2020 election. It is a right wing propaganda movie supposedly supporting the conspiracy theories around the election. IQ45 used the movie in his 12 page rant (which I did not and would not read ) about the J6 committee’s showing yesterday.
Here's what the Jan. 6 panel's references to '2,000 Mules' is about : NPR
And...that that the receiver of the pardon can wait until they are charged with a federal crime to use it and has no expiration date.
I looked this up just now, and while it is conceivable, there is some considerable question as to whether it would be legal and/or constitutional. Although there is no constitutional requirement for pardons to be made public, the entire point of a pardon is to publicly show clemency and mercy. Several of the articles I read referenced the fact that at least a few state governors who have attempted this have been rebuffed due to the difficulty of proving when the pardon was actually issued (i.e., whether the person was still in office at the time they were issued and still had the power to use them). It would certainly be in character for him to try to do it, but I don't actually believe he did, and I think even the so-called originalists now on the bench at SCOTUS would be hard pressed to find justification within both the language of the Constitution and its traditional application to support the practice.
People have been speculating as to why Mark Meadows seems to be getting away with not complying with the committee....and my own personal "guess" was that maybe he IS co-operating. But after hearing Kushner say how busy he was working on pardons...I thought maybe he's not worried because he has a "pocket pardon" and most likely Trump and family does too. It's not known if a president can pardon himself because it's never been tried before.
More intelligent and connected people than I am have suggested that yes, Meadows is cooperating with both the committee and the DOJ, and I am heavily inclined to agree. In fact, most of those who were at one point questioning why an indictment had not yet been forthcoming for him have fallen silent, which suggests to me that they somehow have knowledge that he *is* cooperating.
Regarding a self-pardon, no it hasn't been tried before, but the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a statement against the use of self-pardons in 1974, with Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary C. Lawton stating that "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself."
I also read that a federal pardon has no weight if one is charged with a state crime. Maybe that's why some people have their eye on Georgia?
This is true. Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes.
While it is possible for Trump to have given so-called "pocket pardons" to his family, I doubt very much he would have done so, and for one very important reason.
If someone is "pardoned," then they aren't allowed to use the 5th Amendment if they are called upon to testify about the crime. Basically, the 5th Amendment protects someone from having to testify against himself in a civil or criminal proceeding. However, if someone is granted a pardon, then the courts have ruled that the 5th Amendment no longer applies because that person is shielded from prosecution and therefore can't avoid testifying (although said person can be held in contempt by the court for refusing to testify).
I doubt a pardon by Trump to his family or himself will be considered legal. It has never been tried. Having said that, I doubt Trump is the type to wait until the last moment and then bring out a secret pardon. I doubt he has the patience to do so, much less the intelligence. But if he does, then that opens a whole can of worms for the GOP. If Trump did pardon himself or his family, then they must go against him or give Biden an open door to pardon his own son for whatever imaginary crimes he may have committed. So it is a two-way street.
You are right about Georgia. The law only allows the President to pardon someone for federal crimes, not state crimes. So if Georgia somehow indicts, tries, and convicts Trump, then there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. In other words, a new Republican President can't issue a pardon and get him out. The Georgia governor can, however, so here is hoping that Stacey Adams pulls an upset and wins the state.