In the Room Where It Happened: Covering the January 6 Committee’s Hearing

By David Corn  June 11, 2022

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the chair of the House committee investigating the January 6 attack, speaks during the committee’s first primetime hearing on June 9, 2022. Oliver Contreras/AP

There was a somber silence in the Cannon Caucus Room. Images of violence—hundreds of Americans attacking fellow Americans in vicious hand-to-hand combat—played on the giant video screen. The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrectionist riot, during its first primetime hearing on Thursday night, was showing footage of the brutal assault. Some of it was new, never-before-seen video, and much of it was familiar—especially to the people in the room: the nine members of the committee, a dozen or so House members in the audience, scores of journalists and committee staffers, and Capitol Police officers. Yet watching these scenes once more—Donald Trump’s brownshirts pummeling cops who were valiantly trying to protect the citadel of American democracy—and doing so in the Capitol complex where the raid occurred, with people who had been there that day and targeted by the savage mob, was a profoundly sad experience.

As the footage ran, we all looked at one another. A number of us were wearing masks, but the eyes revealed the communal reaction many in the room appeared to be sharing: This awful thing happened right here. We were reliving the horror of the day democracy almost died—was almost murdered—in the United States. And I sensed (and this might have been projection on my part) a deep anger in the room. How dare they. This attack was not just domestic terrorists mounting a political assault to support a lying would-be tyrant. They were attacking me. In that I and everyone else in the room (and you) are a co-owner of this republic. It sure ain’t perfect, but it’s the only one I have a share in.

As an autocrat wannabe, Trump knows it’s essential to persuade his cultish followers that he is the embodiment of their resentments, grievances, and desires, and that any attack on him is a direct attack on them. This is a crucial feature of authoritarianism. The counterweight to that is what was felt in the room—and I hope in rooms across the country, as our fellow citizens watched: that this terrorist raid mounted by white nationalists, right-wing militia groups, neo-Nazis, Christian nationalists, QAnoners, and others was a direct assault on each of us and on the freedoms, liberties, and security that we enjoy or strive for.

As I sat there focused on my immediate mission (1,000 words saying something halfway intelligent, by the end of the hearing), it all did feel personal. Typing furiously as the hearing proceeded, I wrote a piece explaining that the committee’s official job is to protect the Constitution and that, to achieve this, it must champion and defend reality. (You can read it here.) But as a citizen, I was wishing that my reaction—This attack was against me—was being experienced by tens of millions throughout the land.

The big revelations of the hearing—Trump was told by top aides there was no election rigging; then–Attorney General Bill Barr informed Trump that claims of a stolen election were “bullshit”; Trump’s own daughter, Ivanka, didn’t believe his Big Lie crap; Trump refused entreaties from aides and confidants to halt the riot and took no steps to do so; Trump said Mike Pence deserved the wrath of the mob that was searching for him and calling for his execution; several GOP House members involved in the fraudulent "Stop the Steal" effort sought preemptive presidential pardons from Trump; and Trump engaged in multiple conspiracies to overturn the election—dominated the news coverage, as can be expected. But one moment that deserves reflection was the opening statement of Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chair of the committee.

Thompson began by noting he was born and raised and still lives in Bolton, Mississippi (population: 521). “I’m from a part of the country,” he said, “where people justify the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history, as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6, 2021.” He noted that the members of the 1/6 committee represent “a diversity of communities from all over the United States, rural areas and cities, East Coast, West Coast, and the heartland. All of us have one thing in common: We swore the same oath...We swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” He explained that this oath has its roots in the Civil War. After that bloody conflagration, during which Americans took up arms against the US government, he said, “Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust.” Members of Congress and federal employees were required for the first time to vow to protect the Constitution. “That oath,” Thompson said, “was put to test on January 6, 2021.”

And it is still being put to the test, as Trump and the Republican Party he dominates deny the significance of January 6, denigrate the work of this committee as political persecution, and keep on pushing the lie that triggered the seditious violence of that day. They are continuing their assault on the Constitution. That means January 6 remains a test for the entire country. Can this democracy protect itself from the forces of authoritarianism? Can a reckoning be reached? In the hearing room, the task at hand seemed obvious. Let’s hope the committee, through its hearings, can convey that message far and wide.

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

Dumbass Comment of the Week

If we were handing out an award for despicable comment of the week, it would go to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who claimed that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) was too traumatized by the suicide of his son to be an effective and fair-minded member of the House committee investigating the January 6 riot. This was quite a low moment, demonstrating that Gaetz would go to any extreme to defend his Dear Leader and deflect attention from Trump’s war on American democracy. (I’m not going to post a clip of this remark.) The most obvious response to Gaetz: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) scored a winner for conventional dumbassery. Responding to calls for gun-safety measures, he declared that after 9/11, “there wasn’t a conversation about banning airplanes.” No, but you do need a license to fly an airplane, and the aviation industry is one of the most highly regulated sectors in the economy, constantly monitored by the government for safety. Perhaps we should do the same for the gun industry.

Carl Paladino is a New York developer who is running as a Republican for the US House of Representatives. He recently shared a Facebook post alleging the horrific mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo were so-called false-flag operations—that is, mounted by the US government, presumably to encourage support for gun reform—and the shooter in Texas had received “hypnosis training” under the CIA’s direction. Pretty damn stupid. But he’s a known nutter. What’s more disturbing is that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the No. 3 Republican in the House, has endorsed him, demonstrating there is absolutely no limit to the crazy the GOP will tolerate, support, and encourage. (And don’t forget: Trump, during the 2016 campaign, happily appeared as a guest and supporter on the talk show of deranged conspiracy-monger Alex Jones.)

But there’s more. As I was writing this item, it was reported that last year, Paladino called Hitler “inspirational” and said, “I guess that’s the kind of leader we need today.” After his remarks were reported, he claimed he wasn’t praising Hitler, just noting he was “a very popular person.” Stefanik resorted to an old chestnut and insisted Paladino’s remarks were taken out of context.

It’s quite hard to pick a winner among such dangerous and wrongheaded utterances. But for sheer idiocy, let’s give the prize (again) to Jesse Watters of Fox. Remember when Fox folks and Trump used to complain that Barack Obama played too much golf? After Trump became president and played about twice as much golf as Obama, Fox blowhards stopped griping about presidential visits to the links. Now that Trump is out of the White House, they are back to it. But this time the issue is that President Joe Biden is not playing golf. Here’s Watters opining on this critical matter: “He’s not even playing golf like other presidents. He can play at any course he wants to and he doesn’t even play golf. It’s like he’s given up and the American people see it.” Watters is truly a duffer.

My Proudest Moment in Journalism

The Mailbag

There was lots of mail related to gun violence and my column noting Barack Obama was right in 2008 to say many Americans “cling” to guns. And a reminder: It’s easier to include your notes in the Mailbag if they are not too long. Concision counts. Also, please refrain from using double spaces after a period ending a sentence. This is an anachronistic practice. It developed during the days of typewriters to make clear the conclusion of a sentence. In the era of word processing and proportional fonts—and emails!—there is no need for this. One space after a period suffices.

Linda Gruber noted that she was at the San Francisco fundraiser where Obama made his much-maligned comment about gun clingers:

David, I was there. It was a packed event and then he said that in response to a question. There was a woman with a laptop sitting on the floor near me and she started typing frantically. I knew immediately that this was going to be broadcast to the world and it was going to be bad. At the time I thought he was right...I know those people in Western Pennsylvania.

Obama was indeed on point, as I explained.

Stephen Brenner agrees:

Barack was right and eight years later Hillary was wrong. A lot more than half of Trump’s supporters are deplorables. It’s closer to 100 percent. But she was on the right track, and we see how politicians get punished for speaking the truth and how liars get away with their lies for various reasons.

Hillary Clinton, as I noted in that same column, was similarly slammed in 2016 for saying half of Trump’s supporters were “deplorables.” I’m not sure that appellation applies to every single one of them, but it is certainly true that every single one of Trump’s voters backed a man who had demonstrated explicit bigotry and misogyny, who had encouraged and exploited hatred, and who had a proven record as an inveterate liar. And that certainly is deplorable.

Bill Bachrodt had a general comment about the newsletter:

Bravo on a wonderful mix of reporting/commentary/anecdotes/etc. Many thanks!

Bill, I’m glad you are enjoying it. Speaking of anecdotes, here’s a story I recently told on C-SPAN about the last time I spoke directly with Trump.

There was also a big response to my column asking, “Are Democrats pathetic?” I’ve noticed that Our Land issues focused on the messaging problems of Democrats always spur a strong reaction.

Doug Greenberg emailed:

I agree with you about the lack of fortitude on the part of the Democrats...The Democrats now represent mostly the professional-managerial class coastal elites (cliché but true), and also the significant African American voting bloc. I would have included the LatinX bloc, but this group seems to be slipping away from the Democrats. This reality means several things. First, the Democrats mostly are comfortable materially, and so even if things seem terrible in the world, they will ultimately "pull their punches" and retreat to the consolation of their creature comforts. Their livelihood is rarely on the line. Second, their position as a "cultural elite" (at least in the perception of people not part of this educated class) renders them vulnerable to culture war attacks. They are perceived as "looking down" at those not as educated and privileged. This makes it easy for Republicans to generate resentment from those less educated and accomplished. Finally, Democrats seem stuck (still) in what I think of as The West Wing syndrome, i.e., they really think (or hope, at least) that politics is like what was represented on that TV show. You can win the day with a good speech (Obama was very much stuck in this); you act according to "principle" to the point where it gets in the way of winning politically (as an example, I suspect that Merrick Garland really believes that going after Trump for his crimes "politicizes" the Justice Department, and hence should be avoided if at all possible). The Republicans have no scruples at all in terms of sacrificing "principle" in favor of sheer power politics. The Democrats still hope that "the system" can work. You knew this already...

And of course, there are the structural factors in the political system that favor the Republicans, including the stupid two senators per state system and the absurdly gerrymandered congressional map. The Republicans are totally overrepresented. But in terms of the latter reality, the truth is that the Democrats allowed the Republicans to run roughshod over them at the state level over the past twenty or more years...It has now reached the point where in rural areas all over the country the Republicans are so entrenched that the Democrats have no ability to get their message across, period... 

The Republicans succeed by appealing to visceral resentments and anger among their target populations. The Democrats try to appeal to people's senses of morality, justice, and concern for "the greater good." In a society that has become as fractured, cynical, and laden with cynicism as this one, guess which type of appeal works better?

I agree with much of this. But don’t forget the Ds drew millions more voters to the polls than the Rs in 2020. Of course, they had to do so just to attain a narrow victory. The Democrats have a tougher sales job and more internal conflict than the Republicans. That means they must be both smarter and tougher.

Lloyd Janow wrote:

As a lifelong Democrat I don’t understand the Democratic Party. They are acting like nothing is wrong in this country, specifically the Republican Party when in God’s name are they going to realize that the MAGA people and Trump are a serious threat to our democracy and start to be much more forceful with their messaging? We are getting close to the next election and they have to start playing hardball before it’s too late.

Paul Goode, who I met years ago on a Nation magazine cruise, opined:

Are Democrats pathetic? I hope not. To me, part of the matter lies in the ways that the two parties are constructed. Publicly, Republicans are about three things: guns, abortion, and the existential evil of the elitist left as manifested by the Democratic Party and liberalism. (I’m mindful of the underlying plutocratic agenda, but right-wing populism is now the face of the party). They are unified around being an attack dog. Democrats remain a coalition of different priorities, even if the makeup has changed. Crucially, that coalition includes a populist minority and a majority that remains skeptical of populism. The populist minority—i.e., the progressive left—is at odds with the rest of the party and in practice has repeatedly defined mainstream liberalism as a greater danger than Republicanism. So, much energy goes into a low-grade conflict between two elements of the party that don’t trust each other and that waste energy sniping at each other inside of focusing on the enemy—i.e., circular firing squad that has plagued the party for years but this time the divide is over class and identity....Anyway, I look forward to reading Our Land! Any plans to write another thriller?

Paul is referring to my novel Deep Background. And thanks for asking. I have a new book that will be released in September. More on that soon. But I am always thinking of returning to fiction as my own escapism.

Roger R. Smith emailed:

Your Our Land dissection of the strange failure of the Democratic Party to exploit the misdeeds of both Trump and today's GOP states the problem perfectly. I came of political awareness in the 1950s, when the mere mention of Herbert Hoover—more than 20 years gone from the political scene—was enough to rally massive Democratic support. It is an eternal mystery to me that the far greater failings and moral flaws of Donald Trump seemingly don't have sufficient impact to make the Trumpist GOP a stone-cold loser in any election outside the very reddest of states. Mr. Corn, you have done a magnificent job of analyzing this puzzling dilemma. Is it too much to ask of you that you now provide a comparable prescription for just how the law-abiding, democracy loving majority of Americans can permanently rid the nation of the scourge of Donald Trump and his allies?

Not sure I have the answer to that—other than the Democrats must talk directly about the threat Trump and Trumpism pose while simultaneously persuading voters they can address the economic, educational, and health care challenges voters face.

D. Stone had this observation:

Reagan essentially said, "Americans, be brave enough to accept this tax cut," to which voters said, "What a great communicator!" Forty years later, Trump's message is even-more compelling to a plurality of this country: "You're white, you're the victims, and I will hurt the people you hate." It's the modern equivalent of LBJ's caustic "If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Not sure if Trump’s message is embraced by a plurality. Joe Biden won a majority of the vote. But Trump certainly has the support of tens of millions. And if you’re wondering, that LBJ quote is accurate.

MoxieCam™

“Moxie, that’s not for you. That’s for the baby our friends just had.”

“Don’t you think someone should chew on it, just as a test?”

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

June 7, 2022: Barack Obama was right about the gun clingers; Special Emergency Dumbass Comment of the Week (Louie Gohmert); Our Land in Photos; the perfection of Better Call Saul; the sublime new album from Wilco; and more.

June 4, 2022: Are Democrats pathetic?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ken Buck); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 28, 2022: What to hope for after the Uvalde massacre; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Candace Owens); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 25, 2022: The anti-ness of the Trumpified right; Our Land in photos; Tokyo Vice vs. Miami Vice; Sarah Shook and what makes a song cool; and more.

May 21, 2022: Why a threat to Pennsylvania is a threat to us all; Dumbass Comment of the Week (saying goodbye to Madison Cawthorn); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 17, 2022: Special Book Excerpt: How John Lennon’s murder led to preventing mass shootings; and more.

May 14, 2022: The January 6 committee gets ready for prime time; Dumbass (and Disappointing) Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

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.

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