Grand Expectations
J6 Hearings resume July 12
On July 5, ‘J6,’ the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the Capitol announced that televised live hearings will resume at 10:00 am Eastern Time, Tuesday, July 12.
Day 7 of the Hearings. (1)
The I-word.
Over the past week, the head winds of probity have shifted and are now blowing at the back of the Committee. Since Cassidy Hutchinson testified on June 26, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone agreed to testify in a closed hearing Friday, July 8. James Wood, former senior investigative counsel for the J6, described Cipollone’s testimony as portentously a “John Dean moment.”
America will see. Few days remain for the J6 presentation staff with the guidance of a Hollywood production team to knit his testimony into an unfolding White House drama. J6 has moved past identifying ‘insurrection.’ ‘Intent’ is the new stage of public reckoning into the events of January 6.
During the remainder of the Hearings expect to hear a lot of talk about the word, ‘intent.’ As if getting past the chaos and smoke of identifying ‘insurrection,’ the when, where and how (2), were not enough, consider that ‘intent’ presents a different set of challenges and bars to hurdle for the Committee.
On one level is Trump’s loose hold on reality — only his self-credibility as a performer is in play — and his habit of using water carriers: the people in ‘Trump world’ to get things done, to accomplish illegal tasks and then retire under the cloak of executive privilege and immunity. (2)
On another level ‘intent’ will pose a different challenge: one must consider the purpose in acting and the purpose of not acting, within the context of Trump’s performance. Both acting and not acting go hand-in-hand in the world of ‘intent’: one accomplishes as much by ‘not acting’ as by acting.
In a criminal investigation proof of intent qualifies as evidence of wrongdoing regardless of an actual crime having taken place. People go to jail for attempted murder, for attempted conspiracy. That their offense did not come off does not make them less dangerous — even if they misapprehend their role. This is for a jury to decide, not the performer(s).
To refresh, during her testimony, Day 6, Cassidy Hutchinson recalled a conversation she had with Rudy Giuliani, leaving the White House January 5. Giuliani shared that the following day, ‘It will be so exciting to see the President go to the Capitol to be with his supporters, the Senators, the Congress.’
This offhand remark bothered Cassidy: wasn’t January 6 the day Vice President Mike Pence was to certify the election of Joseph Biden in the US Senate?
What is going on?
When queried, her boss, Mark Meadows, Trump’s Chief of Staff, didn’t offer much of an answer: ‘There are some things going on you don’t know about, Cassidy. Things could get bad, tomorrow.’
Bespoke intent.
‘Grand Expectations’
‘Intent’ and evidence thereof are throwing political pundits into a frenzy of expectation harvesting. One reports on the investigation while attempting to draw conclusions before an imaginary cable audience of millions:
Will the J6 refer Trump to the DOJ for criminal prosecution?
Will the DOJ impanel a Grand Jury?
Will the Committee sharing information from the Hearings with the DOJ?
Will Congress pass anti-election tampering legislation?
In order not to undermine their progress J6 Committee members are containing expectations. Adam Schiff responds with a Cheshire Cat-like smirk, ‘can’t go there.’ Constitution thumper Jamie Raskin responds pointedly to reporters, “no comment.”
What does the path forward for the J6 look like?
The ‘Unseen’ Doctrine
‘What is the political question doctrine.’ (3)
Courts and specifically, federal courts are constrained by what is known as the “political question doctrine:”
(Article III, Section 2, Clause1, US Constitution interpretation)
The political question doctrine limits the ability of the federal courts to hear constitutional questions even where other justifiability requirements, such as standing, ripeness, and mootness, would otherwise be met…no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.
Finding that a matter qualifies as a political question divests federal courts of jurisdiction, meaning they lack the power to rule on the matter.
In other words, if Congress has been unable to adjudicate a political question, eg. attempt to overthrow certification of a political opponent (impeachment 2) or soliciting help from a foreign government to defeat a political opponent (impeachment 1), is it the role of the federal courts to step in?
The ‘Perfect’ Whatever
Trump loyalists are using the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution — does a politician’s rhetoric imply sedition — to defend their role and presence in the planning and execution of the January 6 plot.
Those who argue their position before an audience and use words and expressions which may sound like sedition do not comprise proof of intent. These areas are delineated by lawyers. Politicians in particular are shielded by the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution.
On July 5, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was served a subpoena by DA Wallis of Fulton County, Georgia, for testimony and documentation of several phone calls he made in November 2020 to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Allegedly, Graham called Raffensperger to pressure him in recalling Georgia electors due to false accusations of voter fraud in the election of Joseph Biden, jr.
On July 6, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, released a statement that he will not comply with the subpoena, citing his role as an inquirer, not a perpetrator of election meddling. Furthermore, Graham stated that the Fulton County DA’s effort was a blatant attempt to collude with the J6 in obtaining ‘phony evidence.’
Graham’s phone calls were a ‘perfect phone call.’
The “800lb. Gorilla”
On July 1 amidst the ceremony of swearing in a new Supreme Court justice, the Supreme Court recessed until October 1. One of the decisions the Court remains to finalize before the end of its 2022 term is a North Carolina case involving state determination of state election results in a federal election. This case was one in several states resulting from efforts by attorneys Giuliani, Powell and others on Trump’s legal team. The question does state legislators or state courts determine “standing,” meaning who is the final decision-maker in certifying results of state elections?
A keystone in the J6 investigation into the intent of Trump and his team(s) to overthrow the certification of electors would be impacted by a SCOTUS decision in support of the plaintiffs’ claim.
As one observer of the Supreme Court described, this impending deliberation is the “800 lb. Gorilla. (4)
The J6 has several navigation hazards ahead in revealing intent. With Hutchinson’s testimony under their belt and Cheney’s adept questioning the J6 is moving into a new phase of public exposure to what happened up to and including January 6.
So far, the J6-Cheney show has implicitly avoided the Trump ‘cult of personality’ trap: conflating ‘what was going on’ with what was ‘Trump’ doing: the performer, the brand, the hustle.
The less Trump’s name is mentioned, the more traction.
By summarizing, “A cancer on the Presidency,” John Dean didn’t have to mention Nixon by name:
Tomorrow, ‘an attempted seditious conspiracy on our institutions.’
July 5, updated July 8
Notes
1-Jan. 6 Committee Will Hold Its Next Hearing on July 12
https://www.nytimes.com/article/jan-6-hearing-watch-schedule-tv-channel.html?referringSource=articleShare
2-https://rodneyclough.medium.com/authoritarianisms-water-carriers-c291ebe7a40a
3-https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S2_C1_8_1/
4-Behind the Scenes of the Supreme Court
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/briefing/behind-the-scenes-of-the-supreme-court.html?referringSource=articleShare
ReplyForward
