THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION INVESTIGATION: WHERE WE STAND

Investigations into the January 6 insurrection plod

along with three unmistakable  characteristics. In some ways, these characteristics typify and symbolize the state of our politics. They show the strengths and weaknesses of American democracy in 2021.

·     Democrats and a few brave Republicans in Congress keep moving methodically toward uncovering the truth, using tried and true tools and processes that fit the circumstances.

·     The courts are handling January 6 prosecutions as we’d expect – on a case-by-case basis, balancing the societal interest in holding those responsible accountable with individual rights afforded every criminal defendant, despite claims those  defendants are political prisoners.

·     Republican politicians stand in the way. The fact that’s happening –as odd as it is – represents a good starting place for an evaluation of where the investigation stands, nearly nine months after the deadly attack on the capitol.

 

The GOP Strategy: You Didn’t Really See 

WhatYou Thought You Saw

One remarkable thing stands out about the January 6 insurrection – we saw it on television.Republicans, however, continue their effort at convincing Americans it wasn’t what it looked like. In addition to outlandish statements from Republican members ofCongress about capitol rioters resembling tourists, the overall GOP strategy rests on the notion that if Republicans keep saying there’s nothing worth seeing, Americans will agree and lose interest.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy probably had that in mind when he threatened telecomcompanies asked to preserve phone records. Those records might show that Republican members of Congress helped facilitate the attack. McCarthy said those companies shouldn’t comply with document requests made by the bipartisan House Select Committee that’s conducting a probe into January 6. He claimed complying would violate federal law andRepublicans would remember that, presumably with dire consequences, if and when the GOP retakes the House of Representatives. McCarthy no doubt wants to minimize the importance of the investigation and make complying not normal. After all, what people thought they saw wasn’t big a deal. Wasn’t much to see, right?

Then there’s the matter of prematurely exonerating former President Donald Trump. Select CommitteeChairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, early in September, dismissed as “baseless” McCarthy’s claim that various federal agencies, including the Justice Department, had concluded Trump didn’t incite or provoke the January 6 violence. Many reasons exist for believing he did. It appears McCarthy thought he could give the public another reason for seeing the investigation as overblown and unnecessary. There’s just not much there, right?

 

Democrats (and two Republicans) Keep Doing

the Right Thing

While the Republican side show and misinformation campaign continue, the Select

Committee keeps moving the investigation forward methodically.  Federal agencies and private companies have now responded to the committee’s first round of requests for documents. Thompson indicated the panel needs more information from social media companies. Documents the committee wants could show the involvement of Trump, White House aides, Trump family members, and GOP legislators in the planning and execution of the insurrection.

                                    

It’s known, for example, that Trump talkedon January 6 with several Republican members of Congress while the insurrection remained in progress.  If it takes a little longer to get the documents that may lead to confirmation of the substance of those communications, so be it. Tracking down such facts requires painstaking investigation and analysis. The committee is doing that, as it should, using tools common to this kind of work. If the president of the United States committed treason against the American government, we want to know the details of that, right?

 

The Courts and Their Balancing Act

Some Americans no doubt would prefer the criminal cases against the January 6 insurrectionists move faster. More than 600 defendants have been charged with various crimes in connection with the attack. Most of them are not being held in jail while they await trial.  Some, however, have had their release conditions revoked because judges have concluded, in individual cases, that those defendants pose a threat. One, a former police officer, bought 37 guns after his arrest. That individual disrupted a court hearing and accosted a probation officer. A magistrate judge decided he should remain in jail.

That situation demonstrates how courts have balanced individual rights and concerns about

January 6 defendants who continue creating havoc. That’s the nature of the criminal justice system and things are likely to continue moving along that way for a long time to come. Meantime, Trump supporters and far rights groups spent a weekend demonstrating in Washington and elsewhere claiming the insurrectionists were just protesters exercising their constitutional rights and are being held wrongfully. Oh, really?

                                      

As much as everyone might hope the process of investigating January 6 and holding those responsible accountable might proceed differently or move faster, the current state of affairs seems like what we’ll have for a while. Republican

politicians have shown no interest in unearthing what happened. McCarthy once said the GOP would conduct its own investigation and seek “real answers.” No evidence exists that’s happening now or that it will happen. McCarthy and other Republicans

will likely continue doing  what they’re doing now – getting in the way, making disingenuous or outright false statements, and claiming nothing important happened.

Meantime, the Select Committee, which includes

only two Republicans, and the courts will keep

doing what they’re doing -- their jobs.

THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: PENCE AND HARRIS HAVE THEIR SAY

 

Vice presidential debates are seldom memorable, but the October 7 contest between Republican Mike Pence and Democrat Kamala Harris broke new ground. Aside from the first appearance by a woman of color on the vice presidential debate stage,

this debate featured a fly who by the end of the evening had 4,067 social media followers. The Fly landed in Vice President Pence’s hair and stayed over two minutes. We could comment on the symbolism. But we won’t. Don’t ever say 2020 hasn’t been a strange year.

Beyond the adventures of The Fly, most post-debate analysis focused on whether it

changed the trajectory of a race that’s looking like a potential blowout. The Biden-Harris ticket entered the debate leading by 9.5 points in the fivethirtyeight.com polling average. Polls released right before the debate showed Biden-Harris ahead by as much as 16 points.

We agree with the pundit consensus that

nothing in the debate fundamentally changed the race even though CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning, 59-38.   Women thought Harris won, 69-31.

 

Each Had Their Moments

Both candidates entered the debate with specific objectives, some multi-layered and nuanced. Pence, a smooth speaker who

politely, even gently, parrots Republican talking points, defended President Trump’s disturbing coronavirus, climate change, and foreign policy failures. He tried presenting more of a conventional Republican agenda and less of Trump’s personality cult, arguably describing a presidency that doesn’t exist. He pushed the

case Harris will lead Biden down a leftist, socialist path that over- taxes and overregulates. Pence made his points and got whatever mileage he could out of raising that set of issues.

Harris, being part of a ticket that’s ahead, but

still somewhat unknown herself, had to get people comfortable with the idea she can handle the presidency since Biden would take office at age 78. Responding to the succession question, she reminded voters of her resume as a three-time

elected official. She had strong moments on restoring America’s role in the world and the virtue in the Biden-Harris candidacy of having significant Republican support. She also tried laying out the ticket’s program since Biden didn’t get to in the first presidential debate

because of Trump’s interruptions and bullying. She effectively put the Affordable Care Act on the ballot with the reminder, “They’re coming for you,” when she identified a list of impacts terminating the act would cause. The instant poll results and the commentary suggested she succeeded.

 

Missed Opportunities

If both candidates had their moments, both missed opportunities. Harris, for example, could have used the Breonna Taylor question

in promoting how a Biden Justice Department might use federal civil rights laws in such cases and remedy the failures of Bill Barr as attorney general.  She also could have been stronger in her condemnation of the White House events that apparently spread the corona virus.

Pence, for his part, simply ducked a number of questions, like whether he had conferred with Trump about a transfer of power in light of the president’s covid-19 illness. The country needs an answer to that question and a good one might have done the Trump campaign some political good.  Pence may have been catering to Trump with his refusal to adhere to the time limits, but had he followed them, he might have gained credibility for making the debate process more dignified and civil. Critically, Pence didn’t answer the core values question of whether Trump will peacefully transfer power if he loses.             

 

Gender and Race

Inevitably gender and race were likely to

become part of this debate. The historic nature of the Harris candidacy assured that. The gender component manifest itself most in Pence’s incessant habit of exceeding his time (which moderator Susan Page of USA Today tried

controlling, mostly unsuccessfully) and the fact he frequently interrupted Harris. He didn’t do it as rudely and as aggressively as Trump did on September 29, but he did it. It didn’t go unnoticed. Women commentators on the cable networks took him to task, as did our female life partners. Like Harris, they didn’t appreciate Pence’s “lectures” about her record or approach to certain issues.

Pence also probably didn’t earn the Republican ticket any minority group votes by denying the existence of systemic racism or by supporting the grand jury findings in the Taylor case that resulted in no indictments against the police officers who killed her. Given the racial reckoning going on in the country, few reasons exist for taking those positions except knee jerk support for police or cultivating the backing of white nationalists and similar minded individuals. Perhaps Pence feared distinguishing himself from Trump.    

 

Back to the Fly

The Fly generated a lot of post-debate frivolity,

including Biden’s use of a fly swatter in a fundraising pitch. Debates in presidential campaigns often disappoint and people need something to talk about aside from each candidate’s delivery and style. The Fly added that this time. Still, it

was serious business as the vice-presidential debate – and we usually only have one – has become an important part in the process of electing a president. With both presidential candidates in their 70s, getting a sense of the woman and man who might replace them mattered.

Voters who want Trump’s policies – if not his style –  can take comfort in Pence’s performance, for all its flaws. He has some of Trump’s capacity for rudeness, but he wasn’t outlandish, just disconcerting. He knows the drill on the Republican agenda.

Harris showed she and Biden are on the same page. We think they have the better of it on policy, character, and preparation. Harris showed herself capable of taking the baton from Biden and running with it should that become necessary, suggesting she achieved her most important objective.