Jan6

Jennifer Rubins has questions.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Opinion: 7 questions I want the Jan. 6 committee to answer at its upcoming hearings

To say that the Jan. 6 committee’s Thursday hearing was the most compelling in congressional history would be to damn with faint praise.

Certainly, the admonition from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to her Republican colleagues that “there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain” will compare favorably to Joseph Welch’s famous remark levied against Joseph McCarthy (“Have you no sense of decency?”).

But above all, the hearings are about facts. And I can’t wait to hear more of those on at least seven topics during the committee’s second session on Monday.

1. Who were those members of Congress pleading for pardons from Donald Trump, and what conduct did they think would lead to prosecution? It’s rare to learn about a member’s possible criminal action and even rarer to have such strong evidence of a guilty mind. And it’s possible there is more than one. The identities of those who sought pardons will certainly shed some light on why Republicans refused to support an independent commission and seek to whitewash the entire coup attempt.
2. When aides repeatedly told President Donald Trump that there was no basis for overturning the election and no legal way for his vice president to keep him in power, what did Trump say? We know that in one instance when Justice Department officials explained they could not invalidate the election, Trump responded, according to notes from acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue, “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.” More comments like that will cement the conclusion that he knew there was no legal basis to overturn the election.
3. What was Vice President Mike Pence doing? Cheney stated that while Trump was inactive during the insurrection, Pence called the defense secretary, attorney general and the Department of Homeland Security. As Gen. Mark A. Milley recounted: "There were two or three calls from Vice President Pence. He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct unambiguous orders. ... ‘Get the military down here, get the Guard down here. Put down this situation,’ etc.” That suggests Pence knew Trump was not going to do anything to stop the violence. It suggests Trump was on the other side.
4. How did Trump’s statements and tweets to his supporters promote violence? The committee provided a preview of the close interaction between Trump’s tweet calling on supporters to come to D.C. and the right-wing groups plotting the insurrection. Cheney reiterated that Trump was told violence would ensue. Testimony from aides showing that he welcomed or was indifferent to mob violence would be further evidence of his corrupt intent. (His stunning alleged declaration that “maybe our supporters have the right idea [to hang Pence]” supports the notion that he would have at least tolerated his vice president’s assassination if it could help him stay in power.)
5. Why did no one go public or alert the FBI? It’s frankly stunning that all of Trump’s enablers knew he lost and knew what he was doing to try to overturn the results, yet no one took the logical steps to stop it. They could have called law enforcement, held a news conference or sat for an interview. They could have gone to the House speaker and the Senate majority leader. The White House counsel could have quit, as he threatened, and gone public. One can imagine they thought they had things “under control” or that they still were looking out for their career prospects. Either way, the dereliction of duty is stunning. Maybe we need a federal law obligating government officials to contact the FBI (or other authority) if they have reason to believe a coup is underway. Yes, we’ve come to the point where we need a law for that.
6. If virtually everyone else in the White House knew there was no fraud or basis for overturning the election, how did John Eastman’s scheme for a “nonviolent coup” get to Trump and spark this whole series of events? The phony elector scheme, the demand for Georgia to “find” enough votes to reverse the election and the draft letter for states to reconsider their slates of electors, not to mention the pressure campaign on Pence, never would have gotten off the ground unless someone invited Eastman into the picture, allowed him to pitch his idea and gave his insane memo the patina of credibility.
7. Perhaps the most intriguing question: If White House chief of staff Mark Meadows knew claims of fraud were bogus (“no there there,” as he put it), what was he doing as the plot built momentum? We don’t know whether he was the emissary to Eastman or was involved in the Pence pressure campaign. And we don’t know what role he played in coordinating discussions between Trump and his congressional allies. He has resisted testifying even in the face of contempt charges, but if called before a grand jury, his only real option would be to invoke the Fifth Amendment. One could see why that might be sound legal advice.