I've placed 2 responses to David Brooks' disturbingly titled opinion piece at the beginning of my post; there are over 1100 of them and I read none that supported his position.
OPINION DAVID BROOKS
The Jan. 6 Committee Has Already Blown It June 8, 2022
I couldn't disagree with Mr Brooks more. January 6 happened, the law was broken, violence occurred, government officials were involved, democracy was threatened, and now consequences must be faced. We don't get to skip over accountability just because we believe it won't convince the Fox minions. Congress' role is to provide oversight to the executive, and that's exactly what they're doing. Sorry if that makes Mr. Brooks uncomfortable, but that's the way our system works and that's exactly what they should and will be doing.
Reply8 RecommendShareFlag Roy Jones commented 9 minutes ago R Roy Jones Tampa Bay 6m ago
Mr. Brooks conflates two separate issues, we don't ignore past law breaking because future law breaking might occur. Prosecuting Proud Boys and other miscreants is a traditional method to discourage future bad behavior. Plus the Jan. 6th Committee needs to document, for history, what happened. The future violence soon to be created by the entrepreneurs of hate and division is of great concern, but we don't have "Minority Report" sci-fi method to prevent it. It will likely occur and should also be prosecuted. The far right will engage in violence & turn the public against it as surely as the far left did in the 1960s. Bet on it.
What is the Jan. 6 committee for? Committee members and Democratic operatives have been telling reporters what they hope to achieve with the hearings that begin Thursday evening. My Times colleagues Annie Karni and Luke Broadwater wrote an article with the headline, “Jan. 6 Hearings Give Democrats a Chance to Recast Midterm Message.” Democrats, they reported, are hoping to use the hearings to show midterm voters how thoroughly Republicans are to blame for what happened that day.
Other reports have suggested other goals. The committee members are trying to show how much Donald Trump was involved with efforts to overturn the election, so he is forever discredited. They are expected to use witnesses like the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to show exactly what went on inside the administration that day and in the lead-up to it. One lawmaker told The Washington Post that voters have shifted their attention to issues like inflation and the pandemic, so it is key to tell a gripping story that “actually breaks through.”
No offense, but these goals are pathetic.
Using the events of Jan. 6 as campaign fodder is small-minded and likely to be ineffective. If you think you can find the magic moment that will finally discredit Donald Trump in the eyes of the electorate, you haven’t been paying attention over the last six years.
Sorry, boomers, but this is not the Watergate scandal in which we need an investigation to find out who said what to whom in the Oval Office. The horrors of Jan. 6 were out in public. The shocking truth of it was what we all saw that day and what we’ve learned about the raw violence since.
We don’t need a committee to simply regurgitate what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. We need a committee that will preserve democracy on Jan. 6, 2025, and Jan. 6, 2029. We need a committee to locate the weaknesses in our democratic system and society and find ways to address them.
The core problem here is not the minutiae of who texted what to chief of staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6 last year. The core problem is that there are millions of Americans who have three convictions: that the election was stolen, that violence is justified in order to rectify it and that the rules and norms that hold our society together don’t matter.
Those millions of Americans are out there right now. I care more about their present and future activities than about their past. Many of them are running for local office to be in a position to disrupt future elections. I’d like the committee to describe who they are, what motivates them and how much power they already have.
This is a movement, not a conspiracy. We don’t need a criminal-type investigation looking for planners or masterminds as much as we need historians and scholars and journalists to help us understand why the American Republican Party, like the Polish Law and Justice party, or the Turkish Justice and Development Party, has become a predatory semi-democratic faction.
We need a committee to explore just how close America is to rampant political violence. I had some problems with Barbara F. Walter’s recent book, “How Civil Wars Start,” but I wish all the committee members would read it if only to expand their imaginations.
She demonstrates that the conditions for political violence are already all around us: The decline of state effectiveness and democratic norms. The rise of political factions that are not based on issues, but on ethnic identity and the preservation of racial and ethnic privilege. The existence of ferocious splits between urban and rural people. The existence of conflict entrepreneurs — political leaders and media folks who profit from whipping up apocalyptic frenzies. The widespread sense that our political opponents are out to destroy our way of life.
We need a committee to look at how conditions in America compare to conditions in countries around the world that have already seen their democracies slide into autocracy and violence.
We need a committee to explore what political violence might look like in this country. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way foresee a future of “endemic regime instability”: frequent constitutional crises, contested or stolen elections, periods of dysfunctional democracy followed by periods of authoritarian rule.
Writing in The Atlantic, George Packer imagines what might happen if a contested election were finally decided by the Supreme Court or Congress: Half the country explodes in rage. Protests turn violent. Buildings get firebombed. Law enforcement officers take sides.
I’m trying to understand why committee members are not gripped by these realities. After more than a century of relative democratic stability maybe it’s hard for some people to imagine precisely how the fits of political violence that bedevil other nations could hit our shores. Maybe the committee members are imprisoned in the categories set by past investigation committees — Watergate and 9/11.
Either way, we need a committee that will be focused not on the specific actions of this or that individual but on the broad social conditions that threaten to bring American democracy to its knees.
Sedition: Why not Trump, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) Why Republicans may let Greene and Gosar's latest brushfire burn itself out https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168563693
WITH
"The two most high-profile trials — involving the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys — are expected to take place this summer and fall. p - Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, who was once the Proud Boys’ top boss, and four others linked to the group were charged on Monday with seditious conspiracy after previously facing other conspiracy counts. They are scheduled to stand trial beginning Aug. 9. p - Tarrio, who has since stepped down from his post as the group’s chairman, was arrested in a separate case two days before the riot and was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6. But he is accused of helping put into motion the violent attack. p - The trial for the Oath Keepers leader, Stewart Rhodes, and four other members and associates the group is scheduled to start Sept. 26. Prosecutors say the Oath Keepers plotted for weeks to try to overturn the election results and prepared for a siege by purchasing weapons and setting up battle plans."
See hap, Opinion: Yes, Jan. 6 fits the definition of insurrection | Bill Haug [...] Insurrection: 1. Federal law, 18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection .. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18-section2383&num=0&edition=1999 .. states “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” [...] 3. The article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Jan. 13, 2021 was for “incitement of insurrection .. https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection .” The full Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to impeach, 232-197, with 10 Republicans in favor. This bipartisan majority vote of Congress is a significant indicator that what occurred was an insurrection.
4. A bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to convict Trump of “incitement of insurrection .. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-13/senate-acquits-trump-of-incitement-of-insurrection-in-impeachment-trial .. ,” 57-43. Seven Republicans voted to convict. The vote failed only because a supermajority of 67 is required. This is the closest any president has ever come to conviction and removal. That a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to convict Trump of “incitement of insurrection” is another important indication that this was, in fact, an insurrection.
5. On Dec. 23, 2021, three legal scholars, Professor Laurence Tribe, former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, and former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled “Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection .. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html?searchResultPosition=1 ?” Professor Tribe has argued 35 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning every case with a record of 35-0. Donald Ayer was named U.S. attorney general by Ronald Reagan and served as deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. Dennis Aftergut has argued and won cases before the Supreme Court.
Those who decided to cooperate with the probe made the only right decision after having, with Trump, wronged America before.
The Trump supporters who went from planning the Jan. 6 rally to aiding the riot probe December 23, 20214:56 PM ET Heard on All Things Considered [...] SHAPIRO: Jen Lawrence and Dustin Stockton helped organize a number of rallies to overturn the election, including the big one in Washington last January 6. That rally was immediately followed by a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. Well, they are now cooperating with the House Select Committee investigating the events of that day, and they have also told their story to reporter Hunter Walker, who's written about them for Rolling Stone. He says they used to work closely with Trump adviser Steve Bannon.
WALKER: They were involved with him when he was at Breitbart, reporting directly to him on the, quote, unquote, "special projects desk." And these efforts consist of things like, you know, embedding themselves with Bernie Sanders activists at the 2016 DNC and fomenting some of their protests against Hillary Clinton. They got back with him in 2019 and were working on Rebuild the Wall. The project raised $25 million and did succeed in erecting three miles of barrier along the southern border. But ultimately, it ended in this pretty wild federal investigation where Bannon and other leaders of the group were charged with, you know, saying they were not going to take payment, but yet paying themselves out of those donor funds. Dustin and Jen were never charged, but their RV was raided one day in the desert by this obscure investigative arm of the U.S. Postal Service, believe it or not.
SHAPIRO: Now what did they tell you about their role in organizing the January 6 rally that immediately preceded the assault on the Capitol?
WALKER: So, you know, I think one thing people should understand is there wasn't one thing on January 6. There was this major rally on the Ellipse that was put together by this group, Women for America First, largely. There was also this, quote, unquote, "wild protest," which was scheduled to take place right on the side of the Capitol. And that was organized mostly by this far-right activist Ali Alexander. In the lead-up to January 6 in the months between the election and the electoral certification in Congress that day, both the organizers of the wild protest and the main Ellipse rally had these nationwide tours. And Dustin and Jen were prominent speakers at this March for Trump bus tour, where they promoted the baseless allegations of fraud. And they also were involved that day. They were in the VIP section on the Ellipse, you know, and they helped to get guests and promote all of those different events challenging the election.
SHAPIRO: They painted a very favorable picture to you of their involvement and their sort of revulsion at the violence and their shock that that armed attackers would storm the Capitol. Do you buy it?
WALKER: Yeah, so to hear them tell it, you know, they early on raised questions about violence that day. They were worried about this wild protest that was set to take place at the Capitol and thought people shouldn't be brought that close. They also had no idea people were going to march to the Capitol and were kind of shocked when President Trump called on folks to do that. And they claim that they did not participate themselves and go to the Capitol. There's a lot of reasons to take that with a grain of salt. As we've alluded to, they've promoted misinformation in the past. They were part of this group that's under investigation. And of course, they could be looking to make deals now that there's a congressional investigation raging and they've been subpoenaed.
But I should say, you know, some evidence supports what they've told me before. I've personally reviewed tons of text messages from the Ellipse rally planning. Members of that group did seem dismayed at Alexander's, quote, unquote, "wild protest." And of course, in the massive FBI investigation looking into the Capitol, there's been no indication that Dustin and Jen ever went inside. And also, I've seen text messages where they sort of argued with other Ellipse rally organizers and urged them to come out more strongly in the day after the riots and denounced what had happened at the Capitol.
SHAPIRO: You point out that they did say things at other previous rallies that could be interpreted as incitements to violence.
Live Updates: Trump ‘Lit the Flame’ for Riot, Cheney Says
"EXPLAINER: Hundreds charged with crimes in Capitol attack"
The bipartisan House panel investigating the attack, led by Representatives Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, opened its landmark series of public hearings by making the case for a methodical conspiracy led by former President Donald J. Trump.
Video - 1:43 Jan. 6 Committee Blames Trump for Attack on Capitol Representatives Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, led the first hearing on the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which included testimony from a Capitol police officer and a documentary filmmaker. Kenny Holston for The New York Times
Luke Broadwater The Jan. 6 hearings put Trump at the center of the plot that resulted in the Capitol riot.
[...]
The other witness on Thursday was Nick Quested, an Emmy Award-winning British documentarian who was embedded with the Proud Boys during the riot, filming footage with the group’s blessing.
Video - 0:48 Documentarian Embedded With Proud Boys Recounts Jan. 6 Riot Nick Quested, an Emmy-award winning British documentarian, described to House committee members the violence he witnessed during the attack on the Capitol. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Mr. Quested had been following the Proud Boys during the months after the 2020 election, attending a number of rallies and meetings, including one between the Proud Boys’ former chairman, Enrique Tarrio, and Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, the day before the riot.
In his account, Mr. Quested helped describe the mood on the other side of the demonstrations, where he said he had followed “a couple of hundred” Proud Boys, some from as far away as Arizona, marching on the Capitol.
“I was surprised at the size of the group, the anger and the profanity,” he said. “And, for anyone who didn’t understand how violent that event was, I saw it. I documented it.”
The contrasting testimonies of Mr. Quested and Ms. Edwards helped complement video clips played in between them that showed furious groups of demonstrators blowing through barricades and anxious police officers retreating.
Mr. Quested’s testimony, in particular, helped set the stage for coming hearings, which are expected to home in on the role extremist groups and other political agitators played in inspiring the riot.
“The atmosphere was much darker at this date than it had been,” he said.
3 hours ago Michael S. Schmidt In a preview of what we could see at the next hearing, the committee played a clip of Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller, testifying about how Trump had been told by a campaign aide in the Oval Office in the days after the election that he was going to lose the election.
[...]
3 hours ago Michael S. Schmidt The next hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Monday and will focus on how even though Donald J. Trump was told by aides that he lost the election, and it was not stolen, he still continued to push that lie to his supporters. “In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisers knew that he had in fact lost the election,” Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, said in her opening statement. “But despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information.”
3 hours ago Emily Cochrane Chairman Thompson, speaking on CNN, says “we made a conscious effort to only put on what we could prove,” including the videos and tweets from former President Trump. He says “we are building a case based on the facts and circumstances that our investigation determines.”
[...]
3 hours ago Emily Cochrane The committee also teased a number of revelations — including that a number of House Republicans apparently sought presidential pardons in the days after Jan. 6. It will be interesting to see the testimony and basis for those, particularly after those pointed clips of Bill Barr, members of Trump’s family, and other White House aides acknowledging the undeniable truth that the 2020 election was fairly won by President Biden.
[...]
3 hours ago Catie Edmondson Despite a trove of reporting on what happened on Jan. 6 and in the lead up to the attack on the Capitol, this hearing delivered several new, indelible moments of horror. Among them: Ms. Edwards testifying that she was “slipping in people’s blood” outside the Capitol that day, and Ms. Cheney reading testimony that Mr. Trump agreeing with the rioters that his vice president “deserved” to be hung for refusing to overturn the election.
3 hours ago Carl Hulse There is no doubt who the committee wants held responsible for the assault on the Capitol: Donald J. Trump. That was made very clear in the prime-time proceeding.
3 hours ago Alexandra Berzon An important backdrop as the hearings continue next week is that the vast majority of Republicans still believe the election was stolen, and that number has stayed steady.
4 hours ago Emily Cochrane Cheney says Scott Perry and other G.O.P. House members sought pardons. Image
Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, sought a presidential pardon after the Jan. 6 riot. Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
The House committee suggested it had evidence that multiple House Republicans, including Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, had sought presidential pardons after the Jan. 6 riot for their efforts to challenge and overturn the 2020 election.
“Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after Jan. 6 to seek a presidential pardon,” Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman of the committee, said. “Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.”
She did not provide details regarding the basis for the assertion. In an email, Jay Ostrich, a spokesman for Mr. Perry, who has declined to testify before the committee, called the assertion “a ludicrous and soulless lie.”
While Mr. Perry is known to have played a key role in undermining the 2020 election and in Mr. Trump’s efforts to resist a peaceful transfer of power, Ms. Cheney’s comments appeared to be the first time the committee had publicly confirmed Mr. Perry’s efforts to seek a pardon.
The committee had previously said it was aware of an effort to secure a pardon, including in a letter to Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona, who they said had been identified as a “potential participant.”
Former White House staff members, the committee wrote in the letter, had “identified an effort by certain House Republicans after Jan. 6 to seek a presidential pardon for activities taken in connection with President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
Committee members had said they wanted more information about the request, why it was made and what the scope of the potential pardon was. It was also unclear whether Mr. Biggs or other Republicans had directly approached Mr. Trump with the request.
Mr. Biggs, at the time the letter was sent, declined to answer questions about the potential pardons.
4 hours ago Michael S. Schmidt What we learned in the second hour of the hearing: The Proud Boys and attacks on the police were the focus.
The Jan. 6 Hearing Put a True-Crime Drama on Prime-Time TV
"EXPLAINER: Hundreds charged with crimes in Capitol attack"
The first night of the Jan. 6 hearings was serious public service, but it told an engrossing story with the tools of a limited series drama.
Representatives Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, led the first hearing on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, which was packaged like a prime-time news special. Doug Mills/The New York Times
By James Poniewozik June 10, 2022
The first night of the congressional Jan. 6 hearings was not an entertainment. It was deadly serious reality, offering a panorama and a terrifying close-up of a real nightmare: The attempt, through violence, to effectively end American democracy by overturning the will of the voters and keeping President Donald J. Trump installed in an office that he lost.
But the hearings were also television, fighting for attention in a cacophonous media environment. This is not just me speaking as a TV critic. The committee itself acknowledged this by bringing on James Goldston, a former ABC News president and producer, to shape the broadcast, and by airing it, unusually, in prime time.
This was not simply a dutiful time capsule for the historical archives. This was TV meant to break through, and to matter, now.
What we saw in this first installment was impressive: a well-crafted, passionate and disciplined two-hour opening act. It made the committee’s case in miniature, that the attack on the Capitol was no spontaneous outburst but rather the “culmination of an attempted coup,” in the words of the committee chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi. And it promised, tantalizingly, to flesh out the larger plot with fine detail and an expansive cast.
The proceedings had familiar hallmarks, including live testimony and opening remarks from Mr. Thompson and from the vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming. But it was packaged like a prime-time news special, the live elements seamlessly interspersed with recorded interview excerpts, time stamps and graphics.
Like “Under the Banner of Heaven,” “Candy” and similar ripped-from-the-headlines dramas, it introduced the culminating violent act in its first episode — the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — in a point-of-view montage that made the viewer the target of the mob’s blows and curses. Then it promised to move back in the timeline and delve into the larger conditions and machinations behind the crimes.
During the hearing, Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards described “slipping in people’s blood” as she and her comrades faced hours of combat. Doug Mills/The New York Times
It had both episodic structure and a serial arc. Ms. Cheney laid out how each installment would focus on a piece of a “seven-point plan” by Mr. Trump. But the presentation also put these parts in an overall context, giving evidence that Mr. Trump was told by his closest advisers that he lost, schemed to throw out the election anyway and summoned supporters, including organized, violent groups, for a “wild” day in Washington.
Then the muscle materialized, under the banner of Trump.
At compact length by congressional standards, the hearing introduced a universe of characters, relationships and antagonists: the president’s advisers, including the former Attorney General William P. Barr, who used “nonsense” and stronger language .. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/arts/television/new-netflix-game-show.html .. to dismiss claims of election fraud; Mr. Trump’s fury at his vice president, Mike Pence, which according to the committee led the former president to say that the mob members threatening to hang Mr. Pence might “have the right idea”; and the Trump-supporting groups, including the Proud Boys .. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/proud-boys-charged-sedition-capitol-attack.html , described as leading a coordinated strike, not a spontaneous outburst.
The curtain raiser was at times brutal to watch, particularly the testimony of Caroline Edwards, a Capitol Police officer injured on Jan. 6, who described “slipping in people’s blood” as she and her outnumbered comrades faced hours of hand-to-hand combat. Maybe most haunting was seeing the quiet-spoken Ms. Edwards watch video of her own assault.
The testimony moved to the other side of the battle line with the documentarian Nick Quested, who had been embedded with the Proud Boys before and during the attack. His contribution was not just more shocking footage but a thesis: that the group had organized and begun its move toward the Capitol before Mr. Trump even spoke at his Jan. 6 rally — a counternarrative to the idea that the siege was simply a protest that got out of hand.
I know that some readers are offended by the mere use of “narrative” or “story” to describe crucial information about an attack on democracy. But these are no insults; story structure is not just for Marvel movies. Narrative is what gives a deluge of information form and pattern. Storytelling is a tool for engagement, not just distraction.
During the hearing, live elements were interspersed with graphic footage, recorded interview excerpts, time stamps and graphics. Doug Mills/The New York Times
The committee clearly knows this. As Jake Tapper noted on CNN before the hearing, it did not have to televise these sessions at all. It could have just issued a report. But as TV has proved, not everyone wants the 800-page paperback when they can opt for the compelling multipart adaptation. (At least 20 million people watched the hearing, according to ratings from Nielsen.)
The Jan. 6 hearings have to live in this context of infotainment and demagoguery, like it or not. And the first episode was savvy not only about the larger TV audience but also about a smaller one — the news media — and what it takes to maximize coverage.
Nothing draws the news like novelty; a brief scooplet, freshly exposed, will often outweigh a brazen plot freely confessed from a presidential podium or by tweet. So the committee repeatedly referenced “never-before-seen” video, a descriptor that was repeated over and over in the TV coverage.
The program offered preview clips of boldface-name testimony — including that of Ivanka Trump, undermining her father’s claims by saying that she accepted Mr. Barr’s assessment — which gave reporters numerous tidbits to write up and tweet about. Even the run time, at just under two hours, left time for recap and analysis before the broadcast networks’ 10 p.m. block.
There was, however, a key difference between this production and a TV crime drama. The hearings left no mystery about their theory of the case, and they engaged in no coyness about whodunit (in the committee’s judgment), how and why.
One last distinction, and maybe the most important: This, for once, was a true-crime serial made in the urgent hope that there not be a sequel.
James Poniewozik is The Times’s chief television critic. He writes reviews and essays with an emphasis on television as it reflects a changing culture and politics. He previously spent 16 years with Time magazine as a columnist and critic. @poniewozik
Trump throws his eldest daughter under the Jan.6 hearings bus .. [...] In the testimony, Ms. Trump said she was influenced by a Dec. 1, 2020, statement by William P. Barr, then the attorney general, that there was no widespread fraud that had altered the outcome of the election. She testified that she respected Mr. Barr and “accepted what he was saying.”
“Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media website, Truth Social, in one of eight messages he posted there in response to the hearing. “She had long since checked out and was, in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General (he sucked!).”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
