The January 6 Committee Gets Ready for Prime Time

By David Corn  May 14, 2022

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack meeting on December 1, 2021, to consider a criminal contempt charge for a prospective witness. Tom Williams/AP

The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack is boldly going where congressional committees almost never go: prime time. Next month, the panel is set to hold a week or so of hearings, and to achieve maximum impact, it intends to put on its show in the evening, starting in the 8:00 hour on the East Coast, when there is potential for a large television audience. With this move, the committee could achieve what hasn’t occurred in a long time: a congressional hearing that makes a difference.

Blockbuster congressional hearings used to be a fixture in American life. The Army-McCarthy hearings. The Senate Vietnam War hearings (during which a young antiwar vet named John Kerry poignantly remarked, “How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”). The Watergate hearings. Iran-contra. Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill. These and other hearings riveted the nation. Occasionally hearings have made news that has defined issues or yielded significant change. The 1994 hearing that placed in the hot seat the chief executives of the top seven tobacco companies—who each testified that they did not believe cigarettes were addictive—was a landmark moment in the battle against Big Tobacco and corporate malfeasance. Hillary Clinton’s marathon 11-hour appearance before a House Benghazi committee demonstrated that the Republicans’ conspiratorial allegations were baseless.

Yet congressional hearings have generally not had the impact they once did. Overall, the quality of these sessions has decreased. There’s usually too much jawboning by senators and representatives who are ill-prepared and interested mostly in producing a soundbite that may or may not be relevant to the subject of the hearing. The sessions can produce viral clips that bring attention to an important subject. (Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Katie Porter have demonstrated talent in this regard.) And they can still offer drama, as with the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford showdown. But often they don’t do much to alter narratives or the world.

House Republicans turned the hearings for the first Donald Trump impeachment into a mess, with their constant braying about Deep State plots and conspiracy theories. It was Russian disinformation and other rigamarole designed to distract from Trump’s wrongdoing. And remember the hearing with special counsel Robert Mueller after the release of his report on the Trump-Russia investigation? He was tentative and taciturn and did little to advance the story of Vladimir Putin’s attack on the 2016 election and the Trump crew’s interactions with Moscow operatives. It’s been a while since there was a gangbuster hearing that captured the attention of the public for the right reasons.

The January 6 committee is trying to do better. Its members and staff have been thinking about how to stage a hearing that matters. They want to captivate the country and convey the full significance of the insurrectionist assault on Congress that prevented the peaceful transfer of power and that nearly caused a breakdown in the nation’s constitutional order. To that end, they intend to ensure that each nightly installment contains new revelations, information that can generate headlines and command widespread interest—especially in the face of what will be an all-out campaign waged by Trump and his allies to downplay and denigrate the hearings.

They also aim to construct compelling and coherent narratives about the different aspects of their multifaceted investigation. The plan is not to only focus on the day of the assault but to show the public the full picture of Trump’s efforts to subvert the election. There’s a lot to probe here: Trump pressuring state officials to improperly overturn election results; fake electors; links between the Trump White House and right-wing agitators; Trump’s attempt to lean on Justice Department officials; the involvement of congressional Republicans in schemes to undermine the vote count; the participation of far-right militias; and more.

One committee member, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), has displayed the ability to convey a strong narrative in such a setting. He was the lead House impeachment manager for the second Trump impeachment trial. As he notes in his memoir, Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy, when he pulled together the team of House managers for that proceeding, he told them,

We are not going to get up and make a series of disconnected speeches of great oratory that vanish into thin air. We are going to tell America and the Senate one single, unforgettable story with short, vivid chapters brought to life by you and by video, one spellbinding and appalling narrative about how Donald Trump became obsessed with denying the reality of his defeat and Joe Biden’s victory and then set about using every means in the world, first lawful and nonviolent, then unlawful and criminal, and then, finally, violent and criminal, to overthrow the lawful presidential result and replace it what he called his “continuation in office.”

And Raskin achieved that. The case he and his team presented in the Senate was well-crafted and engaging, featuring gripping and upsetting video that had not been previously seen. They managed to win 57 votes for conviction, including seven Republicans, racking up the first bipartisan conviction majority in an impeachment trial—though it fell ten votes shy of the two-thirds vote required for conviction. Raskin showed that legislators could apply a sense of showmanship and news to a well-constructed presentation. The January 6 committee will not be seeking to win a legal argument, though at the end of its deliberations it could well recommend prosecutions. Its main task is to inform the public, create a historical record, and to highlight the threat to democracy that has not yet been eradicated. But the committee has a better chance of accomplishing this mission, if it can present forceful storytelling with a dash of pizzazz.

With all hearings, a key component is witnesses. John Dean, the Nixon White House insider who spilled the beans, became the star of the Watergate hearings. The committee has yet to release a list, and we do know that a great many of the key participants have not been cooperating with the panel. The public deserves to hear the testimony of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump attorney John Eastman, crazy-man lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Ivanka Trump, and others, including the former guy himself. But crucial players are resisting, and the Justice Department has not been rapidly pursuing cases against those cited for contempt. On Thursday, the committee took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing five House Republicans: Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Mo Brooks, and Andy Biggs. Each had been asked to provide voluntary testimony about their involvement in Trump’s Big Lie schemes and had told the committee to get lost. It’s unclear what will happen when they resist the subpoenas, but they won’t be testifying at the hearings.

Committee members and staffers have been saying that they have been surprised by the amount of material their investigation has gathered, including documents and testimony. That suggests there could be surprises at the hearings in terms of witnesses and revelations. Will there be witnesses who saw Trump’s actions on January 6? That could be must-see television.

In all societies, the fight to document history is a crucial endeavor. This is especially so in the face of creeping authoritarianism. Autocrats strive to control the narratives of the past and present to gain and preserve power. Trump and his gang want to diminish the January 6 assault and his attacks on constitutional government to remove the stench that hangs on the GOP and to clear the path for a possible Trump restoration. If they could, they would airbrush all this out of the picture. GOP leaders refused to support the establishment of a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6, which led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to wisely set up a committee that would not include obstructionist Republicans eager to turn its proceedings into a shitshow. (The two Republicans on the committee are Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who have broken with the Trump cult.)

The committee’s job is to provide the public a full accounting of Trump’s attempted coup and the resulting raid on the Capitol. The early signs are that it could well present a powerful and troubling story. After that, it will be up to the American public to decide what to do with this tale.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

This week I am going to switch things up and swap out dumbass for disappointing. I was struck by a comment Speaker Pelosi made about the Republican Party. She was lamenting the fact that it was virtually impossible to find Republican votes in the Senate for addressing climate change. Factcheck: true. Then she shared a more general take on the GOP:

So rather than say, “Well, we have to defeat them,” no, let’s just try to persuade them. I want the Republican Party to take back the party, take it back to where you were when you cared about a woman's right to choose and you cared about the environment… Hey, here I am, Nancy Pelosi, saying this country needs a strong Republican Party. And we do. Not a cult. But a strong Republican Party.

I understand the sentiment here. Once upon a time, there were Republican moderates who occasionally joined with Democrats to advance modest-steps legislation. Senator John McCain cosponsored a climate change bill and advocated campaign finance reform. Representative George H.W. Bush was such a proponent of family planning he was nicknamed “Rubbers.” But when McCain ran for president in 2008, he dropped those issues, and Bush, when he signed up to be Ronald Reagan’s veep, jettisoned his concern for contraception. These instances were a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It’s been quite a while since Rs cared about a woman’s right to choose or the environment.

At this stage, the Republicans are long past persuasion. Not on reproductive rights, not on climate, not even on preserving American democracy. Yeah, who wouldn’t want to go back to the days of Bob Dole when Republicans killed health care reform but without turning a pandemic into a political civil war or triggering a violent attack on the Capitol? At this point, though, top Democrats should realize that the GOP has become a threat to not only their legislative agenda (be it voting rights, climate change action, paid family leave, more progressive taxation, and the rest of it) but also to the political system itself—and winning over the GOP on these issues and other fronts is not an option. The only alternative is to defeat the Republican Party of Donald Trump. With the midterms quickly approaching, Pelosi’s message should be laser-focused on the fight at hand and on mobilizing voters. Trying to come across as the reasonable politician who would relish a serious policy debate with a GOP acting in good faith is not going to jazz up voters. Right now, the nation does not need a “strong” Republican Party; it needs a diminished and vanquished Republican Party. Wishing for a sane and moderate GOP does no good. A crucial battle is going on. Why is it so hard for Democrats to convey that?

Okay, you still want a dumbass remark? Then let’s turn to golfing legend Greg Norman. This week, he downplayed the brutal assassination and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed by Saudi operatives with the approval of Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman. Norman heads a new professional golf league that is being financed by Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund, the nation’s sovereign wealth fund that is controlled by MBS. (This fund recently gave $2 billion to Jared Kushner’s new private equity fund.)

Asked about the killing of Khashoggi, Norman said, "This whole thing about Saudi Arabia and Khashoggi and human rights, talk about it, but also talk about the good that the country is doing in changing its culture.” He also remarked, “Look, we've all made mistakes and you just want to learn by those mistakes and how you can correct them going forward." Yeah, butchering a journalist and cutting his body up with a bone saw—that’s certainly a mistake you want to put behind you. Norman seems to be taken with the Saudi desire to move on: "I haven't had a personal conversation with MBS, I've never met the guy, but at the same time I do read that the Saudi government has made their statements and comments about it and they want to move forward.” If only MBS could take a mulligan on an assassination.

The Mailbag

My latest piece examining whether President Joe Biden is up to the task of convincing American voters that the GOP poses a threat to the nation drew many comments. Leonard Wolf asked, “How do we get it to the Dem leaders so they get off their asses and protect the USA?” If I knew the answer, that would have been my column.

Jerry Peace emailed:

Seems to me that the Democratic legislative leadership wants to be the minority congressional party. In power they tiptoe around, scared to call anyone out. Out of power they can finally blame their inaction on someone else. You're right. Democrats should be, should have been, daily, loudly, fiercely, and eloquently hammering GOP ignorant and authoritarian nails into the Republican coffin. May not make any difference. But you know, courageous truth telling is always worth it. But I fear circling the wagons, protecting personal fiefdoms, is the current Democratic strategy. And almost all of us lose. 

I don’t think the Democrats desire to be in the minority. It’s really not fun. But I do recall then-Rep. Barney Frank telling me, after the Dems lost the House in 2010, that it’s easier to be in the minority—and saying this with a hint of relief. That’s certainly not what’s motivating Democrats now. But they don’t appear willing to do all that is reasonable and fair to hold on to power in the current and absurd political environment.

Sarah Wall chimed in:

Nothing to say except you’re right but who’s going to tell the president that he needs to sound like our democracy, our constitutional house is on fire? Somehow I just don’t hear this in his manner. I only wish. 

I concur. When Biden addresses the matter, he can and does say the right things. But he only takes up this topic occasionally. Effective messaging entails conveying themes repeatedly in a manner that ensures they resonate and are absorbed by as many people as possible. That seems to be the problem. Where is the desire to achieve that?

Cheryl Geyerman wrote in to respond to either this column or that column:

In a previous post, you talked about the frivolous state of the American people. In the March 28, 2022 New Yorker, there’s a long article entitled “Five O’Clock Everywhere,” about the Margaritaville retirement community in Florida. It portrayed the residents as hedonistic, often heavy drinking, pursuers of pleasure. Some said they had worked hard in their lives and now they can just enjoy themselves. I’m 73, retired, and worked as an appellate lawyer for a nonprofit firm representing indigent convicted felons and people who lost custody of their children because of drugs, neglect, and poverty. I don’t think that has given me a pass on trying to make the world better. The people portrayed were very disappointing. Thank you for your continuing work on behalf of this country.  

No, Cheryl, thank you. I can understand why the New Yorker found it fun to probe a Jimmy Buffett retirement community. (The actual headline on the web version of the piece is, “Retirement the Margaritaville Way.”) But I am glad you’ve provided a counter-narrative. This has always been true: the world depends on a minority of its inhabitants for progress and protection. We can’t expect everyone to pitch in. We just have to hope there are enough who do.

John Glavin corresponded from Tennessee about my citation of a report that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said contraception should be available only to married couples.:

Your link to her and her birth control idea shows that the tweet has been withdrawn—apparently the claim was untrue. I always enjoy you (and cannot STAND my senator), so when I find a mistake I want to make sure you get it corrected. Keep up the great work!

John is correct. Apparently, Blackburn only said that the 1965 Supreme Court decision that guaranteed access to birth control was “constitutionally unsound.” Yet somehow it was widely reported she had stated something else. Reuters provided a full explanation. Apologies to Blackburn for repeating the error, and...she’s still wrong.

Jason Kerpelman emailed:

Please add one of those "can't see this email?" links that allow the columns to be viewed as a web page.  I'm not in a position to subscribe to the paid Our Land, but it would be nice to be able to share these free ones on Facebook and other social media.

Jason, thanks so much. This newsletter exists mainly as a newsletter—not as a website. I understand your point and am flattered. At some stage, we may build a website to host some versions of the newsletter. But for now, the best thing to do is to forward the newsletter via email to friends, family, and enemies—and to recommend they sign up at www.davidcorn.com. Thanks for spreading the word.

Paul Raetsch reported he had a conversation with a friend:

Paul: “Our friend David has the Covid.”

Sarafina: “So what? How is Moxie?!”

I am touched that so many readers wrote to express concern. But I have had worse colds and flus. The inconvenience of Covid was more bothersome than the symptoms. Unfortunately, I am in the throes of finishing a book and couldn’t just curl up in bed and binge-watch. I still had to keep the chapters coming. As for Moxie, no need for Sarafina to fret. She kept me company throughout and complained only a little about missing out on our daily games of fetch. Speaking of which...

MoxieCam™

It’s time to garden! Moxie has been running in the yard, eating the new grass coming in. (Bad dog!) But she hasn’t figured out the big news: there is a bunny living in our vicinity. I’ve spotted it, but she has yet to do so. I wonder what will happen when she does.

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

May 10, 2022: Can Joe Biden convince America the GOP is a threat?; Slow Horses gallop; an old new Brian Eno-John Cale tune; and more.

May 7, 2022: Imagine if elections were boring (guest column by James West); and more.

May 3, 2022: Reality and reality TV at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner; the excessive glamour of WeCrashed; a reminder to watch The Survivor; and more.

April 30, 2022: Elon Musk and Twitter—what to worry about; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Russian Nuclear Annihilation Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™ (an Impossible Burger commercial?); and more

April 26, 2022: Trump’s lust for revenge spreads through the GOP; The Batman mopes; the Peruvian origins of punk rock; and more.

April 23, 2022: Amusing ourselves to autocracy; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special OAN edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

April 19, 2022: Why the hell isn’t Jared Kushner’s $2 billion Saudi payment a big scandal?; Severance’s wonderful finale; a podcast about the Ukraine war and the US-Russia intelligence wars; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.